Oblivion will blow you away

In the year 2077, humans have left earth and colonized Saturn's moon Titan after a devastating alien attack in 2017 that left the planet uninhabitable. We won the war after using our nukes to take out the aliens, but we lost the planet in the process. Two humans are left to service patrolling drones and protect massive hydro collectors, which are sucking up the earth's oceans to be used as a source of energy on Titan. The humans, Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), are an "effective team," as their mission control leader constantly refers to them, but Jack feels like something is missing.

Five years earlier, Jack and Victoria had their minds wiped so as to make sure if they were captured by any aliens, or Scavs, left on the planet they would not be able to reveal any of humanities last secrets. But Jack has visions of a New York City he never knew, which existed before he was born. And a woman. With two weeks left before making the journey to Titan, Jack has a life-threatening encounter with the Scavs, and sees an object fall from the sky – a space capsule with humans in some kind of stasis. The drones destroy all but one of the survivors, and the one looks exactly like the woman in Jack's memories. And then things get freaky.

Oblivion is a movie best left unspoiled as the plot takes many turns that can leave some audience members dazed and confused. I've been amused by the many people, including some respected film critics, who didn't completely understand what was going on. The film does throw many surprises at you, but the one most people seem to have a problem with is a flashback that really explains the entire movie. I'm more perplexed by people who are confused by this storytelling device than I was about anything else in the movie.

Some people have also said that a major plot point involving the Scavs has been spoiled in the promotional ads, but I wasn't spoiled by anything I saw before the screening. In fact, the movie was nothing that I expected from seeing the trailer, and that's a good thing. You go in with a preconceived notion of what you think the movie is, and come out with your mind blown.

While skirting the film's plot, I have to say that Tom Cruise turns in another solid performance. I can't say that he's playing anyone different than he's played in Minority Report or Mission: Impossible, but it is another solid performance. I guess you could say he's reliable when given this kind of role. I really felt a lot of emotion from Andrea Riseborough's performance as she tries to keep Jack reigned in, even if at times she seemed a little too childlike in the way she looks at him. Olga Kurylenko, as the mysterious woman, is fine but isn't really given much to do except be the catalyst for Jack's actions. And for all the focus on Morgan Freeman in the ads, I think he's in the movie about ten minutes and seems to be playing a futuristic version of Lucius Fox. Nicolaj Coster-Waldau is also in the movie, and Oscar winner Melissa Leo also turns up in a very odd performance. None of them are bad or bring down the movie, but seeing fairly recognizable actors in small, odd or insignificant roles almost takes you out of the action.

That action, however, is terrific and second-time director Joseph Kosinski (Tron Legacy) proves that he has the chops to deliver a visually magnificent film (he also developed the story). Along with his cinematographer Claudio Miranda, they have produced some startling images that could be framed and hung on your walls – vast deserts with tops of skyscrapers jutting out, a shattered moon, a hidden oasis – and they look even more spectacular on the huge IMAX screen, the recommended way to see this film. The sound design is also amazing with some really cool, original sound effects created for the drones. And kudos to Kosinski and Universal for daring to deliver a blockbuster, summer sci-fi flick that isn't a reboot, remake or sequel to something else. Yes, Kosinski does pay homage to many sci-fi films of the past, particularly The Matrix, and throws in a Top Gun reference as well, but these things don't detract from the mind-bending story.

Oblivion may not be a complete sci-fi classic, and it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I was enthralled by the whole environment Kosinski has created, I was particularly charmed by Riseborough, I was blown away by the visuals and sound design, and I was always kept guessing as to where the story was headed. Some have said the film was too obvious and unoriginal, but I was totally drawn in with wide-eyed wonderment.

The Hobbit finds its way to Blu-ray

Warner Brothers is releasing Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on multiple home video formats on March 19 but the big question is will fans of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy be an enamored with this film (and its two coming follow-ups)? Before I go through the Blu-ray, here's a look back at my original review posted on CliqueClack.com:

Wow, has it really been nine years since The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was released? It really doesn't seem that long, but it does seem like it's been an eternity since the wheels started turning on production of The Hobbit, what with the rights feuds, a studio bankruptcy, and a director withdrawing even before the first frame was shot. But now it's here, at least the first of three chapters, and the big question now is: was it worth the wait?

