Total Recall - Memories can be tricky

Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1990 version of Total Recall is something of a cult classic at this point in time, with a legion of fans who are approaching the 2012 version, with Colin Farrell, with a huge sense of dread. Are they right? After seeing the new Total Recall, I have to say it's like comparing apples and oranges.

In the original, which is based on Philip K. Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale," Douglas Quaid (Quail in the book) wants to have memories of a trip to Mars implanted into his mind to make his life feel a bit more exciting. The problem is, Quaid has been to Mars and he's a government assassin with a head full of dangerous secrets. Quaid goes to Mars to try to find out what's real and what's not and gets a lot more than he bargained for. In the new version, Mars is only mentioned in passing as the story stays firmly grounded on planet earth … or what's left of it, which is the United Federation of Britain and The Colony (formerly Australia). The rest of the planet is uninhabitable due to chemical warfare. The only way to get from one side of the world to the other is by a transport known as The Fall (think the English Channel Tunnel, except this tube goes straight through the planet). The UFB is terribly overpopulated (and looks like something out of Blade Runner), and workers from The Colony travel to the UFB to work in robotics factories that produce a mechanical police force. Quaid works in such a factory, but he feels his life is missing something, especially after having a series of dreams in which he fancies himself some sort of super secret agent. Not even his extremely hot wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) can bring him out of his funk. So what to do but head to Rekall, an organization that promises to give you the best memories of your life. When Quaid selects "secret agent" as his fantasy, things go terribly wrong when it's discovered the memory he's chosen is already in his head because it's real, and he is a double agent that works with the government – which is planning to invade the Colony, wipe out everyone and send the excess population of the UFB "down under" – as well as the Resistance, headed up by the mysterious Matthias (Bill Nighy). So who is Quaid? Who is Lori? And who is the mysterious other woman in his memories? And can Quaid even trust his friends?

It's been quite a while since I've seen the original Total Recall, so my own memories of the film are a bit fuzzy. The things I do remember are actually incorporated into the new film as little homages to the original. The original was a sci-fi action film with plenty of fight scenes – and one between then-newcomer Sharon Stone and Rachel Ticotin is a fanboy favorite – but it always played with your mind as well as with Quaid's, leaving you to guess if any of it was real or just an implanted memory. The new film, probably to the consternation of the fans, pretty much dispenses with any mystery right off the bat and even in one scene where Lori and her forces try to play mind games with Quaid, you still know by the end of the scene that everything is real.

And without that ambiguity, there's very little actual story in this one, with one major action set-piece after another. And they are some fantastic action sequences that take place on a mag-lev highway, an elevator system that may have been designed by M.C. Escher, and in and on The Fall itself. I know a lot of people are simply going to hate the movie because it's all action and little story, but I was totally entertained by all of the amazing eye candy and fight choreography. Of course, with a slim plot, Colin Farrell doesn't have to emote very much, but he looks pretty and he can fight with the best of them. I love Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel, and they can both kick some ass as well (and yes, they do have a fight scene, but it still doesn't top the one from the original). There's not really much more to say about a film that's so visual except that if you go in expecting a faithful adaptation of the original movie, you're going to be very disappointed. But, if you're just looking for some escapist, sci-fi action, then this is the movie for you. I had a great time.

The Dark Knight Rises – An Epic Conclusion

I was fortunate enough to see The Dark Knight Rises just hours before the senseless tragedy in Colorado, but it seems a little frivolous to even try to sit down a critique the movie only days afterward. I want to send my thoughts and prayers to those who have been affected by this violent act.

Eight years have passed (in movie time) since the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham City is crime free thanks to the Batman (although he and Commissioner Gordon decided to give the late Harvey Dent all the credit so as not to smear his name), but a new menace has come to town in the form of Bane, a muscle-bound mask-wearing thug bent on reducing the city to ashes and giving the 99% what they deserve. What's a retired superhero to do, especially when the man inside the costume is himself a broken down husk living the life of a recluse inside his gigantic mansion? When Bane and his men manage to acquire a copy of Bruce Wayne's fingerprints (courtesy of cat burglar Selina Kyle) and wipe out his fortune on a bad investment and then set off a series of bombs beneath Gotham City that cuts them off from the rest of the world, Wayne has no choice but to don the cape and cowl yet again.

The Dark Knight Rises is Christopher Nolan's epic conclusion to his Dark Knight trilogy that started with Batman Begins back in 2005. The new film actually closes out the story introduced in that film, virtually ignoring the events of The Dark Knight (Nolan preferred not to have any references to The Joker out of respect for the late Heath Ledger), so a refresher view of that film may be in order before tackling the new one. The introduction of the villain Bane, played by Tom Hardy (unrecognizable under his mask, with his face only being seen once in a fleeting flashback), brings us back to the first film in the trilogy because his reason for coming to Gotham is to finish what Wayne's mentor-turned-bad guy Ra's al Ghul (Liam Neeson) started – get rid of the corruption and return the city to the people. Bane wants to steal a device created by Wayne Industries that was intended to produce free, unlimited, green energy, but of course it's a device that can also be turned into a bomb with a little tinkering (which is why the device was never publicly revealed). The question is: How does Bane even know about this device? He's obviously got someone on the inside of the corporation helping him, but who?

We're also introduced to Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), the sexy cat burglar (never referred to as Catwoman) who is tied in to Bane's plan, and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), the partner on the green energy project who lost a lot of money when it was tabled, but becomes Wayne's ally after the failed takeover of Wayne Industries. It's up to her and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to keep the city safe once they discover what Bane is up to. And there's also John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the idealistic young police officer who learns what really happened to Harvey Dent and the sacrifice the Batman made to save the city. But with all of these characters either trying to save or destroy the city, not everything is as it seems and there is one major plot twist in the third act of the movie that completely changes everything you thought you knew was going on (and anyone familiar with Batman lore probably already knows the big twist and the true identity of one of the characters).

So with all of this action, not to mention the psychological aspects of Bruce Wayne and Batman, is the movie all its been expected to be? I say yes, even with its various problems. I've seen plenty of griping from the hardcore Bat-fans about the plot,the ending, and inconsistencies … and the fact that for a Batman movie, there is actually very little Batman (or Bruce Wayne for that matter). Yeah, it is odd to conclude a story with the title character barely there, but does that make it a terrible movie? Not at all. I was engrossed by the story and shocked by the reveal of the villain's true identity (no, I don't follow the comics or graphic novels), and Nolan's staging of the action is masterful, especially when you know that most of it was done on set and not with CGI effects.

