Nick Picks Flicks

5 Stars= It's Simply the Best

4 Stars= Totally Rocks

3 Stars= Rad

2 Stars= Bad

1 Star= Terrible 

Zero= Totally Sucks

So easy a caveman could do it *1/2

Prediction, there won’t be a film in the entirety of 2008 more unconsciously silly or historically inaccurate than “10,000 B.C.” Personally, I could care less whether or not an action picture such as this is plausible. If I gave a rat’s ass about historical accuracy I probably would have never recommended the Spartan epic “300” last year. Not even Oscar-winning Best Pictures like “Gladiator” or “Braveheart” were entirely up to the level of your history books. “10,000 B.C.” is a movie so implausible that is would make either of the “Ice Age” movies seem realistic.

If the title didn’t already give it away for you, the film is set in 10,000 B.C. In this era of lethal mammoths and dreadlocks lives an incredibly bland hero named D’Leh, played by Steven Strait. When D’Leh’s childhood love Evolet, played by Camilla Belle, is kidnapped and throne into slavery, the young warrior sets out with a tribe of others to save her. D’leh and Evolet are some of the most unconvincing prehistoric characters of movies. Evolet’s eyebrows have clearly been waxed while D’leh appears to have using crest white strips since boyhood. In addition to that, they’ve nearly mastered modern day English. These two leads are essentially two very attractive models with dirt smudged across their faces.

The movie comes from director Roland Emmerich who specializes in apocalyptic pictures of nonstop action sequences. His previous accomplishments include “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow” which to me worked as enjoyable guilty pleasures. I’d even go as far to say that I didn’t hate his American version of “Godzilla.” “10,000 B.C.” doesn’t work on any level however, not for the purposes of mindless action or goofy camp value.

There are some movies that are worth recommending purely in terms of special effects. This is one of those movies where the computer generated images and visual effects are truly the stars. The dilemma is that the woolly mammoths and saber-tooth tigers of “10,000 B.C.” are cheesy and unconvincing with no personality. I thought back to Steven Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park,” the first picture to ever mix CGI effects with live-action. In “Jurassic Park” the actors were able to convincingly interact with the images that weren’t really there. “10,000 B.C.” on the other hand is fundamentally a bunch of so-called actors senselessly prancing around in front of a green screen.

My quarrel with “10,000 B.C.” is that it’s free of a single compelling character with special effects that weren’t special. Historical inaccuracy aside, there’s no reason why this big-budget extravaganza couldn’t have gotten the job done. I have ever confidence that the filmmakers could have made a moderately entertaining disaster movie like “Cloverfield.” Instead they settled for one gigantic mess of uninspired action and laughable dialog. The bottom line is that “10,000 B.C.” is all together a forgettable and boring experience. How is it that a film overflowing with supreme battles could be so empty?

The Chronic (What?) cles of Narnia**1/2

Throughout the course of “The Chronicles of Narnia” series, the worst possible thing imaginable happens to the four young heroes: They’re forced to go through puberty twice! In the first movie, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy Pevensie all entered the magical realm of Narnia as children. For 15 years they ruled over the land and matured into adulthood. Then when they returned to the fantasy-free world, they became youngsters once again. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine a worse hell than having to repeat the process of growing up.

What I want to know is what happened during the 15 years the Pevensie’s spent in Narnia. I suppose nothing very eventful occurred during that time. You’d think that within those 15 years the Pevensie siblings would have become more mature. However, they’re still the same adolescents at heart. I don’t believe for a second that any of them are adults trapped in the bodies of children.

“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” takes place one year following the events of the previous film. The four kids are swooped back into Narnia to find the kingdom in ruins. They soon learn that in Narnia time, they have been absent for nearly 1,300 years. Here’s what I find curious. If the Pevensie’s returned to their youthful state when they first left Narnia, shouldn’t they turn old again when they return to Narnia? But then I guess they would be rotting corpses after 1,300 years. The ruthless King Miraz has forced all the Narnians into exile. The fate of the land lies in the hands in the four children and a medieval hunk named Prince Caspian, played by newcomer Ben Barnes

“Prince Caspian” is certainly a great looking movie. In terms of visual effects and art direction, this is a significant upgrade from “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.” What this second chapter lacks is a sense of awe. I felt the original film was really about something with a story worth investing in. “Prince Caspian” on the other hand seems to center more on large-scale battles and mystical creatures. The final outcome never really takes off.

This addition to the “Narnia” series introduces dozens of new characters. However, only a couple of players are actually memorable. Sergio Castellitto gives a good effort as the evil King Miraz. However, he’s nothing compared to Tilda Swinton’s spine chilling villain of the White Witch, who’s reduced to a mere cameo here. Prince Caspian himself isn’t a very compelling hero. He lacks the charisma and emotion of a warrior such as Aragorn from “The Lord of the Rings.” The only noteworthy newcomer is Reepicheep, a swashbuckling mouse that’s a bit like Remy the Rat crossed with Puss 'N Boots.

Ahhh! It’s Godzilla’s distant cousin! ***1/2

There has been immense speculation and numerous questions asked regarding the film, “Cloverfield.” “Is this movie based on real footage from a handheld camera?” “Is the monster, which has been concealed in all the previews, really Godzilla?” Personally I’m only half convinced that “Cloverfield” is based on actual tape recordings labeled as property of the United States government. I’m fairly certain that the monster is only a distant relative of Godzilla. None the less, this is an effective and well made extravaganza of big explosions and loud noises that surpasses most routine disaster pictures.

The story, as absent as it might be at times, is told through the video camera of several young adults in New York. As if from absolutely nowhere, a colossal monster starts attacking the city in a hideous rampage. Even as the monster tears New York to shreds, the heroes of the movie document all the footage, amazingly not running out of tape. This is their story of survival that is at times quite fascinating.

If there is one aspect to admire regarding “Cloverfield,” it’s the films ability not to completely follow the formula of your typical apocalypse movie. Unlike “The Day After Tomorrow” and “Armageddon,” there is no overly dramatic score pounding the movie. At no point in the movie does somebody deliver a speech that has obviously been prepared in advanced. Best of all, there are no idiotic military commanders who are constantly making mistakes throughout the course of the movie.

The video camera method of filmmaking isn’t entirely original. Since the “Blair Witch Project” scored box office gold nearly ten years ago, the idea has been done to death. The jerky cinematography in “Cloverfield” often left me dizzy with a pounding headache. While it drove me crazy at times, I believe it’s the hyper cinematography that saves the film. The camera becomes a real character in the movie which adds to the effect of the plot.

“Cloverfield” was produced by J.J. Adams who directed “Mission Impossible III.” The man knows how to fabricate a decent action picture. There is especially much to admire in the casting of the film, featuring an acting ensemble of primarily unknowns. The actors are successful at not creating character but real people in a hostage crisis much like in Paul Greengrass’s “United 93.” I’ll admit that the movie does fall a little flat in its conclusion which is just as much a downer as “I am Legend.” Then again, I suppose I never expected to get a good feeling out of a disaster picture.

That’s not so Raven *

8 going on 80 *****

The Knight is Darkest Before the Dawn *****

Christopher Nolan's “The Dark Knight” is a picture so engrossingly haunting with such rich performances and direction that it earns comparison to crime epics such as "Goodfellas" and "The Departed." Even without the ingenious art direction of Tim Burton, Gotham City, shot on location in Chicago, has never been more menacing than through the eyes of director Christopher Nolan. To this date there hasn’t been a more complete and complex portrayal of Bruce Wayne/ Batman than from Christian Bale. For the past year Batman has cleaned up the streets of Gotham, leaving mod kingpins shivering in terror. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over for Katie Holmes as ADA Rachel Dawes. Although she is pursuing the new district attorney Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart, of course Rachel still holds a torch for her childhood love of Bruce.

From glimpses of the theatrical trailer, it was evident that the late Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker was something magnificent. Ledger’s performance in everyway lives up to the hype, creating one of the most horrifying screen villains of all time. With smudged makeup and a whispery voice, Ledger fashions a Joker more spine-chilling than Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh or Jonny Depp’s Sweeney Todd. Heath Ledger literally becomes this character like Anthony Hopkins in “Silence of the Lambs” or Daniel Day Lewis in last years “There Will be Blood.” Even if Ledger doesn’t receive a deserved Oscar nomination, he is guaranteed the MTV Movie Award for Best Villain.