The answer is neither yes or no, as the first chapter in the new trilogy is resoundingly average. I remember being enraptured by the first Lord of the Rings movie from the very beginning; the look, the style, the music … everything about it just drew you into the world of Middle Earth. Since we've all been there, settling into a viewing of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, should be like settling into a comfy couch. You certainly know what to expect style-wise with Peter Jackson once again behind the camera, and even the story should have some familiarity to it since we're re-connecting with characters we already know from the previous films (even though this one takes place sixty years earlier).

Unfortunately, what Jackson has done by taking a simple, single volume children's story and turning it into a nine-hour epic is made the movie overly bloated and episodic, especially during the first hour when we're meeting the thirteen dwarfs and getting side stories that do and do not have any bearing on the main story at hand. For instance, Gandalf (Ian McKellan) tells the story of another wizard, Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) and his discovery of a necromancer destroying nature all around him. This side story intrudes on the main story as Gandalf brings news of the necromancer to Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and Saruman (Christopher Lee) who dismisses it as just a man playing with magic. Of course, the necromancer will obviously play into the story as Benedict Cumberbatch was cast in the role (and he's credited, but never seen in the movie ... and will be providing the voice of Smaug the dragon).

The main plot of the book is there, though, between all of the extra stuff Jackson has added. Bilbo Baggins (a terrific Martin Freeman) is enlisted by Gandalf to join a band of dwarfs on their quest to regain their homeland, and gold, from Smaug. Along the way, they have to battle orcs, goblins, trolls, and after getting separated from the group during an underground battle with the goblins, Bilbo meets up with a strange creature, Gollum (Andy Serkis), and comes in possession of that magical, golden ring. It's here that the movie finally kicks into gear with Serkis' amazing performance. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences really needs to rethink their acting categories to include motion capture performances like this, because even though the actor is replaced by a fully realized CG character, his performance is just stunning (and the advances in CG rendering since the last movie has grown by leaps and bounds, making this the most realistic Gollum yet).

Unfortunately, the movie ends just as it's really getting started with the band of travelers seeing their destination for the first time off in the distance. What The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ends up being is a three-hour origin story that we have to wait a year to see how it pans out. Another problem I had was that the whole thing felt like Jackson was just indulging himself. It took a while for the LOTR films to show us some major battles, but The Hobbit has at least three! The effects are incredible, but it all seemed like a bit of overkill and padding. The story has gotten completely lost amongst all the pageantry. More time should have been spent getting to know the dwarfs, the camaraderie, the journey, instead of just throwing one battle after another at us (and don't get me started on the pointless rock giants fight scene that only served to show off more CGI wonders). As it is, by the end of the movie, you really don't care one way or another about Thorin's (Richard Armitage) quest to get back to his home, and with most of the plot points from the book already included in this movie, you have to wonder how much more padding is to come. I fear that the Hobbit trilogy is going to go down in film history as the new Star Wars prequels trilogy.

When I saw the film theatrically, I saw the new HFR 48 fps 3D version which did not impress me at all. It ended up looking like an old BBC video production that you might have seen on Masterpiece Theater. The sharpness and detail were amazing, but it just didn't look like a movie or have that film-like quality the other trilogy has. It looked surprisingly flat even though it was in 3D, and some of the scenes were overly bright and contrasty with some of the white areas almost blown out. I was hoping that the presentation of the film on Blu-ray would correct some of these issues, but it only seems to magnify the problems. Not that there's anything wrong with the Blu-ray presentation itself, it's the source elements that are to blame. Some of the flat, overly lit scenes are still flat and overly lit. There are also some issues involved with converting the 48 fps down to 24p for Blu-ray, especially in any scene that has a lot of fast motion -- some of the CGI effects move just a bit too fast and there is no motion blur, so they just look like really bad special effects. I wondered if the HFR process was going to impact the eventual home video edition, and it has. The average viewer may not notice but, to me, it stuck out like a sore thumb. The film's audio, however, will give your home theater system a nice workout.