Are there problems with the storytelling? Definitely. Sometimes it doesn't make a lick of sense and the twist pretty much undoes everything you believed up to that point. Yes, there is a shocking lack of Batman, and the movie actually gives Bane the bulk of the screen time. But none of that mattered to me. The only thing that really bugged me was Bane's ridiculous voice. When the first trailer hit, everyone complained that you couldn't understand a word he said through the mask. Apparently that's been fixed, but now it's just too clear and … bizarre. He sounds like Christopher Plummer in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country! It's very odd to see this huge, muscular guy talk like a 70-year-old Englishman (and in the graphic novel, Bane is actually from South America!). The voice was off-putting, and anyone could have been under that mask (which reminded me of the Tusken Raiders of Star Wars). The pluses, though, outweigh the negatives. Despite the original scoffing, Anne Hathaway was excellent as Selina Kyle. She was sexy, alluring, and could really kick ass. Plus she brought the film most of its lighter moments when things were starting to get a little too dark and depressing. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was also an excellent choice for Blake. He was totally believable in some pretty unbelievable situations, and he gets a nice character arc that runs through to the end of the movie. And I have to give props to Michael Caine, returning as Alfred. He has a terrific scene with Bale as Alfred has had enough of Wayne dressing up as the Batman that left me in tears.

Overall, The Dark Knight Rises may not be a perfect film, and it certainly can never live up to the extremely high expectations some people had placed on it before it opened, but it was still an epic (nearly three hours) film with some terrific performances that fittingly brought to a close Christopher Nolan's version of the Batman story. And that is certainly the key thing to remember – this is Christopher Nolan's vision of the Batman story. He says he's done with it now, but the ending suggests the story could continue. I'm certain it will in one way or another, but for now, this version of the Batman saga is done and it's been a great ride.

The Amazing Spider-Man swings back into action

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Put upon high-school kid Peter Parker wanders into a lab where he doesn't belong and gets bitten by some kind of mutated spider. He suddenly develops the ability to sense when things are going to happen, he has super-human strength, and he can climb walls and hang from ceilings (alas, he cannot actually shoot webs from his wrists; he has to create a device to accomplish that feat). His new-found powers also seem to be the direct cause of creating another human-animal mutation that wants to take over the world with its new-found powers, so Parker breaks out his new-found sewing skills, creates himself a snazzy/sexy skintight costume complete with mask, and takes to the streets of Manhattan as the amazing Spider-Man. Oh, yeah, he's also crushing on a girl in his class who seems to be intrigued by him as well.

You have heard this story? Of course you have! Way, way, way back in 2002, Toby Maguire donned the skintight red and blue costume to battle a scientific genius (who only wore a green mask instead of turning into a monster), and fall in love with Mary Jane Watson, played by Kirsten Dunst. The movie was a smash, which was followed in 2004 by an even better sequel which was followed by a far inferior sequel in 2007 that brought the trilogy to a close. But Sony, always looking for new ways to make a buck, decided that all they really needed to do was recast the main roles and produce a new film. It's certainly not unheard of (i.e. Bond, Batman), but fans we weary of a new film after the last mess, and the notion that no one could fill out the suit quite like Maguire.

So the solution was to basically pretend the previous trilogy didn't exist and start from scratch. Which is probably the biggest problem with The Amazing Spider-Man. Unless you're taking very young kids who have never seen any of the previous films, have never seen a cartoon or read a comic book, then the origin story of Peter Parker is pretty well-known by everyone who goes to see this movie. And it takes about an hour to tell that story, which borders on tedium for those in the know. We really just want some Spider-Man action to kick the movie into gear. The other problem with the movie is that it's all over the place. Peter (Andrew Garfield) wants to use his new powers to track down the guy who killed his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen), so he scans the police radio frequencies for any hint of an assailant that matches the description of the killer. This whole plot, however, gets completely sidetracked once Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) becomes The Lizard (a result of his own scientific experiments to help people regenerate their own lost limbs), but at least this finally brings some much needed action to the movie.

I know there are people out there who hated the movie from beginning to end, but I'm not one of them. It was okay in places, you could see glimmers of what the movie could have been, but that origin story set-up just takes way too long. The big question is: Why even reboot the franchise? Why not just pick up where the last movie left off (or ignore Spider-Man III and pick up where the second left off like Warner Brothers did with Superman Returns)? I think the clue lies in a specific name that keeps being mentioned throughout the movie – Norman Osbourne. Sound familiar? Yes, Norman Osbourne was The Green Goblin, Spider-Man's nemesis in the first movie. Osbourne also died, with son Harry picking up the slack, but his issues with Peter were resolved by the end of the trilogy. But The Green Goblin is Spider-Man's most well-known adversary, so the only way to reintroduce the character back into the mythology is to completely restart the story (which means Doctor Octopus can also return). I don't know that The Lizard was the best way to go as far as a villain though, because for a movie with a ginormous budget, I was not all that impressed with the CGI or the look of the creature, especially the face. Something about it was just … off.

Besides the meandering plot, there are also things that are introduced and never followed through like the Spider-Man perspective shots. This was something director Andrew Webb (no pun intended) wanted to give the audience throughout the movie, but I can really only recall two times when this was used correctly. Also, Peter's high school nemesis, Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka), suddenly becomes Peter's best bud after Uncle Ben's untimely demise. It seems totally out of character and comes completely out of left field. I could see Flash maybe going easy on Peter right after the death, but for the character to do a complete 180 like that made absolutely no sense. And then there's the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer. It seems that every crook in New York has stringy blond hair, but only one of them has a tattoo on his wrist, and Peter never finds him (of course, they had to rewrite history in the original trilogy for Peter to find out who Uncle Ben's real killer was in the third movie (I think), so I suspect this plot thread will weave its way into the next film as well). And will Peter's missing (dead?) parents figure into the story at some point?

But with all that is wrong with the movie, they do get the important things right, namely the casting. Any doubts that no one could play Peter Parker after Maguire will be laid to rest after seeing Andrew Garfield's performance. He's perfect with what he's given, he plays the tortured soul extremely well, he looks fantastic in the suit, but I just wish they'd stuck to the character of the comics and let Peter/Spidey lighten up a bit. The comic character is well-known for his wisecracks while battling his foes, and there is none of that humor in this role. This isn't The Dark Knight! If the series is going to be successful, it really needs more humor. About the only times the film did lighten up was when Peter interacted with Gwen Stacy, the perfectly cast Emma Stone. Stone can do no wrong, and she has great chemistry with Garfield (better than anything Maguire and Dunst had) which brings a nice playfulness to their scenes together. Sally Field doesn't get to do much as Aunt May, but neither did Rosemary Harris in the first movie. Hopefully she'll get an expanded role in the next movie and get to do more than fret about Peter being out late at night. Martin Sheen and Denis Leary also give solid performances, but, well … don't count on seeing them in future entries in the series.

The film's biggest drawback is director Webb (500 Days of Summer), who has never helmed a film of this scope, and a script that seems cobbled together, passed from one hand to another, resulting in the tonal shifts that just throw the film into chaos. The effects, however (save for The Lizard) are spectacular and the scenes of Spidey swooping through the skyscraper canyons of New York City give you quite a rush (and there is a great 3D moment when Spider-Man literally flies off the screen just above the heads of the audience). I just wish that exuberance carried over into the rest of the movie. So is it worth seeing? I'd say yes, once in IMAX 3D. It's certainly not the worst superhero movie ever made, but it should have and could have been a lot better. At least it has probably the best Stan Lee cameo to date! And if you're one of those who sits through the credits for the sequel tease, you won't have to wait all the way to the end.