One of my dismays with the original “Batman” picture was Jack Nicholson’s interpretation of the Joker. In my eyes, the performance always came off as a misfire, with Nicholson doing an over-the-top retread of Beetlejuice. Here, Ledger and Nolan develop the Joker into a truly frightening screen presence. The Joker does have his own sick sense of humor however. There’s one instance in which he makes a pen disappear, which I won’t give away.

In the first four “Batman” pictures, the villains were always notorious for stealing Batman’s thunder. Heath Ledger’s Joker indeed steals the show in “The Dark Knight” as well. However, that doesn’t stop any of the other actors from creating real characters. One particularly notable character is Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent.

In most superhero movies, the law enforcers always seem to shun the outlaws with disapproval of their reckless ways. Harvey Dent however, looks upon Batman as the potential savior of Gotham and wants to see him succeed. He is willing to assist Batman and even sacrifice himself for the good of Gotham. Dent isn’t without his inner demons though. Through loss and tragedy, the Harvey Dent character slowly becomes a two-faced monster. (I hope that didn’t give anything away for you.)

There’s not a performance that isn’t crucial to the film. Every actor is aloud their moment to shine from Gary Oldman’s Lt. Gordon, to Michael Caine as Batman’s dedicated servant Alfred, to Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox. Once again Christian Bale delivers a note-worthy performance as Bruce Wayne. Bale’s performance along with the screenplay develops Batman into an intriguing character and more than just a dark suited man there to save the day.

Last week I wrote that “Hellboy II: The Golden Army” broke new grounds for superhero movies. I still hold “Hellboy II” in the highest regards as one of the best of the superhero genre. Among all of the superhero movies however, I believe “The Dark Knight” is the one bond to reach new heights. Christopher Nolan has fabricated a work of art that deserves serious award consideration, despite its comic book roots. Never before has a movie of its kind been more profound, leaving me thinking for hours and then days after the screening. Its predecessor, “Batman Begins,” was a masterpiece of superhero and gangster pictures. When you put “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” beside each other, they can be considered the “Godfather Part 1 and 2” of superhero movies.

My magic 8 ball points to definitely, yes ****

When it comes to making movies, no genre is easy to do well. I believe that last statement goes double for romantic comedies. It’s doesn’t take much for somebody to produce a lame-brained screenplay of one cliché after another. A majority of romantic comedies rely purely on star power by recruiting likable personalities such as Katherine Heigl. To fabricate a formula-free script of true romance is difficult for any filmmaker to accomplish. “Definitely, Maybe” is a movie that succeeds however, where so many other romantic comedies fall flat. Here’s a love story of such charm that rages as the most original movie of its kind since “Chasing Amy.”

Ryan Reynolds stars as Will Hayes, a divorced father whose romantic life is in the dumps. After a sexual education class, Will’s daughter Maya, played by Abigail Breslin, becomes inquisitive of her parent’s love life before her birth. Will informs his daughter that in the past he has had three great loves, one of which includes her mother. He decides to tell Maya the story, changing the three ladies names to create a love story mystery. The film is both a romance and a mystery that keeps the audience guessing more than most crime thrillers.

The first of the three mystery women is the underappreciated Elizabeth Banks as Will’s college sweetheart, Emily. Will soon leaves his longtime love behind however, to live out his dream as a young Democrat in New York. There he befriends the free-spirited April, played by Isla Fisher. In addition to them is Rachel Weisz as Summer, a journalist who enjoys the company of older men. In a majority of love stories it’s obvious who will end up together and who will get tossed aside. The screenplay here however is extremely careful to keep us guessing who Maya’s mother truly is. Will has chemistry with all three women and it’s gripping to unravel the mystery of who his lifelong love is.

Reynolds has always been an appealing actor. The dilemma is that he’s been recruited to one terrible film after another. In “Definitely, Maybe” he is finally aloud to express his talent and likeability. Abigail Breslin was simply pitch perfect in “Little Miss Sunshine” a few years back. Here’s she nothing short of irresistible as a daughter who desperately wants to see her father happy. Hats must go off to Elizabeth Banks and Rachel Weise for their roles as well. Although, the standout performance of “Definitely, Maybe” comes from Isla Fisher. Fisher is wonderful and endearing in this movie as a woman who foever caries a torch for Reynold’s character and yet can never get the timing right.

“Definitely, Maybe” is a cauldron of other movies mixed into one. The film has a “Forest Gump” feel to it as Will reminisces of the early 90’s as Clinton is elected into office and cell phones come into style. The framing device is reminiscent of the “Princess Bride” with a father telling his daughter a bedtime story. The sheer originality of this film is in the spirit of even some of the best romantic comedies from Woody Allen. While it might not out-gross a movie like “27 Dresses,” there is a definite chance people will be talking about it a lot longer.

I don’t need to tell you that it sucks. But I will anyway.  Zero stars

I thought I had witnessed American moviemaking at it’s lowest with the release of “Meet the Spartans” last January. The “300” satire became the number one movie in America during it’s opening weekend, surpassing all five of the Best Picture Oscar nominees. Although millions lined up to see this cinematic turd, I have yet to meet one person who actually enjoyed “Meet the Spartans.” Hopefully that means everybody will avoid “Disaster Movie,” a film so uninspired that it steals jokes from “You Don’t Mess the Zohan.”

Both “Meet the Spartans” and “Disaster Movie” were written and directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Their track record also includes films such as “Date Movie” and “Epic Movie.” With exception to Uwe Boll, Friedberg and Seltzer are without a doubt the least ambitious filmmakers on the planet. If you saw any of their previous movies, I suppose “Disaster Movie” will be exactly what you’d expect. The film is full of crude celebrity impressions, racial stereotypes, bad slapstick violence, gross out gags, needless dance sequences, lots of product placement, and comedy bits that go on for far too long. What I want to know is whether Friedberg and Seltzer think this material is actually funny or are they trying to make terrible comedies?

In “Disaster movie,” the two rip on “Juno,” “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” “High School Musical,” and “Enchanted,” none of which are actual disaster movies I might add. Try comparing this film to the fake music biopic, “Walk Hard: The Dewy Cox Story,” or Edgar Wright’s buddy cop satire, “Hot Fuzz.” Those movies had characters and were actually satirizing a genre. “Disaster Movie” isn’t so much of a takeoff on disaster movies as it is a series of references of every blockbuster to come out in the past year.

I was reminded of that one Saturday Night Live skit where Bill Hader impersonated Daniel Plainview from “There Will be Blood.” As a five-minute sketch, the material was funny. What the people behind “Distaste Movie” don’t seem to realize is that what’s funny as a skit isn’t always funny as a feature-length movie. In addition to all of the movie references, “Disaster Movie” is full of pop culture gags. Twenty years from now though, who’s going to remember those AT&T dropped call commercials or Sarah Silverman’s song “I’m Fucking Matt Damon?”

Watching “Disaster Movie,” I felt as if my sanctuary of the theater had been desecrated. Although they got the Disaster portion of the title right, the Movie part is a stretch. “Disaster Movie” is not a movie. Friedberg and Seltzer are not filmmakers. Shame on them for making this movie! Shame on the movie studio for releasing their movie! There are bad movies, there are unbelievably bad movies, and then there’s “Disaster Movie.” 

Twist and Doubt ****1/2

We are Sarah Marshall ****1/2

Judging from it’s previews, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is one of those romantic comedies that would appear tired even for a television sitcom. From it’s theatrical trailer, I was assured the film would sink into Dane Cook territory to be about as humorous as “Good Luck Chuck.” However, I had not taken into the consideration the film’s producer, the great Judd Apatow. Through his films “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” Apatow achieved comic gold in what could have been two one-joke catastrophes. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is in every possible way a formula romantic comedy in which every plot point is evident to the audience. As apposed to so many other recent comedies though, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is uproariously hysterical with meaning and wit in what is one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen.

The story of the film is easy enough as Peter Bretter, played by Jason Segel, is dumped by his longer term girlfriend, Sarah Marshall, played by Kristen Bell. Overcome with sorrow and grief, Peter decides to get away from it all on a trip to Hawii. By sheer coincidence, Peter just so happens to encounter Sarah and her new boyfriend conveniently residing at the same hotel. The notion that these two would coincidently run into each in this fashion is improbable of course. However, the audience accepts this simply because it sets us up for some of the largest laughs of recent cinema.

“Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is made up of one of the funniest and most unforgettable cast of characters in all of comedy. Segel’s endearing and all-around sympathetic character of Peter is helped through his romantic crisis by an entire band of colorful individuals. Bill Hader of “Saturday Night Live” is nothing short of hilarious as Peter’s stepbrother. Paul Rudd creates the classic character of Chuck, a clueless, stoned suffer dude. It wouldn’t be a Judd Apatow production without Jonah Hill, who is naturally funny as a chubby waiter. There is also truly a breakthrough performance from Mila Kunis from “That 70’s Show” as the girl who helps Peter get back on the horse. Kunis is nothing short of delightful in her transformation from a television actress to a movie star.

Most romantic comedies require at least one of the characters to be unlikable, typically an X-girlfriend or jerky boyfriend. In “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” there is not a character who the audience doesn’t rejoice. The Sarah Marshall character in particular is not just a bitch who tosses Peter to the side. Rather, the screenplay develops her as an independent woman with feelings and even sentimentality. Newcomer Russell Brand steals the whole show as Sarah’s new boyfriend, Aldous Snow. Brand is uproarious as this character who comes off as half Hugh Grant and half Johnny Depp. Here’s an ensemble of characters so lovable and sharp that I believe the cast is worthy of a Screen Actors Guild nomination.

This is one of those movies that overflows with comedic genius. The audience is blundered over the head with one sidesplitting sequence after another, most notably a Dracula musical performed by puppets. The number greatly reminded me of even some of the best musical sequences from Mel Brooks. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is superb comedy. The notion that there will be a funnier movie this year I find incomprehensible.

What a dick ****1/2 

Over the river and through the woods to over the boarder we go ****

Why so serious? Because this movie is so sadistic Zero stars

Smart spy spoof, get it? ***1/2

Classic television programs are next to never proper source material for motion pictures. But of course this is old news for anybody who threw away ten dollars on “The Honeymooners.” I’m just about ready to declare the Will Farrell, Nicole Kidman abortion of “Bewitched” as the worst romantic comedy I’ve ever seen. My hatred for the dreaded “Dukes of Hazard” only seems to increase as time goes by. Even with an impressive cast, I was half convinced that “Get Smart” would only reach the heights of mediocre to horrendous. Unlike most T.V. retreads however, “Get Smart” is the rare movie that doesn’t suck a supreme amount of ass.

Steve Carrel plays Maxwell Smart, a blundering nerd who works a dull desk job for the secret government organization of Control. While he’s naturally talented as a tech guy, Max desires nothing more than to be promoted to the rank of agent. The Chief of Control, played by Alan Arkin, is left with no choice but to give Max a shot at the big leagues when every other spy is compromised. Max is teamed up with the luscious Agent 99, played by the luscious Anne Hathaway, to prevent an attack from the agency of KAOS.

If there was an Oscar for Best Casting Director, “Get Smart” would be a certified contender in my eyes. I believe that Steve Carrel was tailor made of the role of Maxwell Smart. While most comics could have completely missed the mark, Carrel hits just the right note. Carrel doesn’t overact in this performance, or at least not as much as he usually does. Anne Hathaway has always been a talented and plucky young actress. Here however, she simply dominates the screen with beauty and lovability. Even The Rock, who appears to be going by his professional name of Dwayne Johnson now, has good comedic timing as the overpowering Agent 23.

I wouldn’t go as far to say that the script for “Get Smart” is entirely first rate. A majority of the best gags here are visual while some of the dialog falls flat. Carrel’s previous comedy, “Evan Almighty,” was completely dependent on bad physical comedy in desperation to make the audience laugh. Physical humor can work however and in “Get Smart” it works quite well. While some of the material is redundant and clichéd, a majority of the jokes left me smiling.

“Get Smart” shares much in common with “Night at the Museum” as a visually stunning comedy. While it doesn’t beat you over the head with laughs, it’s enjoyable all the way through. What I found especially exceptional regarding the film were the action sequences, which I think are more exhilarating than the original “Mission Impossible” movie. Here’s an action comedy that gets it right as pure “B” summer entertainment. I’d even be willing to see “Get Smart” develop into a film franchise like “Austin Powers.” Now there’s a first, me desiring a sequel to a T.V. adapted movie.

You don’t mess with the Eastwood ****

Jesus Christ Sexy Star ****

Along with director Andrew Fleming, Brady has concocted one of the most outlandishly hysterical independent comedies since “Napoleon Dynamite.” Even in all of its absurdity, “Hamlet 2” has an uplifting “School of Rock” quality to it. The Dana character has a true passion for acting and teaching drama. By the end of the movie, the audience has developed a certain soft spot for the performing arts as well.

My Super Ex-Boyfriend **

Every superhero goes through some rejection from the public in their career. Spider-Man has to put up with negative comments in the newspaper everyday. But Hancock is probably the first superhero who deserves to be not liked by society. Here’s a movie about a supernatural man who fights crime and in the process leaves everything in his path destroyed. In addition to that, Hancock is a raging alcoholic and essentially an asshole to everyone. And for some reason the screenplay makes him out to be a tortured outcast we’re supposed to have pity on. In my eyes however, if any actor other than Will Smith was in this role, Hancock would be completely unlikable.

Hancock can fly through the air with a body impenetrable to bullets. So he’s basically Superman with an attitude. In the films opening sequence, Hancock stops a high-speed chase. In the process, a highway is left in ruins, buildings are shattered, and sheer chaos erupts. This one scene has a certain “Team America” sense of humor to it and is quite funny. “Hancock” is the kind of movie that opens with a potentially interesting concept. Rather than following-up on that idea though, the film takes one wrong step after another, resulting in a jumbled mess.

I simply don’t understand the Hancock character. Apparently he’s intended to be a good man who’s acting-out because he feels isolated from humanity. But his inner character is never really explored or explained. In a movie where he should be the most interesting character, the only compelling person is a man named Ray, played by Jason Bateman. Ray is the only one who sees the potential in Hancock and wants to help him. Bateman is effective and witty in his performance. But not even his likable presence can save the movie.

Also wasted here is Charlize Theron as Ray’s wife, Mary. There’s a bizarre love triangle between Hancock, Mary, and Ray. However, the relationship doesn’t really add up to much. There is also a twist involving the Mary character which I won’t give away. What I will say however is that the twist comes completely out of nowhere. When the twist arises in the third act, the movie seems to run completely out of ideas and meanders into “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” territory.

“Hancock” never really decides what it wants to accomplish. Is it supposed to be an action/comedy or merely a superhero spoof? As an action/comedy the entertainment value and laughs are only moderate. As a satire, there’s not really anything it explores that Brad Bird’s “The Incredibles” didn’t already. There’s only one truly witty moment in the movie when Hancock uses his bare hands to shave his beard. Now that I’ve given away the best part of the entire movie, I suppose there’s no reason for you to sit through “Hancock.”

Mark Wahlberg talks to trees *1/2

Harold and Kumar’s Bogus Journey ***

One could say that Harold and Kumar triumphed over a lot in their first adventure. However, a trip to White Castle would appear meager compared to the obstacles they undergo in their second film outing. Throughout the course of “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” the two buddies are hunted by the United States government, attacked by the Ku Klux Klan, parachute from a plane, meet the president, and still manage to find time to light a joint. In just a couple of days, these two stoners endure more than most clean men accomplish in a lifetime.

The film picks up immediately after the original picture, as the two digest an army of White Castle burgers and prepare for a trip to Europe. For the record, this Harold and Kumar sequel is not just a rip-off of “Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo” or “Eurotrip.” Kumar even states early on in the movie, “This is going to be just like Eurotrip only it’s not going to suck.” Through a colossal misunderstanding and ethnic stereotyping, Harold and Kumar are accused of being terrorists. The best friends are then throne into the detention camp of Guantanamo Bay. After an inexplicably simple escape they go on the run, encountering one bizarre calamity after another.

“Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay” is raunchy, vulgar, not to mention disgusting. However, the film has a certain wit and incite that I believe will surprise most audiences. Unlike so many brain-dead comedies that settle for obvious and cheap gags, “Harold and Kumar” is observant of modern day political and racial issues. The results are for the most part hysterical in a film that in a twisted way reminded me of the 2005 Oscar-winner, “Crash.”