The Blu-ray + DVD combo contains the complete movie on a single disk with no extras, giving the film room to breathe (the DVD is the same). A separate disk contains the bonus material, and while you can't technically call this a "bare bones edition," the bonus material is really nothing new. The bulk of the material is the ten-part video blogs Jackson and his crew produced during the production of the film, and since these were available online before the movie was released, the blogs are mostly a tease for what is to come.  The ten blogs, if you haven't already seen them online are:

• Video Blog #1: Start of production, April 14, 2011 (HD, 10:32) -- Peter Jackson gives viewers a tour of the various departments preparing for the first day of shooting leading up to day one of production. A look at the welcoming ceremony is very moving.
• Video Blog #2: Location scouting, July 9, 2011 (HD, 10:20) -- Shooting on the first block has completed, we learn where cast and crew will be spending their break, and Jackson looks for locations for the second block, and the logistics involved in bringing a full cast and crew to a remote area. Interesting tidbit: Jackson mentions shooting the two Hobbit films.
• Video Blog #3: Shooting block one, July 21, 2011 (HD, 13:19) -- Cast and crew talk about their favorite parts of shooting the first block of production. Meanwhile, Peter Jackson has been transported to England's Pinewood Studios. Ian McKellan has an uncanny knack for remembering all the dwarves' names. A highlight: John Rhys-Davis visits and meets his "father." And there is a surprise cameo at the end, which explains Jackson's location.
• Video Blog #4: Shooting in 3D, November 4, 2011 (HD, 10:46) -- A nice piece for the tech geeks as Jackson and crew discuss the 3D process (all of the cameras have names) shooting at 48 fps, and how everyone from makeup and costumes to pre-production artists had to adapt to the new formats.
• Video Blog #5: Locations Part 1, December 24, 2011 (HD, 12:04) -- After weeks of shooting in the studio, the production moves to locations around New Zealand and the logistics involved of moving a huge crew and cast. The Hobbiton location has been under construction for two years, and the new construction has been built from permanent materials for future tourist visits.
• Video Blog #6: Locatons Part 2, March 2, 2012 (HD, 12:28) -- Production has begun on part two of The Hobbit, but we're back to where we left off on location. The actors marvel at how real everything in the studio looked, and how unbelievable the real locations look.
• Video Blog #7: Stone St. Studios tour, June 6, 2012 (HD, 13:59) -- A comprehensive look at Jackson's studio including the Weta Workshop.
• Video Blog #8: Wrap of principal photography, July 24, 2012 (HD, 14:42) -- Jackson and the cast visit Comic Con and present a production reel leading up to the final day of shooting. Another moving moment occurs as Jackson thanks everyone for their hard work and support.
• Video Blog #9: Post-production overview, November 24, 2012 (HD, 14:08) -- A look at everything that goes into completing the film, including editing, digital effects, sound effects and recording the score.
• Video Blog #10: Wellington world premiere, December 14, 2012 (HD, 14:42) -- A look at all of the preparations for the world premiere, and the overwhelming turnout in Wellington, NZ.

Also included is a six-minute promotional video apparently produced to promote New Zealand tourism, using the films as its selling point, several Hobbit theatrical trailers and video game trailers. There is also a code included for the Ultraviolet version of the movie which you can stream on a variety of mobile devices whenever and wherever you want. Of course, there will be a deluxe expanded edition coming later this year which will have a lot more bonus material and even more padding added to the movie itself (that it will help bring more depth to the film as the re-inserted material did for the LOTR trilogy is debatable). So, hardcore fans may want to hold out for that edition of the video ... except there is one extra special bonus that those fans will probably want to see: with the code provided in each copy of the home video, owners will be able to access a live video presentation of a first look at The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug hosted by Peter Jackson on Sunday, March 24 at 3:00 PM Eastern/Noon Pacific (an edited version will be archived on the film's website). You just have to decide if the purchase price is worth having access to the live event.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is currently available for Digital Download, and will be available as a Blu-ray combo pack, Blu-ray 3D combo pack, and 2-Disc DVD Special Edition on March 19.

Love is gray (with a white spot)

February 21, 2013 was a great day that went terribly wrong.

Back in 2000, just before I met my now husband Carl, he had rescued a six-week-old kitten, gray with a little white spot on his chest. When we started chatting online, he showed me some pictures and I actually came up with his name: Stone, because of his gray color. It was many months before I finally met Stone and his daddy in person, and the first thing the kitten did was chew up the edges of the boots I had left sitting on the floor. But I wasn't mad or upset. It was a kitten ... what can you do?