Battleship - A hit and a miss

One of the most derided films of the year – simply because of its title and lineage – finally hits the big screen, and you know what? It's not as bad as everyone assumed it would be. Yes, Peter Berg's Battleship, based on the classic (and classically simple Hasbro board game), has sailed into theaters and it's the big, noisy, special effects-filled, summer spectacle that everyone dreaded/hoped for.

Here's the story: Rebellious ne'er-do-well Alex Hopper (John Carter's Taylor Kitsch) finds himself in a world of trouble after a small breaking and entering incident that was meant to impress a pretty girl (Brooklyn Decker). The incident embarrasses Alex's Naval officer brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgård), especially when he's made aware that the girl is the daughter of his Commanding Officer (Liam Neeson), and he gives Alex one option before throwing him off the living room couch he's been living on … join the Navy. Flash forward to the present, and Alex has earned the rank of Lieutenant even though he's still a major screw up. During a soccer game between the US and Japanese teams (taking place just before RIMPAC, the Naval war games event), Alex and Captain Nagata (Tadanobu Asano) butt heads, literally (well, Nagata's foot connects with Alex's face), which causes friction between them that leads to a fight later which leads to Alex learning he's going to be discharged after RIMPAC. Ah, but fate intervenes when a signal sent to an earth-like planet in some distant galaxy gets a response, and not just a returned phone call. A squadron of alien ships have come to earth, one crashes in Hong Kong (with debris scattered around the world) while the others end up in the Pacific in the vicinity of the RIMPAC activities, Alex and some of his officers get close enough to set off some kind of force field that traps their ship, his brother's and Nagata's inside with the rest of the fleet cut off outside, and some of the alien visitors have made their way to the island to boost the signal to their world for … well, we never know what reason.

And that's the biggest problem with Battleship. Besides just the basics in character development with the humans (and most of the officers, including Rihanna's Petty Officer Raikes) are just figures to be moved around the game board. We're never given much information about the signal to the other planet (although one of the scientists played by Hamish Linklater tries to warn the folks at NASA that any response they get will be more like the Spanish and the Indians, with us being the Indians), other than it looks like a giant death ray similar to the one from Darth Vader's Death Star. Perhaps it's just like that for the visual (because audiences have to see the radio waves to know it's working), but it leaves us with the impression that if you were on the receiving end of that burst of energy, you'd be mighty pissed. And the aliens certainly are, but there also seems to be no rhyme or reason to their actions. They can scan any object for a threat, and seem to spare any living creature, but anything else that could be destructive is attacked and the poor ships trapped inside the dome are no match for them. We also don't know why the aliens are trying to boost the signal to send their own transmission. Is it an S.O.S.? Is it a “come on down and let's take over this place” message? We never know, although that is what's assumed.

Another problem is the character of Alex. Not that he's a problem to figure out, but his whole story is a cliché. When the aliens attack, you know that he's going to have to align with Nagata and the two will eventually come to respect each other, and by the end he will also be respected by the Navy, so there is no complexity to his arc. All that being said, I still enjoyed the heck out of the movie because it was exactly what I expected: a summer popcorn flick with some astounding special effects and a pretty cast. (And I did appreciate the way the actual game element was woven into one major set-piece of the movie.) Even if the alien ships are reminiscent of Transformers (and the movie is still better than Transformers 2) and the aliens themselves look like they just stepped out of the Halo video game, I was entertained from start to finish (and you have to stick around through the credits for a final “gotcha” moment) simply by the spectacle of it all. It's ridiculous for critics to complain too loudly about this type of movie because it's mission is to do one thing – entertain the masses. It's also got a lot of patriotism behind it as well, for despite the inclusion of a Japanese ship in the midst of the action, the focus is on the U.S.A., especially when some WW II vets are enlisted once again to save their country and the world (and one of them gets to utter a line as close to the classic game's slogan as you can get) which had the audience at my screening cheering (and which may also hurt the film's box office chances overseas more than the lack of plot and character development).

So, if you're going to see a movie called Battleship, I think you pretty much know what you're going to get, and the movie delivers. Yes, it makes the character development in Marvel's The Avengers look like Citizen Kane in comparison, but the action scenes and special effects are on par with the best of the summer blockbusters. So go, check your brain at the door, and just let yourself be awed by the spectacle of it all.

In Defense of The Three Stooges

As you know by now, there is a new movie out called The Three Stooges. For some, this is one of the greatest travesties ever foisted upon the film-going public. How can anyone make a movie called The Three Stooges without the Three Stooges?!? I can certainly understand the outrage as I would probably have the same reaction if someone decided to remake I Love Lucy with imposters in the roles created by Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz, Vivian Vance and Bill Frawley (and recent attempts to "reimagine" Bewitched and The Honeymooners are best left unspoken). So I get the ethical issues surrounding dressing up actors Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes and Will Sasso as Moe, Larry and Curly – real people with those names playing characters with those names in a total of 220 films. Of course, there were other Stooges who came in and replaced Curly (and, by the way, Shemp was in the original trio before Curly!) and Larry during their fifty year run. But the trio of Larry, Moe and Curly are regarded as the best Stooges.

So how can anyone, particularly the Farrelly Brothers, have the audacity to make a new Three Stooges movie without the real Stooges (who are long dead anyways)? And it's not even a biopic with actors playing the actors while recreating some of their most famous bits! This is a full-fledged Three Stooges movie and it makes no apologies for being what it is. And you know what?

It's hilarious! Seriously, it is. I went into the film expecting a complete train wreck because I was simply baffled by the previews I had seen out of context, but the story goes something like this: three boys of undetermined relationship are dropped off (more like tossed out of a car in a duffel bag) at an orphanage to be raised by the nuns (who never age!) and adopted out. Except the boys are such troublemakers that they are pretty much un-adoptable. When a couple decides to take Moe, he asks them to turn around and bring his two friends along as well, and they end up leaving him behind and taking another kid instead, the adorable Teddy. Years, later the adult Moe, Larry and Curly are still at the orphanage working as handymen, but their accident prone behavior has cost the orphanage to lose its insurance and the Archdiocese is closing them down unless they can come up with $830,000 in thirty days. Stooges to the rescue … or not.

Now, your tolerance for the Stooges will determine how well you like this movie. The original films were mostly shorts because a little eye-poking, gut punching, hammer to the head mayhem can only go so far, so sitting through 90 minutes of this can be a bit tiring. The Farrelly Brothers have ingeniously crafted the film as three 30-minute shorts, but the story still runs the length of the entire film and there's no real breather between each episode (so this is like sitting through a marathon on TV without the commercials). While some may find this tiring, my level of enjoyment was sustained throughout the movie. I didn't laugh so much at the acts of violence the Stooges perpetrated on each other (although some of the things they did were quite elaborate), but the sound effects that accompany each punch, whomp and poke were hilarious (like the TV show Wipeout, this probably wouldn't have been half as funny without the sound effects). The story takes a couple of turns when the guys are hired to kill a dying man (it's a set-up!), and when Moe somehow gets himself cast on Jersey Shore – which seems like a stretch, but it actually works (and who can't get some enjoyment out of the juice heads and pickle lovers getting smacked around a bit?).