John Cho and Kal Penn, who typically play minor supporting characters, are surprisingly appealing as the team of Harold and Kumar. These are two characters that I believe are going to be remembered as classic movie party boys. Perhaps the funniest performance in the entire movie comes from Rob Corddry as a homeland security agent. Corddry doesn’t hold himself back from creating a completely over-the-top character who cracked me up with every scene he’s in. Neil Patrick Harris reprises his role as an exaggerated and deranged vision of himself. This is one of his best performances and no, that is not a backhanded complement.

“Harold and Kumar” doesn’t necessarily have the laugh-out-loud per minute value of a comedy like “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” There are some sequences that perhaps strive a little too hard to push the envelope. Nevertheless, a great percentage of the jokes work here. Harold and Kumar are much in the spirit of duos such as Bill and Ted, Wayne and Garth, or Jay and Silent Bob. The film is absurd on one hand, smart on the other, and all around hilarious.

Hella golden ****1/2

Most outlandish superheroes such as The Thing and The Hulk didn’t develop their physical abnormalities until later in life. Hellboy on the other hand, is a hero whose been dealing with a freakish exterior since birth. With a devil tail and an oversized right hand, it’s hard to picture what growing up must have been like Hellboy. At least his acne would have blended in with his red skin. In the opening scene of “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” the audience is taken back to visit the demon as a pre-teen. Underneath Hellboy’s unsightly surface, a jumpy little boy who believes in Santa Clause and Howdy Doody is introduced. Its little, inspired moments like this that develop the out-of-this-world Hellboy into a humane character with inner emotion.

The original “Hellboy” was only a mid-level success a few years back. Since then however, the film has developed a cult following on DVD and director Guillermo del Toro’s credit has tripled with his Oscar-nominated “Pan’s Labyrinth.” I personally didn’t much care for “Hellboy,” finding it to be somewhat of a missed opportunity. “Hellboy II: The Golden Army” is on all level more enthralling, more humorous, and more imaginative than its predecessor. The first “Hellboy could be considered a dress rehearsal for this sequel.

Ron Perlman reprises his role as the fire- immune demon Hellboy, whose resemblance is similar to Marv from “Sin City,” dipped in red paint. The film reunites the hero with his fiery girlfriend Liz, played by Selma Blair, and fish-like companion Abe Sapien, played by Doug Jones. Their mission is to stop the evil Prince Nuada, who is in search of three pieces of a golden crown. When the crown is completely assembled, the prince will be granted the ability to command the unstoppable Golden Army to destroy all mankind. On paper, this is the kind of lame brained story that seems fit for a video game. “Hellboy II” has a certain down-to-earth personality to it though, which prevents the film from becoming a cheesy geek fest.

“Hellboy II” has the same offbeat attitude and wit of last years “Transformers.” Even with all the mystical sites occupying the screen, the film never takes itself too seriously. Hats must go off to the screenplay, which has fun evolving Hellboy into a three-dimensional and wisecracking character. And behind Hellboy’s one-liners, there’s a heart and a man who wants to find acceptance in a judgmental world of humans. The movie even finds time for a sweat romance between the fishy Abraham and Princess Nuada, played by Anna Walton. There’s one particularly hilarious sequence in which Hellboy and Abe become inebriated. When was the last time you saw a superhero kick back with a six-pack? Well actually, I suppose that was the entire concept of "Hancock."

“Hellboy II” is every bit as magical and wondrous as Del Toro’s previous films. There are mystical creatures in this movie that would make the hand-eyed, pale man from “Pan’s Labyrinth” seem pitiful. Prince Nuada is an especially menacing, first-rate villain with the same eerie presence of Lord Voldemort. Perhaps the most memorable new character is a robotic, German man named Johann Krauss, who of all people is voiced by Seth MacFarlane of the cartoon “Family Guy.”

What truly makes this movie work is the audacious vision of Guillermo del Toro. Del Toro has created a completely unique world of imagination like “Star Wars” or “Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas.” Superb art direction, costumes, and makeup aside, Del Toro tells a real story that never runs out of gas. The ending sets us up for another sequel, in which Liz will deliver Hellboy’s unborn child. What will Hellboy’s spawn be like? I’m sure it would make a great playmate for the three baby ogre’s in “Shrek the Third.”

Beauty and the brute 1/2*

It’s amazing how in some movies a nottie can be transformed into a hottie with a simple removal of glasses and new hairdo. The makeover in “The Hottie and the Nottie” however, would make the transformation in “She’s all That” look like a cakewalk. Now that I think about it, “The Hottie and the Nottie” is a movie so dreadful that it would make watching any other bad movie seem like a cakewalk. I can’t imagine another film sinking lower than this resentful catastrophe of awful performances and severally terrible direction. With a movie like this all I can say is, “Yeah, it’s really that bad.”

Here’s a so-called romantic comedy that completely rips-off “There’s Something About Mary” and subtracts any charm or humor. In this scenario, Paris Hilton stars as Cristabel, who is desired by every man who cross paths with her. Joel David Moore has the Ben Stiller role as Nate, a young man who has been pining over Cristabel since elementary school. After twenty-six years of bad relations, Nate decides to track down his long lost love. Unfortunately for Nate, Cristabel is reluctant to date anybody until her nottie best friend, June, can find true love. What a setup for a comedy!

Paris Hilton received the Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress a few years back for her role in “House of Wax.” Personally, I think Paris’s win had more to do with her controversial social life than her actual performance. Her work wasn’t nearly as dire as Jessica Simpson in “The Dukes of Hazard” or Carmen Electra in “Dirty Love.” Here however, Paris Hilton is excruciatingly bad, expressing no acting presence whatsoever. You can almost here her thinking throughout the entire movie, “Look at me I am so hot.”

I suppose nobody is going to walk into this movie anticipating A-list work from Paris Hilton. But the supporting cast doesn’t add to the equation either. Joel David Moore has a strange Steve Carrel persona only without any comedic timing or talent. He doesn’t have a shred of chemistry with Paris Hilton in a bewildering onscreen romance. I’ve taken a vow never to walk out of a movie. Halfway through this particular film though, I completely lost interest and started texting people of my grievances.

Paris Hilton has plastered her name all over this movie as both its star and executive producer. I’m starting to think that she actually wants people to despise her. With the strait-to-video trend becoming more and more popular these days, I’m amazed that this picture was allowed a theatrical release. It should have been sent strait to the internet with Paris’s other movie. This might be the most obvious statement ever but “The Hottie and Nottie” is a severe nottie.

When in Bruges *****

“In Bruges” has a certain quality that’s rare to find in even some of the best movies from American cinema. Here’s a film so profound and rich that you’ll find yourself entirely entranced all the way through. By the first thirty minutes it’s attained the rank of a masterpiece. By the final act, it’s completely outdone itself. The movie’s sheer genius then sticks in your head to the point you see no other choice but to watch it again. I can’t remember the last time I wanted to instantly re-watch a movie after the first showing. “In Bruges” is one of the few movies to have that affect on me.

Usually at this point in my review I would give a brief synopsis of the movie. “In Bruges” however, is a film filled with so many twists and turns that I’ll only unveil the basic setup. The story involves a pair of hitmen named Ray, played by Colin Farrell, and Ken, played by Brendan Gleeson. The two are sent to the Belgium city of Bruges for a relaxing holiday as ordered by their boss Harry, played by Ralph Fiennes. Ken is fascinated by the many sites of the city while Ray considers the land to be his own personal hell. That’s all the information I’m going to give away because I want you to be able to experience “In Bruges” free of any spoilers, despite how little those spoilers might be.

As far as movie hitmen go, Ray and Ken are among the most fascinating of all gangster pictures. This is a duo to be considered in the same league of Vincent Vega and Jules from “Pulp Fiction” or Carl Rolvaag and Gaear Grimsrud from “Fargo.” The exchange of dialog between the two is first-rate and the chemistry couldn’t be more dead-on. Credit must go to both Farrell and Gleeson for the most complete performances of their careers. Of course I must mention writer/director Martin McDonagh who creates this dark and humorous world in his first outing as a feature-length filmmaker.