Two years later, Stone and his daddy came to live with me and after a 12 hour drive and arrival at their new home, I was surprised to find Stone curled up next to me in bed. He barely knew me, but he was comfortable enough with me to sleep next to me instead of his daddy. I thought that was so adorable, but I felt bad too. I didn't want any resentment because the cat had suddenly chosen me over the person that had taken him in in the first place. Not to worry though; we just had a one night stand, and Stone really never slept next to me like that over the next 11 years.

We had many, many good times with our little kitty. He was always a source of entertainment, of joy and love, and he had some mischief in him as well. One day we smelled something odd, like cat pee and electricity ... which was exactly what it was! He had peed on a power strip. Thankfully, it was early in the afternoon instead of the middle of the night so we found the power strip and unplugged it before there was any real damage (although the carpet did get a little scorch mark on it). Unfortunately, this incident of marking his territory became rampant throughout the first floor of the house and we had to take action. A visit to the vet showed no physical reason for this to happen, so we had to put him on mood altering medication. The pills helped, but they really screwed up Stone's digestive system. It got so bad for him that we finally took him off the pills and we decided we would deal with the spraying if it happened again.

But, he seemed to be a brand new kitty after a change in his diet -- I became Stone's personal chef, preparing him a healthy batch of food once a week consisting of ground turkey or beef, some veggies and vitamins -- and we were all one big happy family again. Stone was a lucky cat, getting a chance to travel to Florida, spending the night in Savannah and doing some shopping there as well (we carried him around town in his carrier), hanging out in the back yard when the weather was nice, watching the squirrels come up on the porch for some peanuts, trying to grab the birds on the windowsill huddling under the awning during a rain storm, and just being loved in general. He was such a cool cat that he'd pose and let us put silly hats and sunglasses on him for photo shoots!

The peeing issue returned, more meds followed, rugs had to be torn up and furniture replaced, but we got it all under control again. But shortly before the new year, Stone suddenly decided he didn't want to eat the food I had prepared for him anymore. I thought maybe he had a bad batch of ground turkey, so we got some cat food at the store (he'd not been able to eat any commercial cat food without getting sick) and discovered that some of his digestive problems were gluten-related. We found several varieties of gluten-free and grain-free foods which he would nibble at or just walk away from. We didn't know what his problem was because he seemed to want to eat, but when we put the food down, he walked away. His behavior was otherwise normal. A visit to the vet showed some elevated enzymes in his liver due to not eating, so we tried other foods and eventually liquefied his food and gave it to him with a dropper.

I could see he was losing weight, but I held out hope that there was a simple answer to whatever issues he was having with his food. Maybe his teeth hurt. We had them cleaned, he ate two bowls of food right after, and then slacked off again. After a couple of days of not eating, we had to go back to the vet again on February 18, 2013. They admitted him, gave him a feeding tube, and also some solid food which they said he was eating. An ultrasound was scheduled for the 20th to see what was going on internally, and we went to see him the evening after that procedure was performed. He was very doped up, but looked like he had gained a little weight. He let us hold him for a bit, but I don't know if he really was aware of who we were. On the 21st we were given some good news -- he had a blockage of his bile duct that was operable and arrangements were made to get him to a facility for the operation. Thinking I would see him later in the evening, I went to work while his daddy and my father took him to be cared for. Then I got a call ... the diagnosis was completely off-base. The blockage was more severe than we thought, most likely cancerous with more cancer in his body, and even if we did the operation he would need chemo which would diminish his quality of life and maybe extend his life for weeks or months, a year tops.

To say that we were devastated is an understatement. We had to make the most horrible decision any pet owner has to make. Do we act selfishly and try to force him to eat, or do we let him go? After many, many questions and answers with the doctor, we had to make the only, best decision possible for Stone. We had to let him go. Our hearts were shattered in a million pieces because we started the day with a pet, a member of our family, that we thought would be home soon and ended the day with nothing but heartache. We cried for at least 24 hours, looking to place blame on the vet for promising us hope, and taking on guilt myself for not being there to support Carl or say goodbye to our baby boy. It's just been the most awful time I've ever been through.