The cast acquits themselves nicely and look like they're having a great time, from Jane Lynch to Sofia Vergara and Craig Bierko to Stephen Collins. And you just can't help but laugh at Larry David as Sister Mary-Mengele, the Jewish nun who gets the brunt of the Stooges' violence over the years. But what about the guys playing the Stooges? I have to say the resemblance is eerie. Sasso, in my mind, seems a little too tall for Curly but he's got the voice and the mannerisms down perfectly. Diamantopoulos sounds exactly like the real Moe and has obviously done his homework to get the physicality of the man down to perfection. But the standout is Sean Hayes as Larry. Hayes completely loses himself in the role, and any questions that he can play anything but a flamboyant gay man should finally be put to rest. Moe is the ostensible leader of the Stooges, but with Hayes being the most well-known of the actors, Larry is the real stand-out of the group. I really could not take my eyes off of him whenever he was on screen. And let's not forget the kids who play the young Moe, Larry and Curly. All of them are outstanding.

The Farrelly Brothers, who have made a career out of envelope pushing comedies, really haven't made a consistently funny (or good) movie since There's Something About Mary way back in 1998. The Three Stooges has been a passion project for them for years, going through at least one false start with Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro cast as Larry and Moe (and one can only imagine what a real disaster that may have been), and they obviously love the Stooges. They've certainly done their homework, incorporating all of the Stooges' most famous bits into the film along with those classic sound effects, and for me, at least, I think they've succeeded in bringing the Three Stooges back to life for a new generation who may now go back and look at the classic Stooges for the first time. Yes, it is a little odd having actors playing these real people who created the Stooges in the first place, but they've kept the film in the spirit of the classics (the boys are eternally stuck in their 1940s era even though the film takes place in the present), never doing anything to besmirch the good name of the originators (which can't be said for a lot of modern remakes of classic properties). I know there are folks who are adamantly against this film and they will probably never see it or, if they do, never be able to crack a smile or chuckle even if they do see it because there's already too much resentment built up against the idea. I'm no devotee of the Three Stooges, but I am familiar enough with them to say that while I expected the worst going in, I came out a much happier person afterwards. The Farrelly Brother and their cast have done the impossible and made a terrifically funny movie – and it's extremely kid friendly (make sure to stay in your seats for the "Don't try this at home" message from the "Farrelly Brothers"). All I can say to the naysayers is try to have an open mind.

The Cabin in the Woods - Don't Spoil It!

Stop me if you've seen this one before … five friends decide to go spend a weekend at some remote cabin in the middle of nowhere, only to find themselves at the mercy of some sadistic killer(s). And that's about it. By now, you know who lives and who dies – they all die except the most pure and virginal of the bunch. The foundation for this genre of horror, the "Dead Teenager Movie," can be traced back to John Carpenter's classic Halloween. Of course, there was no cabin in the woods but you can see the groundwork. That was followed by Friday the 13^th, which did feature a cabin or two in the woods and lots of dead teens. And just like Halloween's Laurie Strode and F13's Alice Hardy, the purest of the horny bunch lived to see the credits roll. These movies also established the "types" that would get knocked off, one-by-one: the dumb jock, the slutty girl, the nerd, and the stoner. Wes Craven used these archetypes to great, ironic effect in the Scream series, which let audiences already in on the joke have a few laughs at the expense of the expendable characters.

And now we have The Cabin in the Woods, which includes all of the required types and the requisite, desolate location. But … there are many new twists and turns to this old story. First of all, the "dumb jock" is not so dumb, the "slutty girl" really isn't, the "nerd" is more-than-kinda hot, the "virgin" maybe isn't, and the "stoner" is more aware than usual … at least until they all get to the cabin. (They've even got the "Crazy Ralph" character – the old coot who shows up to tell everyone they're doomed!) But there's something else going on too, something in a governmental-looking facility deep below ground where the workers seem to be controlling everything going on above ground and taking bets on how the friends die and in what order. On the other hand, they may not be controlling everything and they may not be working for the government and they may not be conducting some kind of strange experiment that ends up with everyone living happily ever after by the end. Make no mistake, there will be blood … and plenty of it.

If this review sounds a little all over the place, it's because The Cabin in the Woods is really an unreviewable movie, at least at this point in time. Think The Sixth Sense or The Crying Game. As a critic and as a movie lover, I just can't in good conscience give away any of the film's major plot points without ruining the experience for the uninitiated viewer. I went in knowing only what I saw in the previews (that have unfortunately started giving away too much information), and the less you know going in, the better.

What I can say is that this is one of the most original horror films to come along in quite some time (and it's a shame the film had to sit in MGM's vaults for two years while they were trying to deal with their own financial woes). It takes everything you think you know about the genre and flips it on its ear. The design of the situation is certainly no accident, and there are reasons that the five specific types are going to that particular cabin. The unwitting victims have been extremely well-cast, and you may recognize the jock from a little film he made after this one – Thor. Yep, they nabbed Chris Hemsworth before he was cast as the demi-god, so perhaps the delay in the release will help draw more people to the movie now that everyone knows who he is. While the college students are spot on, the people working down below are also worth mentioning, particularly Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins as the men who may or may not be controlling the students' destinies. Whitford and Jenkins are so good together that someone should give them their own TV show right this minute!

But, there's not much more I can say about the movie except that if you're a fan or horror and movies with twisting, turning plots that will keep you guessing until the very end, then The Cabin in the Woods is definitely worth seeing. It's that good. And you really should see it before someone ruins it for you.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Robert Downey Jr. reprises his role as the world's most famous detective, Sherlock Holmes, and Jude Law returns as his friend and colleague, Dr. John Watson, in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. 

Around the globe, headlines break the news: a scandal takes down an Indian cotton tycoon; a Chinese opium trader dies of an apparent overdose; bombings in Strasbourg and Vienna; the death of an American steel magnate ... no one sees the connective thread between these seemingly random events -- no one, that is, except the great Sherlock Holmes, who has discerned a deliberate web of death and destruction. At its center sits a singularly sinister spider: Moriarty.

Holmes' investigation into Moriarty's plot becomes more dangerous as it leads him and Watson out of London to France, Germany and finally Switzerland. But the cunning Moriarty is always one step ahead, and moving perilously close to completing his ominous plan. If he succeeds, it will not only bring him immense wealth and power but alter the course of history.

I'm not a Sherlock Homes devotee, I've only read a couple of the original stories, but I absolutely loved the first Sherlock Holmes movie. It was smart, funny, action-packed and visually stunning. Plus it made you think and follow the plot. I can say pretty much all the same for the new movie as well. This one, however, really requires you to pay attention to small details throughout the film's rather complex plot -- and half the time I really had no idea what Moriarty's plan actually was -- because, as with any good whodunit, those little  details just may come into play during the story's climactic moment. And if you're in the least bit familiar with the Holmes legacy, you'll also be very familiar with the climactic location, Reichenbach Falls, where Holmes and Moriarty finally met their end in the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories. But it's only the second movie, so they can't kill off the world's greatest detective and his greatest adversary just yet, can they?