There are some scenes in movies that amount to absolutely nothing. But there’s not a moment throughout “In Bruges” that doesn’t add up. The film is full of elements that at times may seem completely irrelevant. As the picture builds up however, every insignificant little aspect falls into place. In some bizarre way, the movie is a bit like “Seinfeld” as the story comes together in one great coincidence. The final result of the whole ordeal is spellbinding.

What else can I possibly say to declare my admiration and love for this film? That it deserves to be classified as an American classic. That it’s perfect in just about everyway imaginable. That to call it a work of genius is an understatement. Early release date aside, “In Bruges” won’t exit my mind come award season. I doubt it ever will.

Why so green? ***1/2

A wise frog once said, “It isn’t easy being green.” The Wicked Witch of the West, the Green Goblin, Shrek, the Grinch, Oscar the Grouch, all tortured souls and all green. But if you think about it, is it really easy being any color in this day and age? Consider the Violet Beauregarde character from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Did she have it any easier when her faced was turned blue?

I wasn’t exactly a fan of Ang Lee’s “Hulk” picture from 2003. As a matter of fact, I for the most part resented every moment of the movie going experience. The CIG creation of the Hulk was about as realistic as Baby Bop. The performances and romance between Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly were all together bland. Even the action sequences were surprisingly disappointing, especially given Lee’s great “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” In addition to poor box office results, I was astonished when the studio decided to go through with a sequel. I would later discover however that this “Hulk” installment is more so of a re-imagining than a sequel. For that purpose, I walked into the theater uncertain what might be in store for me.

I’m happy to say that “The Incredible Hulk” is in everyway a step up from the 2003 version. The casting is vastly superior, the visual effects are note-perfect, and a more humane element has been added to this “Hulk.” It just goes to show that any movie can be done well in the hands of the right actors and director. This film is a fine example of the saying, “Don’t remake good movies, remake bad movies.”

This time around, the great actor Edward Norton takes on the role of Bruce Banner. Due to an experiment gone terribly wrong, Banner is transformed into the hot tempered creature of the Hulk. After months of seclusion, Banner is tracked down by the military. General Thunderbolt Ross, played by William Hurt, has the aspirations to capture Banner and use his disease as a weapon. Banner soon returns home where he is reunited by with his beloved Betty Ross, played by Liv Tyler. The story of this movie is by no means at the same level of “Spider-Man 2” or “Batman Begins.” Nevertheless, “The Incredible Hulk” works purely as an action roller costar.

Last month I was probably the only person on the planet that didn’t rejoice the gigantic hit, “Iron Man.” I’m almost even driven to believe that I made a mistake by declining the picture. While I felt “Iron Man” itself was flawed, I greatly admired Robert Downey Jr.’s performance as Tony Stark. As good of an actor as Edward Norton is, the Hulk isn’t nearly as interesting or compelling of a hero as Iron Man or Spider-Man or Batman for that matter.

What I found more absorbing regarding “The Incredible Hulk” over “Iron Man” is the emotional factor. There is a meaning and almost poignant relationship between Bruce Banner and Betty Ross that reminded me of Peter Jackson’s “King Kong.” Also superior by comparison are the action sequences with a supreme amount of exhilaration. Whether you enjoy it more than “Iron Man” or not, “The Incredible Hulk” is a guaranteed good time at the movies.

Indiana Jones and the last crusade of raiders of the lost temple of the doomed ark ***

It’s amazing that in the ocean of obstacles Indiana Jones has been confronted by, he has never once completely lost track of his hat. Any other hero would surly misplace his headwear in a string of chases. But not Indiana Jones. Whether he’s running from savage tribes or riding an unstable mine cart, Indy will always prevail to keep his hat by his side. If the man was given the choice between reclaiming the Holly Grail or his trademark hat, I believe it’s evident which one he would rescue.

With Harrison Ford turning roughly 150 years old, perhaps I’m exaggerating his age a tad, many considered a fourth installment to “Indiana Jones” to be unfilmable. Since the project was announced nearly ten years ago however, revivals of Rocky Balboa and Die Hard have proven just how timeless these heroes remain even in their senior years. Quite frankly, I’ve been welcoming the return of Indy with open arms. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is not a revival that completely leaves you down like some of the “Star Wars” prequels. Given the standards that the series has set for itself though, this Indy installment isn’t quite up to its exceeding standards.

The movie picks up roughly twenty years after Jones’s previous adventure. Rather then going up against the Nazis or a bloodthirsty cult, Indy finds himself confronted by communists this time around. The soviet leader is none other then Inna Spalko, played by Cate Blanchett, who has the aspirations to uncover a mysterious crystal skull. In a race to retrieve the artifact, Indiana is aided by a young boy named Mutt Williams, played by Shia LaBeouf in another winning performance. Ford and LaBeouf have a great chemistry together much in the spirit of the father-son relationship in “The Last Crusade.”

I’d say the only major downside regarding “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is the absence of Ke Huy Quan as Short Round. As far as I’m concerned, he was the most essential character in “Temple of Doom” and his exclusion from this adventure is blasphemy! Also missing from this installment is the great Sean Connery, to whom I hoped would return as Indiana’s father. Karen Allen is back in action however, as Indy’s long lost love of Marion Ravenwood. Allen’s presence was greatly missed in the previous two “Indy” pictures and it’s great to see her character resurrected.

As for the action sequences, there isn’t a moment in “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” that can compete with the opening scene of “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Then again, is there an action sequence that can? Breathtaking summer action still occupies the screen that manages to stay true to the Indiana Jones we know. I love the sheer sense of wonder of one particular car chase which is so over-the-top that it makes any of the battles in “Pirates of the Caribbean” appear probable. This is a sequel that works primarily because it embraces the spirit and liveliness of prior episodes.

What prevents “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” from attaining the rank of the previous three films is it’s hollow plot. Rather then inventing an entirely unique story, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas seem to take the easy way out with the explanation of an alien invasion. The alien factor doesn’t work in the slightest and appears tailor made for another movie. After “Close Encounters,” “War of the World,” and “E.T.,” did Indiana Jones really need the outer space treatment? Was the holocaust in “Schindler’s List” really just an alien conspiracy?

Journey to the center of your mom ***

When a movie takes the time to incorporate “3D” into the title, I believe it officially cancels itself out as a potential Oscar contender. Some directors are declaring 3D to be the next big thing that will one day dominate cinema. Personally I don’t know where this accusation is coming from. If you’d think back to “Jaws 3D,” “Spy Kids 3D,” Amityville 3D,” and “Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3D,” have you ever really seen a great 3D movie? Although this method of moviemaking can be done well in movies such as “The Polar Express” and “Beowulf,” 3D usually just comes off as a cheap gimmick.

“Journey to the Center of the Earth” is in ever way, shape, and form a movie intended to be seen in 3D. This is a movie where everything seems to be charging at the screen, from yo-yos, to man-eating fish, to tape measurers, to the opening credits. I can recall at least three instances in which somebody spits at the audience. But to fully appreciate the disgusting, dripping saliva, you’ll have to seek out your local 3D showings. As a 3D experience, “Journey to the Center of Earth” works as a well-made and often fun time at the movies.

Brendan Fraser adds to his string of light-wait, yet perfectly enjoyable roles as Professor Trevor Anderson. When Trevor is paid a visit from his nephew Sean, played by Josh Hutcherson, they stumble upon a copy of “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” previously owned by Trevor’s missing brother. Handwritten notes in the book lead Trevor to believe there is a hole leading to the center of the earth somewhere in Iceland. Once there, the scientist and nephew team up with a mountain guide named Hannah, played by Anita Briem. After getting trapped in a cave, the three fall down a semi-bottomless pit, which leads them to a prehistoric world of wonder.

“Journey to the Center of the Earth” isn’t so much of remake of the 1959 version than it is a remake of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” Fraser has always had a Harrison Ford persona, dating back to the first “Mummy” picture. His character’s love interest of Hannah is a bit like Willie Scott, only not nearly as insufferable. In some bizarre way, young Josh Hutcherson strikes a resemblance to Short Round. There’s even a mine cart chase throne into the mix. The film has the same sense of adventure of an “Indiana Jones” picture and is about as good as the more recent “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”

There are times in the movie where it goes out of its way to throw objects at the audience. But I suppose it’s almost impossible to find of 3D movie that doesn’t call even a little attention to itself. Among the movies that have given into this 3D fad, “Journey of the Center of the Earth” is one of the most enjoyable. The question is whether or not the film will play equally as well on a regular format. I suppose that’s up to you to decide.