But, we are healing slowly. I still get teary-eyed reading the supportive comments from my friends on Facebook, and remembering the uniqueness of our cat, the way he would give high fives, the armpit massages, how he would "talk" to us when we asked him things, the funny positions he would sleep in. But while remembering the good times, I look back now on the last month and a half and realize that I knew he was sick but I didn't want to admit it. I am the King of Denial when it comes to illness. I just figure that whatever ails you, you'll always get better.

During those last few weeks of his life, Stone began acting differently. Not personality-wise, just some of his behavior was odd. He was always wanting to go outside. In the morning, instead of head-bumping my leg for his food, he would sit and stare at the basement door. Deep down in my gut, I knew that if I let him go into the basement, he would find a small, dark place to curl up in and he would not be coming back on his own. I just knew that, but I was more intent on fixing him than letting him go. I mean, he was only 12 years old. We could get another eight years out of him, right, because he seemed to be in good health except for the eating? But he started doing other things too, like getting in my lap and letting me cuddle him or letting him give me armpit massages ... something he hadn't done with me in a very long time. He would get up on the box chairs in the living room and sit on the arms right between the two of us. He got in bed and snuggled between us under the covers. In the 11 years he was with us in this house, he's only ever done that a couple of times, preferring to sleep on the edge of the mattress or at the foot of the bed. I know now that he was telling us that he loved us, he wanted us to know that he appreciated the life we gave him, he wanted us to know that he was our baby, but by allowing us that time to love him more he was also telling us that it was his time to go. He wanted us to know it was okay to let go, that we would always have that love in our hearts and that wherever he was in spirit, that love and appreciation he had would never die.

So, when we were given the news that an operation would give us our boy back, we were ecstatic, never thinking that just a few hours later we would never see our Stone again. It's been very hard. I've been through such grief over the loss, over having to make that decision even though I selfishly wanted to keep him with us. I've been angry at the vet for giving us such false hope, for not being there to say goodbye and comfort Carl. I cried for about 24 hours straight just seeing Stone's face in my mind's eye and replaying the telephone conversation, hearing Carl sobbing on the phone while telling Stone that I loved him, coming home and embracing Carl and sobbing while Carl kept saying, "My boy is dead." It's the absolute worst thing I've ever been through. And now I need to write all of this down as my own catharsis so I can move on and celebrate Stone's life, and remember all the good times we had with him, all the love and laughs he gave us. We will never forget him. And we will keep his memory alive. Losing Stone and letting him go has left a giant hole in our hearts, one that can never be replaced ... but we still have more love to give and we will move on with a new little buddy to share that love with. Whoever chooses us will never be Stone, and that's fine. Stone was most definitely one in a million.

Finding love withThe Men Next Door

Getting the Hollywood studio machine to tackle an honest gay love story is a rarity, so it comes down to the indie filmmakers of the world to create films for smaller, target audiences. One of the most prolific indie producers in the marketplace today is Guest House Films, which has produced and distributed a variety of LGBT films with titles like Make the Yuletide Gay, Blue Briefs, Black Briefs, and Role/Play. The quality of these films, and others not from Guest House, vary wildly in quality (writing, acting, production). For the most part, I've been really disappointed with films targeted at LGBT viewers because I've found most of them to be cynical in their depiction of gay men. The message always seems to be that gay men don't want or can't be in a committed, long-term relationship, and as we continue to fight for equal rights for LGBT people, especially on the marriage front, I just find this message disheartening.

Director Rob Williams' Role/Play left a bad taste in my mouth with its depiction of relationships between several gay men, so I was a little hesitant to commit to his latest film, The Men Next Door. The story focuses on Doug (Eric Dean), a 40-year-old man with a group of the worst friends in the world. None of them show up for his milestone birthday party (at this point I was already prepared for the worst from the film), but at least his brother sends him a stripper. Unfortunately, it's a woman (bro thought he would send something Doug didn't already have). Doug manages to get the woman out of his house just as a man arrives whom Doug also thinks is a birthday gift from his brother. Turns out, he's the new neighbor who doesn't mind being mistaken for a stripper and allows himself to be unwrapped. Doug feels a connection with 30-year-old Colton (Benjamin Lutz), but he's also seeing another man, the 50-year-old Jacob (Michael Nicklin). What Doug soon discovers is that Jacob and Colton are … father and son! They try to keep each relationship on the down low, but they all come crashing together at one point and Doug tries to balance both as he makes a decision on who to stay with. The question is, can Colton and Jacob manage to maintain their own relationship while Doug weighs his options?