You never know, because the film kicks off with a rather surprising fatality. After that, you aren't sure who will survive … except for Watson, of course, because as in the original books, the Holmes adventures are told by him. The film opens with Watson typing up his latest (and last?) story about Holmes' encounter with Professor Moriarty, who seems to be linked to a series of mysterious deaths (although no one but Holmes see the connection). As Holmes puts all the pieces together, he discovers that Moriarty is always one step ahead of him, and we see Holmes shaken to his core when he realizes he's been outsmarted. But with the help help of Watson and a gypsy woman (Noomi Rapace, the original The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), they gain the upper hand, but Moriarty is a crafty foe who can easily turn the tables. The cat and mouse game between Holmes and Moriarty is handled very well.

The original film got its share of criticism for straying too far from the original stories, as well as for all the things blowing up, and this film also has its share of explosions … but they're not just randomly in the plot -- various locations are being bombed by terrorists. Introducing Moriarty, Reichenbach Falls, and Mycroft Holmes also ties the movie more closely to the source material. Guy Ritchie has again delivered a beautiful looking film, even with all of it's dreary shades of grey, and his use of ultra slow motion during a chase and gun fight through a desolate forest is jaw-dropping. Some may say this is all style over substance, but I loved it. And there is more than enough plot to let Ritchie indulge his visual stylings.

Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law again prove that their casting was a stroke of genius as the two have the best buddy chemistry on screen since … Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte? John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd? It's hard to say, really, because they work together so well. Stephen Fry is also a welcome addition to the cast as Holmes' brother, Rapace makes a lovely new heroine for the boys to work with, and Jared Harris is appropriately smug and superior as Moriarty. Hans Zimmer's score also varies in range from gypsy music to Don Giovanni to pounding orchestral music. I absolutely enjoyed Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows as much as I did the first movie. It's one of those movies that you can't really do justice in a few words because it's so visual, so densely plotted, so well-acted … it really is a terrific piece of entertainment that strives to keep the audience on its collective toes and not just deliver a by-the-numbers mystery that can be figured out by the time you finish your popcorn. If you enjoyed the first movie, by all means put this on your "must see" list. If you're still on the fence, I highly recommend it. If you're a Holmes purist, it's sure to irritate you but this is Sherlock Holmes for a new generation … and maybe when it's all said and done, the movies will get that new generation interested in reading the original stories.

A Conversation with Christopher Sieber

If you're a member of the LGBT community, or just love musical theatre, then you are more than likely familiar with La Cage aux Folles in any or all of its various incarnations. Most people are familiar with the movie that started it all, but that movie was first based on a French play. The movie became a success in the States in 1978, and from that, the Broadway musical was born in 1983. Of course, with all of the success, Hollywood also had to produce an Americanized version of the movie which was also very successful. Back in '83, even if you hadn't seen the show, you were probably very familiar with the disco version of the musical's signature tune, "I Am What I Am," a song that has gone on to become a major gay anthem. Over the years, there have been local productions of the show across the country, and two Broadway revivals (and it's the first production to win three Tonys for Best Musical for the original production and the two revivals).

And now the latest version of La Cage has hit the road for a nationwide tour that is currently in Baltimore through November 6^th at the Hippodrome Theatre. If you haven't gotten your tickets yet, there are several reasons to see the new production (which is a more intimate version of the original Broadway extravaganza), and two of them are the show's stars – the legendary George Hamilton has taken over the role of Georges (played by Christopher Sieber on Broadway) and the role of Zaza is being played by none other than … Christopher Sieber, the multi-talened, Tony-nominated Broadway star (taking over for Broadway's Harvey Fierstein)! I recently had the great pleasure of speaking with Christopher, from his hometown of Minneapolis, to talk about the new show, his outrageous role in Shrek the Musical and what the future holds.

CD: How is the tour going? This is your first tour, right?

CS: This is not necessarily my first tour. It's my second, but the first tour I did was 20-some odd years ago so … yeah, I was 22 then and you could stay up late and not worry about singing the next day. Remember 20 years ago when you could be irresponsible? (laughs) So this is a different experience for me because after the show I'm so exhausted because it's such a big part, I have to go back to my hotel room, watch TV and be quiet.

CD: On Broadway you played Georges, so you didn't have to go through as much preparation as you do now.

CS: Georges' songs aren't hard, they're not high. Georges has "You On My Arm," "Look Over There" … umm, he has … yeah, that's all he has, really. I have five or six songs as Albin/Zaza. It's a lot. It's a lot, but the part is so much fun to play, it really is, it's a blast. There's so much there.

CD: What made you decide to swap roles for the tour?

CS: I had done the show on Broadway, and I had kind of done Georges, and the producer Barry Weissler asked me if I would be interested in doing the tour, and I said, "You know what? I don't know. Maybe." And he says, "I kind of want to ask you to do Zaza," and I though that that was kind of a cool challenge actually, and it's such a great part, and I can scratch it off of my list of parts I wanted to play so I said sure, if we can make a good deal, make it worth my while to go on the road, I'll totally go. And, you know, I'm having a blast with it. And the hard part is watching George Hamilton do Georges, because when you do a part and you know the ins and the outs of it, and you watch somebody else do it, it's kind of like watching someone drive your brand new car in a way.

CD: Do you have the urge to give him direction?

CS: Yes, but I have to bite my tongue. (laughs)

CD: And what's it like working with George Hamilton?

CS: He is a doll, I'll tell you that. He is self-deprecating, so funny, a charming, charming, dashing man, not a diva bone in his body, just a lovely, lovely guy.

CD: That's always good to hear.

CS: Yeah, because it could make the tour really hellish if there's somebody opposite you who is a major diva, and most of the time divas … and I've worked with a few of them, and they're only divas when they have to be … they're the real insecure divas that are just basically bitches the entire time. They're horrible to be around.

CD: Looking at the show, the original version had that whole political/religious angle and it's still relevant in today's political climate.

CS: It's so relevant today, yeah. It's the gays against the conservatives, basically, is what the show is. It's kind of like the ongoing battle … the story is our son decides he wants to marry this girl Anne, and his girlfriend is the daughter of a very conservative politician who's trying to sweep clean the types of clubs like La Cage aux Folles, and sweep these people away so they don't exist anymore. So Jean-Michel wants his parents to butch it up and it just doesn't work out and hilarity ensues. It's a covert message about be who you are, and there's a line in the show that if we've done our jobs correctly you'll leave with more than a folded program and a torn ticket stub, because it's a covert message that will make you think a little bit. It's something like, "Life is too short to judge, to hate, we can all live together, and just because you're gay doesn't mean we can't be a family." And that message comes through and it's kind of an interesting … because in this production, it's such an intimate production. We've cut back a lot of the over-the-top numbers and everything, and just brought everything down real to make La Cage aux Folles an actual little club, and it works really, really well.

CD: Okay, I was wondering what the differences were between the original production and this version.

CS: Yeah, they cut back a lot, they cut right down to the story which is basically the family. So they really knocked it down. Terry Johnson, our director, really pared it down so it's almost like a play with the best music in the world.

CD: And speaking of music, you certainly get to perform probably the most iconic gay anthem ever. What's it like to sing that song every night and wonder if audiences are really getting the message of it?