Samaria Jack Black ***1/2

As I stood outside the movie theater, purchasing my ticket of admission, about nine children passed by eyeing the “Kung Fu Panda” poster. “Look, it’s the panda,” the little six-year-olds cheered in enthusiasm. Without even seeing the picture, kids appear to have been won over by Jack Black’s talking panda merely from the T.V. spots. So of course I’m assured that any child or dedicated parent will enjoy this film immensely. I found myself taking a great deal of pleasure in “Kung Fu Panda” despite not being a parent or young child.

Myers looses his mojo *

To the amazement of many, I gave “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” a marginal recommendation a while back. I cannot stress the marginal in that last sentence. Essentially everybody thought I was off my rocket for recommending Adam Sandler’s latest. Nevertheless, I stand by my original review. I managed to look past “Zohans” exterior of stupidity to see a comedy that worked…for the most part. If you were one of the many that didn’t care for “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” I dare you to try sitting through “The Love Guru.” If you view “The Love Guru” in it’s entirety, I assure you that “Zohan” will come off as a comedic masterwork.

The usually hilarious Mike Myers plays Guru Pitka, a two-dimensional jackass with a beard as shaggy as Austin Powers’ chest. It is Pitka’s dream to one day become the greatest self-help specialist in all of America. The only shot he has at really hitting it big is to get a spot on Oprah. Jane Bullard, a hokey team owner played by Jessica Alba, hires Pitka to help her through a crisis. Romany Calco plays the teams star player, Darren Roanoke. The athlete has hit rock bottom since his wife left him for another man. The fate of the team lies in the guru’s hands to get Darren’s head back in the game.

I’ve always felt that Myers was underrated as a character actor. “Austin Powers” could of easily have been an uninspired spy spoof not even suitable for Saturday Night Live. “Wayne’s World” was originally a SNL sketch now that I think about it. An SNL sketch aired in the last thirty minutes no less. With the right script, I believe that Myers could achieve the rank of comic mind such as Peter Sellers. It’s a depressing experience to watch Myers waste his talent as the instantly forgettable character of Guru Pitka. 

Guru Pitka is a character that thinks he’s a lot wittier than he really is. Myers has a smile on his face in primarily every scene. His character seems to be fully aware that he’s in a comedy, which in the long run subtracts from the humor. Quite frankly, I think it’s a lot funnier when a comedic character doesn’t know how funny he or she truly is. Take Steve Carrel’s performance in “Get Smart” for example. One of the reasons that Carrel’s interpretation of Maxwell Smart worked is because he remained stone faced all the way through. Maxwell Smart was funny without ever knowing it. In “The Love Guru” the audience can almost hear Myers thinking to himself, “Aren’t I wacky? Please laugh at my antics.”

Verne Troyer, better known as Mini Me, plays the hockey teams dwarf-sized coach. All of his scenes seem to have been recycled from “Austin Powers.” Like all little people, Troyer is limited to how many roles he can play. But why do all the jokes involving him have to revolve around his height? Why couldn’t somebody have taken the time to write Troyer interesting dialog instead of one short pun after another?

I’d be able to let Myers off the hook if he were only the movie’s star at the mercy of a shoddy director and writer. However, he is also responsible for writing the film’s screenplay. There are as many penis jokes in this movie as there are action sequences in “Transformers.” Don’t get me wrong. Jokes about bodily functions can work. However, just because a joke is dirty doesn’t automatically make it funny. In an age of comedies such as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up,” Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” and “Superbad” did Myers really believe that audiences would go for this material? With exception to a Bohemian Rhapsody reference, “The Love Guru” is a laugh-free dead zone. Among all the comedies of 2008, I hope “The Love Guru” is the one not to get a sequel.

On top of the world, literally ****1/2

THIS ISN’T FUNNY! Zero stars

It’s only once in a blue moon that I have the privilege to perceive pure Oscar gold this early in the year. Every once in a while I’m fortunate to come across a movie so utterly original and inspiring that I can instantly hail it as a timeless masterpiece. “Meet the Spartans” is not that movie. As a matter of fact, it’s a film so unbelievably and relentlessly awful that it succeeds to make “Date Movie” and “Epic Movie” appear as entertainment. The picture is so paper thin that the screenplay is completely dependent on jokes revolving around Brittney Spears shaving her head, Paris Hilton going to jail, Lindsey Lohan going to rehab, Al Gore’s fear of global warming, Anna Nicole Smith unexpectedly dying, Ugly Betty being unattractive, and the American Idol candidate Sanjaya not being able to sing. Is there a late night talk show that hasn’t exhausted any of these subjects?

There wasn’t an American who didn’t lineup to see the blockbuster of “300” last March. Now it’s taken less than a year for Hollywood to aimlessly throw together a feature length spoof of the hit movie. “Meet the Spartans” is a movie by people who are completely oblivious how to make movies. These are filmmakers who don’t know how to write jokes or create characters. So they reference numerous pop culture gags, jam-pack it with slapstick, and classify it as creativity. I’ve seen “Star Wars” satires on the internet more inventive and original than “Meet the Spartans.”

The film is fully aware that it’s a rip-off of “300.” What it fails to acknowledge is that it’s also a complete rip-off of “Scary Movie” which was in itself a rip-off. But at least “Scary Movie” was an actual movie. “Meet the Spartans” is essentially an MTV Movie Award spoof that drags on for far too long. The spoof genre isn’t entirely extinct. Edgar Wrights films “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” have revealed just how hilarious a satire can still be. The difference between “Hot Fuzz” and “Meet the Spartans” however is that Mr. Wright knows how to write jokes.

What especially appalled me regarding “Meet the Spartans” was it’s abuse of blatant advertising. I spent the entire course of the movie counting the endless product plugs. I noticed adds for Budlight, Subway, Nike, Dentyne Ice Gum, Coffee Bean, Crispy Cream Donuts, Valtrex, Predigree dog food, and several brands of body lotion. You know that the cinema has hit a new low when a character looks at the screen and says, “Gatorade: is it in you?” “Meet the Spartans” is product placement at it’s worst in an eighty minute long commercial break.

When I watch movies like “Meet the Spartans,” I think of all the brilliant, independent writers who will never have their work published. I think of all the great comedic screenplays such as “Knocked Up,” “Juno,” “Superbad,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” and “Borat.” I think of the time and effort those filmmakers put into their work to accomplish something phenomenal. The people who made “Meet the Spartans” aren’t trying to make a great comedic work. They aren’t even trying.

Nothing like a tall glass of warm milk *****

The mummy returns…AGAIN! **

You damn kids and your iPods, and your mixed CD’s, and your one tree on the hill, and your faces on the book interweb site, and your Abercrombie’s, and your Fitch’s, and your pony’s! ***1/2

“Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” has “Cult Movie” written all over it. This is one of those coming of age stories that might not instantly win audiences over. However, I believe the picture will slowly develop a devoted following on DVD. Years from now people will reevaluate the film and label it as a diamond in the rough. I myself will likely grow to appreciate the movie even more when I revisit it in the years to come. “Nick and Norah” has the same innovative, uplifting spirit of a teenage comedy from the 80’s like “Ferris Bueller's Day Off” or “Adventures in Babysitting.”

The film tells the story of Nick, played by Michael Cera, and Norah, played by Kat Dennings. Nick is a down in the dumps, emo teenager who is crushed when he is dumped by his girlfriend of six months, Trish. After weeks of moping, Nick is pushed by his supportive, gay friends to go out for a night of fun. At a club Nick meets Norah, who asks him to pretend to be her boyfriend for five minutes. That five minutes turns into an entire night as Nick and Norah realize they are made for each other.

Much of the film’s appeal lies in the hands of its two stars, Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. Cera reminds me of a young Anthony Michael Hall. Although he’s essentially playing the same awkward teenage boy again here, Cera is unquestionably likable as Nick. Equally wonderful is Kay Dennings, who previously stared as Catherine Keener’s daughter in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” Here Dennings emerges as a rising star of substantial talent. As a pair, the romance between Nick and Norah is irresistible.

What worries me about “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is that everybody is going to compare it to Michael Cera’s two previous teenage comedies, “Superbad” and “Juno.” “Nick and Norah” doesn’t have nearly as many laughs as “Superbad.” The film isn’t as insightful or profound as “Juno,” which I hailed as the best film of last year. Some of the comedy bits, involving Norah’s drunken best friend, go on for far too long. There are at least two or three scenes in the movie that could have been cutout altogether.