I hate to give anything away, so I will try to be as spoiler-free as possible, but I have to say that I was ultimately charmed by The Men Next Door because of its more adult and realistic (well, as realistic as you can be with this situation) attitude towards gay men and relationships. For once, everyone involved in this triangle wants to be in a committed relationship. That's real progress for one of these movies! Williams' writing is honest and funny when it needs to be, even when some of the supporting characters fall into classic gay stereotypes. Doug's one female friend, Evelyn (Heidi Rhodes), is a bit over-the-top though, coming off as either insane, drunk, or both anytime she's in a scene. Lutz sometimes comes off as a bit wooden, but he's easy on the eyes. Nicklin and Dean, however, give very good performances and Dean is just so endearing that you really can't help but fall in love with him (and I have no idea if any of these actors are gay in real life, but they all seem very comfortable with each other … and there are quite a few scenes of nudity).

To me, The Men Next Door is Williams' most accomplished film to date from a production standpoint, to the caliber of acting and maturity of the writing. And I'm so happy to finally see a movie about gay male relationships that has a happy ending. In the crowded field of LGBT movies that cast a cynical eye on love, you can actually cuddle up with that someone special in your life on Valentine's Day with The Men Next Door and come away feeling good about your own relationship.

The Men Next Door is available on DVD from Amazon.com and other online retailers. Amazon also offers a digital version for purchase or rent. The DVD is also available to rent from Netflix.

The Doctor's Wife isn't who you'd expect

With marriage equality finally legal in Maryland, there are probably still a lot of questions weighing on the minds of those who are planning to tie the knot, mainly about how they will be received as a married couple. One would hope that with marriages now being legal, that society would simply change overnight and accept everyone as equal but there are sure to still be some out there who will react negatively.

While things are slowly turning in America, Australia's political leaders are still against marriage equality even though most polls show public support on the issue. A new documentary from the land Down Under might be a good starting point for people who may view same-sex couples as a threat or just something alien to a "normal" married couple.

The Doctor's Wife tells the true story of Vincent Cornelisse, a doctor from Brisbane, and his partner Jonathan Duffy, a performer/filmmaker. To pay back Vincent's medical school loans, he has the opportunity to take on a position as a country doctor in the tiny town of Mundubbera, population at just under 2000. It's sort of like the fictional set-up from the TV series Northern Exposure. Jono is torn about leaving the big city and his job, but it's the only way Vinny can pay back the loan. So they pack up their belongings and head to the country. The film, which was put together by Jonathan, tells their story from a first person perspective.

The documentary starts off with Jonathan and Vincent relating how they first met, which is pretty humorous since they both thought the other was a drug addict, and features reactions from their friends and family members to their big move to the country. Some are scared for them, some think they'll become local celebrities … but to Jonathan's horror, he realizes that most of them think he's a "screaming queen" and will stand out – not in a good way – in a small country town (he's really not that bad, at least not how he appears in the film).

But something happened when they arrived in Mundubbera: they were embraced with open arms. Everyone in town knew a new doctor was coming from the article in the paper, and they were (mostly) aware that he had a partner who was male because they didn't hide that in the announcement. It seemed that the key to their success in town – besides Vincent being the best doctor they've had in thirty years – was that they got involved in the daily life of the town, from eating at the local pub to joining various committees. The townspeople compare Jono to the past doctor's wives (a term he whole-heartedly embraces) and speak of how none of those before him ever got involved, setting themselves apart from the locals which made them all feel that the doctor and his wife were better than them. Their involvement in the community (mostly Jonathan's, since Vincent worked tirelessly at the hospital) made them the most-loved people in town. But the fairy tale has a bittersweet ending that I won't spoil.

As a documentary of Vincent and Jonathan's lives during this major transition, I enjoyed seeing what they accomplished and hearing from their new friends just how easily they were accepted by the townspeople, young and old (and it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows as one person recants a discussion featuring the usual "it's not right because the Bible says so" argument, but that seemed to have been an isolated occurrence). I was in tears by the end because it was so uplifting and it gives one hope for the world, that if people can just see that we're all the same no matter who we love, that we can all live in this world together.