CS: Well, my parents saw the show and my mom said, "You made me cry," and I was like, "Why," and she said that song, "I Am What I Am," "it was you." And I was like, "Yeah," and she said it was just amazing and great, and I was so happy because my mom never gives me compliments. (laughs) My parents never give me compliments because it's the Minnesota way – if someone gives you a compliment then you think you're something! (laughs) But they gave me a compliment and I was very surprised. But that song, it moves people and it certainly is one of those songs that you have to be prepared for even as a performer because you kind of have to go down a rabbit hole with it. Luckily, I've had a lovely … quite the history of, you know, being a gay man, and I'm 42 now and all the stuff that I had to go through I can use in that song. But basically, ultimately, it's all about pride and being true to yourself and being who you are. And I think it's one of the best songs for musical theatre ever written. It really is. It's like a little play in itself. But such a great song, and so moving and the words are so true, "Life's not worth a damn, till you can say hey world, I am what I am. And your life is a sham, till you can shout out loud I am what I am." I mean those are just terrific lyrics.

CD: It gives me goosebumps just hearing you say the words.

CS: Oh, good!

CD: How long does it take you to get into the whole Zaza character?

CS: It's about 45 minutes before the show, we start our makeup process which is basically just kind of a base because I do put the makeup on stage myself in front of the audience.

CD: And you're in and out of makeup throughout the show?

CS: Well, the way it's done now, Albin just stays in his show makeup, because somebody noticed that between shows in the West End and on Broadway, the showgirls don't take their makeup off, they don't even take their wig prep off. They just put on a bald cap and sunglasses, and they go out. So that's exactly, when we hit the Promenade scene, that's exactly what we do. So I have a hat on and I have sunglasses on, and I still have my big old lashes on and my eye shadow (laughs), so I'm only in and out of makeup three times, not like the old show where it was every other scene where you had to put on, take off, put on, take off.

CD: You're now playing the role Harvey Fierstein played on Broadway. Any urge to take on any of his other roles now, like Edna in Hairspray?

CS: I did Edna already at the Paper Mill Playhouse in New Jersey. It was a great experience. It was exciting.

CD: Cool! Speaking of roles that require some preparation, I remember seeing you on the Tonys doing your part from Shrek the Musical. Did you have to do that entire part on your knees?

CS: Yeah, yeah, I pick the parts that kind of destroy me for some reason. (laughs) For my next show, I think I'm going to do one called "Whispers in Pajamas," where I'm in a bed, in pajamas and I have to whisper all my lines and music to a nursemaid and she has to sing it for me. That or "Jazzy the Musical" in a little hoveround chair. (laughs) Yeah, I do parts because I like the challenge of it and plus there's so much stuff you can do, like weird stuff, like Farquad in Shrek the Musical was so bizarre. I got the opportunity to write with David Lindsay-Abair most of the part, so what ended up on stage was mostly my fault, and all the stuff with me being on my knees and everything, because we were in development and we started about three years prior to it finally hitting Broadway, we started with one act and three songs and as we progressed, every other month we'd get together, and before you knew it we had kind of a show, and we were trying to figure out what to do with Farquad, how to make him small and we were maybe going to put a trench in the stage, or maybe hiding me behind set pieces and little things, and that would be a nice fun little running gag, but one day I came in with these little legs that I had constructed, I put them in front of me and I knelt down and did this little dance with them and it was the funniest thing we had ever seen, and we were like that's it. And it ultimately became this huge thing and I apologize to everyone else who has to do that part ever. It was so funny, but ultimately it was exhausting and it ruined my body, my neck and shoulders, my spine and my back and my hips … my knees are fine actually. The weird part is my knees are fine, but everything else hurts.

CD: Hopefully the only thing that hurts after this tour is your feet from the heels! How long is your tour with La Cage?

CS: We are going to be on the road for about a year or so, 42 weeks. I think we end in Canada.

CD: Well, I'm sure you're going to take a nice long rest after this, but what's your dream project down the road? What do you want to do next?

CS: Well, it really sounds like a cliché but I really want to direct something. It's so cliché but I think I have a good eye for things. I teach kids, high school students, that really want the desire to do theatre, I do workshops and stuff with them, and that's really actually a lot of fun because they come prepared and they really want to do it, so that's really nice. I like doing that, but to direct people, to do a production would be really neat if I could do that. I think I have a good eye and know the pace of the shows, and I know how to work things so I think it would be … even if it was just an acting coach or something, I think I'm pretty good at that, I guess. I don't know. (laughs) We'll see.

CD: I think there is plenty of evidence to prove that!

CS: I know that when I teach I can get these kids to do stuff that they didn't think was possible, and you can see it on their face when they have a breakthrough, they're like, "Oh my god! I never even thought of that!" And I'm like, "Yeah!" We just did one here in Minneapolis and it was terrific. These kids came in and they were prepared and they were just great. They were really enthusiastic, and not all of them could sing but it doesn't matter if you can sing or not, even if you're doing musical theatre. You just have to interpret it right and do it right, and people will buy it.

I think that whatever role Christopher Sieber is interpreting, audiences will buy it. You can get more information about the national tour of La Cage aux Folles by visiting LaCage.com.

Green Lantern probably worksbetter for the uninitiated

So a dying, purple alien crash-lands on earth and tells you his ring has selected you to be his replacement, to take his lantern and to recite the oath. Then he dies, leaving you with no clue as to what exactly the oath is. What do you do? Well, if you're Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), hot shot, wreckless pilot, you figure out how to activate the ring and it transmits the oath directly to you and then transfers you to the planet Oa where you learn you are now part of an elite corps of intergalactic peacekeepers.

So goes the origin story of Green Lantern, one of the stable of DC Comic characters coming to the big screen for the first time. I'll be up front with you -- I am not a reader of comics. Used to be (I even worked at a comic book store in high school), but as I've gotten older I've found other things to distract me. (But with the DC Comics reboot upon us maybe this is a good time to get back into comics.) As it stands, I barely know the difference between Green Lantern and Green Arrow so I'm probably going to have a different reaction to the movie than the die-hard fans.

And my reaction is that I enjoyed it very much. I was worried about Reynolds' snarky persona, but it was put to great use when he was being the cocky pilot. He lost that swagger, though, after he realized he didn't have the capacity to fulfill the destiny bestowed upon him by the ring (of course, he did but he just didn't know it at first). When needed, Reynolds proves that he can be funny and charming, but emotional, dramatic and heroic. I thought he did a great job. His co-star, Blake Lively … well, she has her moments but I had a hard time buying her as a pilot/businesswoman who is roughly the same age as Hal. Even with dark hair, to me she's still that high school student from Gossip Girl (which I haven't seen since season two). I do love Peter Sarsgaard and whenever he's on screen he's captivating to watch. Unfortunately, he's severly under-used as the alien-infected-human villain and his less-than-threatening character weakens some of the drama that you normally get in a superhero movie.