While it’s not a great film, “Nick and Norah” speaks true to the lifestyle of today’s teenager. Screenwriter Lorene Scafaria, along with Rachel Cohn and David Levithan who wrote the novel from which the film was adapted, understands how teenagers think and talk. The film is full of great dialog as Nick and Norah converse about their passion for music. More importantly, the movie recognizes the struggles and insecurities kids face today. In an age where kids are observed as second citizens, “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is another film that reminds us that teenagers are people too. 

All aboard the Pineapple Express ****

Credit must also go to the skillful direction of David Gordon Green. Green has been making under the radar, independent pictures for years. He couldn’t have taken a more 180-degree turn with “Pineapple Express.” Nevertheless, Green directs his first large scale, action comedy with inspired blocking and style. Through “Pineapple Express,” Green has made a recognizable name for himself, which might drive people to finally track down his previous work.

The bloodiest prom since Carrie **

Quatan-seen it, been there, done that **

I Ross take the Rachel ****

Read my lips, “It sucks!” **

So it’s about three hookers and their mom? ***

I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve seen more than one episode of “Sex and the City.” As a matter of fact, I own the two-hundred dollar complete series on DVD. If that’s not bad enough, I went to go see the feature-length movie of “Sex and the City” with another guy. I suppose at this point in time you’ve completely lost your respect for me. Nevertheless, I shall proceed on with this review with whatever little dignity I have left.

The film picks up four years following the series finale, chronicling the lives of four women in Manhattan. There’s Sarah Jessica Parker’s Carrie, the sex novelist who specializes in the art of puns. Kim Cattrall stars as sex-crazed Samantha, who has at long last found love with her absolute hunk, Smith Jared. Kristin Davis reprises her role as the mild-mannered Charlotte, living a happy life with her adopted daughter and husband. Last but not least is Cynthia Nixon as Miranda, the redhead lawyer who finds her marriage in a rut. In addition to the ladies we’ve come to love is Carrie’s on and off boyfriend, Mr. Big. The movie for the most part followers their romance as the two prepare for an overdue wedding.

The most important character introduced through this movie is Carrie’s assistant, Louise, played by Jennifer Hudson. Hudson completely stole the show and my heart in “Dreamgirls” a couple of years back. Here she proves that her previous performance was not just a fluke. This former “American Idol” candidate can truly act and is deserving of a long, flourishing career.

“Sex and the City” doesn’t necessarily have the mass appeal of a film like “The Simpsons Movie,” which I think could be enjoyed by just about anyone. I even enjoyed the film enough to include it on my top ten list last year. “Sex and the City” on the other hand is primarily intended for fans of the show only. As a fellow fan of the series, I can conquer that any “Sex and the City” admirer will enjoy this film version a whole lot. I for one did.

The movie is essentially a seasons worth of episodes crammed into one. At nearly two and a half hours, “Sex and the City” will probably ware out the welcome of even the most loyal viewers. For anybody who ever spent a day watching a “Sex and the City” marathon though, this should be just the movie for you. Unlike some shows that have no business being remade into motion pictures like “The Dukes of Hazard” and “Bewitched,” “Sex and the City” seems tailor-made for the movies. The film is more charming than other television adaptations. While not in same league of a great love story like “Definitely, Maybe,” “Sex and the City” runs circles around “Made of Honor” and “What Happens in Vegas.”

Perhaps the primary character of “Sex and the City” is the fashion. Like “The Devil Wears Prada,” the contemporary costumes play a significant role in this movie. The clothes are fabulous and I mean that in the most heterosexual way possible. The fashion hasn’t gone out of style and neither has “Sex and the City,” not even after four years.

Million dollar movie *****

Dark Angels ****

Tacky races  **

I’ve always had a theory that a child’s name will map out his or her entire future. For example, if you name your daughter Porsche chances are older man will be gawking her by the time she’s ten. If you name your son Damien there’s a strong possibility he’ll one day become a deviant mastermind of pure evil. Any child with a name like Speed Racer is destined to become a racer of automobiles. After all, how many investment bankers or politicians have a name that outlandish?

This is the live-action adaptation of the cult cartoon where all the characters talk faster than the Gilmore Girls on speed. Emile Hirsch plays Speed Racer, a young car racer on the rise of fame. Although Speed is receiving generous offers from all the major racing corporations, he is committed to his family business. John Goodman and Susan Sarandon play Speed’s parents, Mom and Pop Racer. Quite frankly, I always find it a tad odd when somebody is named Mom or Pop as if they were destined to become parents. When Speed rejects an offer from the evil conglomerate of Royalton Industries, the CEO holds a vendetta against the young racer. Along with his girlfriend Trixie, played by Christina Ricci, and the mysterious Racer X, played by Mathew Fox, Speed sets out to save his family’s business and the sport he loves. Will kids understand or even care about this story at all? I doubt it.

There are those who have deemed the visual effects of “Speed Racer” to be dazzling while others have labeled them merely as cheesy. Personally, I found the technical design to be an ingenious combination of a live-action and anime universe. The first fifteen minutes of “Speed Racer” is a particularly vivid flight of imagination. Unfortunately, there’s not much else to the movie aside from its visuals. “Speed Racer” is like a toy that comes wrapped up in bright, colorful packaging. When you open it up though, the toy becomes old in a matter of seconds.

One of my dismays with “Speed Racer” is that Speed Racer himself isn’t a very compelling hero. Don’t get me wrong; I believe that Emile Hirsch is a talented young actor with mountains of potential. But the character of Speed Racer is about as fascinating as Anakin Skywalker in the recent “Star Wars” prequels. The movie seems a lot more interested in Speed’s younger brother Spritle, played by Paulie Litt, who is the center of attention in every scene. Spritle is an easy character to hate if you don’t like kids who are overly hyper and always getting into trouble. Fortunately, I just so happen to like those kinds of characters.

If the Wachowski brothers demonstrated anything with their “Matrix” trilogy, it’s that they can create unique worlds of imaginative landscapes. With “The Matrix” sequels and now “Speed Racer” however, the Wachowski’s seem to have forgotten how to tell a story or create characters. I suppose the fanboy in me will always hold a certain affection for a movie like “Speed Racer.” Not enough affection to fully embrace it though.

We love the chronicles of Spiderwick ***1/2

“The Spiderwick Chronicles” is a fantasy fable that flies off the pages onto the screen with imagination. Here’s a slice of fiction with the exhilaration of “Harry Potter” and the spirit of last years “Bridge to Terabithia.” While the film might become a little too absorbed with magic at times, it never entirely looses it’s way like the visual effects extravaganza “Eragon.” Even in a string of mystical creatures and chases, the film redeems itself with personality and charm. The final result is easily one of the best times I’ve had the movies all year long.

The movie’s protagonist is Jared Grace, played by Freddie Highmore, a young preteen torn apart by his parent’s recent divorce. It seems as if all children in these stories are required to have at least one absent parent. Against his own freewill, Jared is forced to move into a murky, old house with his mother, played by Mary Louise-Parker. Jared uncovers a book by his great, great uncle Spiderwick. He opens the tome, despite a note insisting that it remains sealed, which unleashes an entire world of supernatural creatures and danger.

Neither Jared’s twin Simon, also played by Highmore, nor sister Mallory, played by Sarah Bolger, believes their brother’s accusations. His siblings soon come to realize the army of goblins praying outside their house however. The three children set out to stop the ogre Mulgarath who wants to possess Jared’s book to destroy all mankind. This setup is common in many fantasy pictures such as this. However, the story is engaging nonetheless.

In most movies such as this, the Computer Generated characters typically steal the whole show. What I found surprising regarding “The Spiderwick Chronicles” however, was the impact from the human characters. Freddie Highmore convincingly plays the duel roles of Jared and Simon Grace, creating two different characters. At one point in time I was almost driven to believe that two different actors were portraying these roles. Also worth mentioning is the under the radar actress Sarah Bolger who has terrific presence here. The underrated Mart Louise-Parker is especially effective as Highmore’s distressed mother.