That being said, I thought this was one of the better origin stories because it completely explained the character of Hal Jordan to this novice without being the least bit boring. The film balances the action and the quiet moments very well; it's not all wham-bang action from beginning to end. One of my favorite moments is when Green Lantern returns to see Carol (Lively) after saving her life and she immediately recognizes him. It was a funny moment and probably one of Lively's best moments in the movie. The scenes on Oa were amazing with a seamless blend of human actors and CGI sets, backgrounds and characters. Everything was bright, colorful and beautiful to behold. It was great hearing Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan as two of the alien Lantern Corps members, and I reall, really like Mark Strong as Sinestro. He's got a great voice and if you watch him closely, you'll notice that he never blinks! Ever!

Also totally awesome, and the source of a lot of controversy amongst the fans, was the Green Lantern suit. It's hard to believe that the entire thing was CGI and that Reynolds was never stuffed into what would have been like a rubber sausage casing. I bet Christian Bale wishes they would CGI his Batman suit on! It was just so cool, and the mask and Reynolds' eye turning white when he's the Green Lantern … it was totally amazing. Now let's talk about the 3D … I am a fan of 3D when it's done right and I hate that Hollywood has this need to convert every 2D movie into 3D now. This is a 3D conversion, but I have to say it is one of the best of the lot. The image was clear, sharp, had nice depth and only an occasional bit of distortion. Nothing leaps off the screen at you, but the depth works really well in the space scenes and on Oa. The Parallax character really could have benefited from real 3D so that it's tendrils could literlly crawl off the screen and into the audience (the CGI work on Parallax was excellent, giving the "creature" a real feeling of weight and texture). If you have the choice of 3D or 2D, I'd say go with the 2D but you won't feel burned by having to pay extra for the 3D if that's the only choice.

I don't know why a lot of early reviews are calling Green Lantern "joyless" because I ended up having a great time watching the movie, and I went in expecting the worst. It's sure to anger the hard-core Green Lantern fans, but if it can get over that hurdle, I think those who like Ryan Reynolds and these kinds of action-packed, special effects extravaganzas will come out of the theater pretty joyful indeed. It's not The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2 … but it's not Fantastic Four either! A note for parents -- most of the movie is kid friendly, but younger children may be frightened during the Parallax attack on the city which includes scenes of a crowd of people fleeing the monster and being consumed by it, so keep that in mind.  Oh, and don't jump up right as the credits begin to roll, or you'll miss the set-up for the next movie!

Green Lantern is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action.

Arthur - Best that you can do?

A few years ago, director John Waters commented on the Hollywood trend of remakes by telling filmmakers they should stop remaking classics and remake bad movies and make them better.  Hollywood, sadly, has not heeded his words and now gives us a "re-boot" of the comedy classic Arthur.  Any movie from the 1980s is ripe for the picking because the people who go to the movies, especially on opening weekend, weren't even born when the original Arthur was released in 1981, and they almost surely don't know Dudley Moore and only know Liza Minnelli as that old singer from Sex & the City 2 (and maybe Arrested Development).

The original Arthur Bach was a drunk, plain and simple.  A fun drunk, but a drunk nonetheless.  He was also filthy rich thanks to his family's deep pockets and he loved to cruise around a pre-Disney-fied New York City picking up prostitutes for a night of fun.  He had a servant named Hobson (played brilliantly by Sir John Gielgud, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role).  Arthur's family are dismayed by his behavior and threaten to cut him off unless he marries a girl named Susan - more of a business arrangement than a real marriage.  Unfortunately, Arthur has fallen for another girl from the wrong side of the tracks (Liza Minnelli), but is forced to go through with the wedding because money talks.  Hobson takes ill and passes away, leaving Arthur (who had been sober while caring for Hobson) despondent.  He hits the bottle again, tells Linda he loves her and they go to the church to stop the wedding.  Susan's father, however, is very over-protective and gives Arthur a thrashing at the church when he shows up with Linda and the wedding is cancelled.  Arthur knows he will be broke but happy, but his grandmother tells him that he can have the money because no Bach will ever be a working class person.

The new Arthur follows the same basic plot, but without any of the charm.  This Arthur, played by Russell Brand, is a child in an adult's body whereas the original Arthur was just an irresponsible adult.  We're told the new Arthur drinks but he spends more time playing with his toys and causing havoc around New York than he does getting drunk.  Political correctness has caught up with Arthur so much that now he attends AA meetings!  There is also some gender-bending as his mother, rather than his father and grandmother, threatens to cut him off from the family fortune if he doesn't marry Susan (Jennifer Garner) but his heart is once again torn by a girl from the wrong side of the tracks, this time named Naomi (Greta Gerwig).  Hobson is now a woman (Helen Mirren) who is Arthur's nanny instead of butler.  Yes, nanny.  Unfortunately for Mirren, she doesn't have half as many great one-liners as Gielgud did in the original (don't count on any Oscar glory for this one), and her illness and death happen so fast that there is no real emotional impact.

I will be honest and admit that I am not the world's biggest Russell Brand fan.  His voice is grating and he's really not pleasant to look at.  All I could think about was if he ever washes his hair.  He plays the little boy in Arthur perfectly but there's never any real growth in the character, even when he does call off the wedding and forsakes his millions.  Jennifer Garner did turn in a nice performance as the woman who knew her marriage to Arthur was only business, because by taking the Bach name she would control his company when his mother stepped down.  Garner played the cold-hearted gold digger very well.  It's hard to tell if Mirren just took the role for the paycheck or if she was just acting exasperated by Brand through the entire shoot, because she was just a sourpuss the whole time.  Audiences loved Gielgud's Hobson because he was witty and just rolled his eyes at Arthur, while Mirren's Hobson just comes off as a disapproving parent.  Worst of all is Greta Gerwig.  I enjoyed her performance in No Strings Attached, but here she's got one expression and one tone of voice, no matter how happy or angry she is with Arthur.

It's been a long time since I've seen the original Arthur, but I do remember laughing a lot while watching it.  I laughed once during the new Arthur.  Some movies are just of their time and can't be remade or updated without taking some drastic measures.  Arthur was certainly of a time when audiences could laugh with and love a drunk millionaire with a penchant for ladies of the evening (and a heart of gold).  It's hard to warm up to a spoiled brat millionaire with a fleet of movie cars (including the original Arthur limo) who doesn't know the value of a dollar even if he does have a heart of gold.  The best that you can do?  Rent the original.

The Adjustment Bureau

Now if you've seen the ads on TV or the full trailer, you might be coming into this film thinking it's a dramatic thriller with a little bit of The Matrix and Inception thrown into the mix. The movie does have it's dramatic moments, but the tone of the film is actually quite a bit more lighthearted than you've been lead to believe. Damon stars as a political candidate whose aspirations are dashed after a video surfaces of him in a bar brawl and then mooning the camera (really, this is the worst a guy can do to not get elected?). He meets a woman quite by accident just before his concession speech but the encounter energizes him enough to go off script, win the hearts of those who had previously supported him and gives him a shot to run again in four years. But he can't get the woman out of his mind after he runs into her again on a bus – something he was never meant to do because there are a group of people who watch and manipulate almost all of our actions, at least the ones that will have a major impact on our lives and the lives of others. Because one of these guys was sleeping on the job, the encounter on the bus throws the world out of balance and it must be corrected before the ripples cause major havoc.

While I was expecting something much darker, I was ultimately charmed by the love story between Damon's David Norris and Blunt's Elise Sellas. Even when faced with obstacles that are designed to keep the two apart, Norris does everything he can to make sure the two stay together (even though she has less faith in him with his constant disappearances from her life). Norris even goes so far as to enlist the aid of one of the Adjustment Team members, the one who threw everything out of balance in the first place, and learns all of their secrets including how they travel from place to place through various doorways with the aid of their magical hats (yes, hats). I would even go out on a limb and say that these beings who are not supposed to be seen are actually something like guardian angels. Religious terms are never explicitly mentioned, but you can certainly see them if you just read between the lines. That doesn't make the film a religious experience, though, because director George Nolfi keeps things firmly set in the realm of science fiction as far as how the Adjustment Team operates with all of their gadgets.

Everyone in the cast is excellent but Damon proves once again why he's a star admired by film-goers around the world. He easily plays the everyman caught up in bizarre circumstances that anyone can relate to, and he can handle all of the action scenes without seeming like he trained for months for just such an occasion. He's masculine but not overly so, and you're never threatened by him. Like the old saying goes, he's someone women want to be with and men want to be (and vice versa). I didn't jump on the Matt Damon bandwagon until he did the Bourne series of films, but since then I've really admired his work in everything from The Departed to his guest appearances on 30 Rock. I can't picture another actor who could find the right balance of machismo and vulnerability that Damon has in The Adjustment Bureau, and the success of the film's premise lies squarely on his shoulders and makes the film well worth seeing.

The Adjustment Bureau is rated PG-13 for brief strong language, some sexuality and a violent image.

Drive Angry 3D

The story is out there and I don't think the previews have really explained much, which is why the movie has pretty much tanked at the box office. Nic Cage plays John Milton (the name is not random, by the way) a soul escaped from Hell to avenge his daughter's death and save his grandchild from being sacrificed at the hands of a Satanic cult to bring Hell to earth. Milton is joined on his quest by Piper (Amber Heard), a girl who can kick ass with the best of them – she also has a pretty sweet ride taken from her abusive ex-boyfriend (played by screenwriter Todd Farmer, who loves to write himself into his movies as the naked guy). Milton is being followed by The Accountant (William Fichtner), who is responsible for returning escaped souls to Hell.

The movie features some totally outlandish action scenes, such as when Milton is besieged by a dozen of cult leader Jonah King's men while copulating with a waitress the entire time, Farmer's patented dialog and utilizes the 3D process to throw everything from bullets to car parts to body parts at the audience. Now that is what 3D is for! The film itself is a terrific homage to the 70s car exploitation films (if you liked Tarantino's Death Proof, you should enjoy this) and really has the feel of a film of that era. If there is one thing Farmer and director Patrick Lussier do well it's give their films the correct look and feel of the era they're paying homage to. I loved their remake of My Bloody Valentine because it was a straightforward remake that improved on the 1981 original, yet still had the feel of a film made in 1981.

I don't know what's kept audiences away in droves from this movie, but I fear we've grown tired of one bad Nic Cage movie after another. Drive Angry, however, suits his style perfectly because Cage doesn't necessarily have to act as much as react but he does deliver Farmer's dialog perfectly. I loved Amber Heard's character because she's a tough girlie-girl who can take a few punches to the face but never, ever has a hair out of place, dirt on her clothes or a smudge to her makeup. At one point I was looking at her and thinking how pretty she is then I realized she'd just been in a big fight with another character and came out of it looking perfect. Billy Burke's Jonah King is properly menacing as he gives the cult leader a sinister Southern drawl, and David Morse shows up as a (living) friend of Milton's named Webster (and I confirmed with Farmer that his first name, though never mentioned, is Daniel – again, no accident) but best of all is William Fichtner as The Accountant. He gets to play the role totally deadpan, but he also gets all of the best lines (which are even funnier when delivered with the utmost sincerity) and one of the best moments as he exits a moving truck onto the hood of a moving car. Drive Angry may not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you can appreciate the filmmakers' intention and have a fondness for the cheeseball exploitation films of the 70s, then this is one ride you should not miss.

Drive Angry 3D is rated R for strong brutal violence throughout, grisly images, some graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language.

Worth the Commitment

No Strings Attached
Cast: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Greta Gerwig, Lake Bell, Cary Elwes, Kevin Kline
Director: Ivan Reitman

Emma (Portman) and Adam (Kutcher) are long-time friends who almost ruin everything by having sex one morning. In order to protect their friendship, they make a pact to keep their relationship strictly "no strings attached." "No strings" means no jealousy, no expectations, no fighting, no flowers, no baby voices. It means they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, in whatever public place they want, as long as they don't fall in love. The question becomes - who's going to fall first? And can their friendship survive?

No Strings Attached is another in a long line of romantic comedies that are all pretty much interchangeable, and if you don't know that the two leads will be together by the end of the movie then you haven't seen many movies. So what's the point in seeing this movie if you know how it's going to end even before you buy a ticket? One little twist on the genre that sets this film apart is that Portman's character is the one who wants to keep things strictly on a friends with benefits basis while Kutcher's character is the sensitive, relationship-oriented one. It's usually the guy in these movies that can't commit so it was nice to see this little flip-flop. Another reason to see No Strings Attached is simply for Kutcher and Portman. They have some great screen chemistry and you can really believe in the characters and you actually root for them to get together in the end (even when you already know they will). Portman shows that she can handle light comedy after her dramatic turn in Black Swan, and she really sells Emma's change from her commitment phobia to really loving Adam. Kutcher is basically playing the same character he always plays, but he still gives Adam a lot more charm because the character does have a heart and isn't just the overgrown college frat dude he is when we first meet him.

Beyond the two leads, the filmmakers have done what is probably one of the best jobs ever of casting the supporting characters, from Greta Gerwig as Emma's friend Patrice to Jake Johnson as Adam's friend Eli and all of the other peripheral characters in their lives. Each and every one of these actors is committed to their characters and they really bring them to life. These are people that you would actually want to spend time with, and when it comes to supporting characters that is not always something you can say. Kudos to the casting directors and the actors for doing such a great job.

The film is directed by veteran comedy director Ivan Reitman (Stripes, Ghostbusters, Kindergarten Cop) and he manages to stay true to his style while bringing it up to date with the addition of more R-rated language, partial nudity (mostly Kutcher) and a lot of sex. In one real modern spin, Adam's friend Eli proudly tells anyone who will listen that he has two dads and that they're great people (he also quickly adds that he's totally heterosexual) and no one reacts negatively. In our current landscape, it was nice to have this moment however brief it was … and then Reitman goes and ruins it all by finally showing the dads during the film's end credits as two stereotypically, over-the-top flaming queens (think two Zaza's from La Cage Aux Folles). I know this is a comedy and this gets a huge laugh from most audiences, unfortunately this just reinforces the belief that all gay men are basically one step away from a drag queen. It was a very disappointing moment in an otherwise good film. That being said, No Strings Attached is a funny, charming romantic comedy worth seeing mainly for the stars and the supporting cast.

Rated R for sexual content, language and some drug material.