"The Spiderwick Chronicles" might be a tad too intense for the youngest of viewers. But if your children made it through the last "Harry Potter" picture without any tears, this film should be a brisk walk in the park. The special effects aren’t necessarily in the same league of a movie like “The Lord of the Rings.” However, the visuals are a bushel of fun nonetheless. That last statement pretty much sums up my feelings towards “The Spiderwick Chronicles.” While not at the level of some of the best in the fantasy genre, the film is a blast from beginning to end.

Step up 2 the brothers ***

You mutant offspring of comedy people ****

In Barcelona ***1/2

My monthly visitor ****

If I were to ask your opinion on the actor Richard Jenkins, you’d most likely respond, “Who the hell is that?” Jenkins name has never sparkled in bulging letters on a movie poster. Yet, he’s been working in show business for roughly thirty years with over eighty projects to his credit. He’s popped up in numerous features by the Coen Brothers. If you think back you might remember his cameo as the shrink in “There’s Something About Mary.” For the longest time, I myself was unfamiliar with the actor’s name. That was until I saw Jenkins’ triumphant, breakout performance in “The Visitor.”

In his first leading man role, Jenkins plays Walter Vale. Walter is a gloomy, widowed college professor attempting to find some sort of purpose in his empty life. When Walter returns to his Sublette apartment in Manhattan, he discovers two immigrants residing there. The immigrants are played by Haaz Sleiman as Tarek and Danai Gurira as his girlfriend Zainab. Stricken with loneliness, Walter decides to allow the couple to stay. An unlikely friendship arises between Tarek and Walter when the foreigner teaches this aging man to play the African drum. Walter is stricken with grief when Tarek is arrested at the train station and is threatened with deportation.

After Tarek is arrested, Walter is paid a visit from his new friends mother, Mouna, played by Hiam Abbass. Both Walter and Mouna have lost their spouses and eventually a surprising romance occurs. The scenes between the two are especially effective and even touching. Like Jenkins, Hiam Abbas has been popping up in minor supporting roles for a while. Here she delivers a mesmerizing supporting performance that is unfortunately likely to be overlooked. 

“The Visitor” is terrific film about the problems that plague modern day America. In the wrong hands, this material could come off as preachy and batter the audience over the head with its message. “The Visitor” offers no easy solutions to immigration however. It’s primarily a film about people struggling to survive in this confusing, intolerant world. Writer/ Director Tom McCarthy has fashioned a winning screenplay with spot on dialog that speaks to everyday people. In addition to handling post911 issues, “The Visitor” is also about friendship, finding meaning, and above all life.

At the heart of the movie is Richard Jenkins in a career defining performance. Jenkins is subtle and at the same time emotionally charged as one of the years most compelling protagonists. He perfectly captures the persona of this elderly man desiring to fill his hollow life. This is a performance not to be forgotten when the Academy members mark their Oscar ballots. After years of being under the radar, it’s about time that Jenkins got his due.

WALL-WEE *****

The latest Pixar picture, “WALL-E,” is a movie that asks the age old question, “Can there be romance between two robots?” Well if Pixar managed to make the love story work in a movie like “Cars,” I suppose anything’s possible. Here’s an animated movie primarily being targeted at children with more to say about Artificial Intelligence than Steven Spielberg’s “A.I.” The movie is so smart with ideas that I had to remind myself that this was not a live-action, sci-fi drama but a G-rated, animated comedy. Science fiction aside, “WALL-E” is at heart a meaningful and humane story of love.

The film sets itself over 700 years into the future where all mankind has abandoned earth on an intergalactic cruise. The only conscious being left on the planet is a robot named WALL-E, who spends day by day compacting leftover trash. Some people have argued WALL-E’s resemblance to R2D2. Personally, I think that WALL-E’s design is based on R.O.B., the robot from the old Nintendo Entertainment System. Of course WALL-E is isolated with no companionship other than a cockroach. That is until one day when WALL-E is visited by EVE, a robot sent by humans to uncover life on earth.

WALL-E is much in the spirit of Gromit from the “Wallace and Gromit” series. Although his vocabulary is limited to a series of beep-bop noises, WALL-E expresses his emotion in every other way possible. We understand WALL-E’s desire to one day hold the hand of another robot. The first thirty minutes of this movie is practically a silent movie. While some may grow wrestles with the films silence, I found “WALL-E” to be refreshing. Given some of the loudmouthed animated characters that never shut up like Oscar from “Shark Tale,” it’s pleasant to see a quite family film for once.

“WALL-E” reminded me greatly of “Meet the Robinsons,” another futuristic animated feature. While “Meet the Robinsons” had an inventive imagination, its world of singing frogs and bubbles as modes of transportation didn’t quite add up. The film was essentially a wheelbarrow of ideas that never really came together. “WALL-E” on the other hand, creates one of the great futuristic wonderlands of movies. The deserted landscapes of earth are breathtakingly haunting. The intergalactic cruise ship is just as imaginative and detailed as the star ships of the recent “Star Wars” movies. The world of “WALL-E” is so unique that it ranges with the ingeniously crafted universe of “Blade Runner.”

The story of this robot protagonist must also strike resemblance to the animation “Robots.” I enjoyed both “WALL-E” and “Robots” a whole lot. But the droids of “Robots” at times acted so wisecracking and witty that they were primarily humans made of metal. The audience never believed that any of the robots were truly machines. WALL-E however, is simply a robot built to serve mankind and throughout the course of the movie develops genuine human emotions. Although WALL-E never tosses any one-liners, he’s more human than any of the machines of “Robots.”

This all brings me back to the romance between WALL-E and EVE. I didn’t think that I could actually care about a love story of two machines. However, Director Andrew Stanton has told a wonderful and touching tale of two robots destined for each other. I was reminded of last years “Enchanted,” a film about an animated princess who falls in love with a modern day man. The film could have easily been a cheesy and uninspired cornball fest. Instead, the movie told a real story with a romance I sincerely cared about. Now that I think about it, “WALL-E” isn’t the first love story between droids. I’ve always had my suspicions about CP3O and R2D2.

Should have stayed in Vegas *1/2

He’s a wrestling machine ****

I wanted to like it **1/2

Silky-haired Sandler ***

In a track record that includes movies such as “Little Nicky” and “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,” Adam Sandler could only be a lifetime achievement recipient at the MTV Movie Awards. Well perhaps I spoke too soon. I’m entirely confident that someday Sandler could win the prestigious Silver Blimp at the Kid’s Choice Awards. In all fairness though, I do believe that Sandler is talented as both a comedic and serious actor. After all, any actor that managed to make the audience cry during a film like “Click” has got be talented. While his Golden Globe nomination for “Punch Drunk Love” will most likely be the high point of his career, it’s difficult to deny Sandler’s lovability.

Let me just state for the record that Sandler’s latest picture, “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” is quite possibly the most ludicrous and absurd comedy I have ever seen. That last statement includes all of the Monty Python movies and the most outlandish from Mel Brooks. Sandler plays Zohan, an Israeli assassin with the ambitions to become a hair stylist. Zohan fakes his death in an utterly bizarre fight between a terrorist known as the Phantom, played by John Turturro. Presumed legally dead, Zohan is free to move to New York and live out his dream. If that’s not a strange setup I don’t know what is.

“Borat” was obviously the inspiration for this picture with a Middle Eastern traveling to learn of the American dream. In terms of speech and appearance, I’m almost driven to think that Zohan and Borat are distance relatives. Even in it’s ridiculous plot, I did believe that “Borat” had something to say about our current state in America. “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” really doesn’t have anything new to say about prejudice in the world. On the other hand, the film does have numerous moments of hilarity. I’d even go as far to say that the film has just enough laughs to recommend it.

A few years ago, the Academy denied the stunt coordinators of motion pictures their own category at the Oscars. Had the award been approved however, “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” could have been this year’s front-runner. The action sequences of this movie are so over-the-top that they make the animated action of “Kung Fu Panda” seem almost realistic. The visual humor works quite well in this picture as Sandler, or Sandler’s stuntman, kicks through brick walls and leaps from building to building. The funniest sequence I can recall involves Sandler competing in a game of ping pong, using a grenade as the ball.

“You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” somewhat wares out its welcome at roughly under two hours. As a matter of fact, the film is hardly memorable at all. And yet, I found myself amused by a majority of the film’s gags, disregarding just how mild those laughs were. While the movie is nothing profound, Sandler should be guaranteed an MTV Movie Award nomination next year.