What I didn't like about the movie is more on the technical side, and coming from a production background, perhaps those things bother me more than the average viewer. As it is, I absolutely hated some of the transitional elements used between scenes, some of the more pretentious montages (including one lengthy shot of Vinny's and Jono's faces in a split screen with one on the left and one on the right as they opened and closed their eyes), and the awful ink blot animation that really stood out from the rest of the movie and made things appear more sinister than it should (it seemed more like a filter in iMovie that Jonathan just couldn't resist using and it bugged me). I did like the split screen of Jono talking to himself, even if I could clearly see the dividing line.

Those technical issues aside, the film shows the positive side of a situation that most people might expect would go terribly wrong. And it really gets the message of acceptance across without beating the viewer over the head. Perhaps those that still have an intolerant attitude would have their eyes opened by this movie, while those of us on the other side of the matter who still fear that intolerance could also learn that just being yourself and being a part of the community as a whole, not just the insular LGBT community, could go miles in showing everyone else that we're all human beings no matter who we love.

The Doctor's Wife is available on DVD and from Amazon Instant Video, and includes a director's commentary, deleted scenes, and a "Shameles Self Promotion" video.

Tooting my own horn

I have to crow a little about this awesome thing that happened Monday night.  I wrote a review for the WWE Studios film Barricade (below), and they actually pulled a quote from the review and used it in a televised promo for the DVD (above)! The promo aired on the USA Network Monday, October 15 during WWE Monday Night Raw. This is almost as good as winning an Oscar!

Erik McCormack gets cabin fever in Barricade

After playing Will Truman on Will & Grace for nine seasons, Eric McCormack has stepped as far away from the sitcom genre as he could over the last few years, most recently headlining the new TV drama Perception. Now, McCormack has gone even further out of his comfort zone with his starring role in the new psychological horror film Barricade, produced by WWE Studios and now available on DVD and Blu-ray.

Barricade tells the story of Terence Shade, a psychologist who doesn't have enough time in the day to spend with his kids. His wife wants them all to go to her old family cabin way, way, way up in the mountains to give the kids a white Christmas. The story jumps to a year later, and Shade's wife has died under mysterious circumstances (mysterious, at least, until the climax of the movie), but he wants to honor her wishes and takes their two kids to the cabin. Once there, strange noises and shadows begin to terrorize the family … or has madness overtaken them?

You have to hand it to the producers of Barricade for really committing to the psychological horror of the story and not going for the over-the-top blood and guts you might expect … especially coming from WWE Studios. Yes, that WWE. In fact, this is the first WWE production that does not feature any of its stable of wrestling stars. Besides the wife and the old man, who are only in the film briefly, this really is a story about three characters confined to a single location. You almost get a The Shining vibe as the story progresses, although you don't know if Terence has actually gone mad, if the cabin is haunted (since we don't know how the wife died), or if something else is affecting his behavior. The story keeps the viewer nicely off-balance, never knowing if what Terence is seeing and experiencing is real or imagined.

That's not to say that some of the scare aren't cheap ones. Early on, the filmmakers rely way to much on the LOUD MUSIC CUE to make you jump, when it's not really necessary. At one point, Terence looks out the window and the grotesque face of his dead wife is peering in at them. A quick cut to that would have been sufficiently creepy, so it really didn't need that extra OOMPH of the music to make you jump. It actually distracted me from seeing the face in the window because I did jump. So, yeah, it works but for all the wrong reasons.

While the film works hard to keep you guessing, McCormack gets kudos for his off-balance performance as well. He has to walk that fine edge of sanity and madness without ever teetering off to either side. We know as the story progresses that Terence is severely over-medicating himself (presumably to deal with his wife's death), so that may have something to do with his behavior. He, and perhaps the kids, come down with the flu as well, so that may also have something to do with the delirium. But you're never sure if anything Terence is doing is actually happening or all in his head because things can change in an instant within a scene, and McCormack has to go from madness to rational adult in the blink of an eye and he always pulls it off.

Barricade may not be a great thriller, but it's good enough to warrant a look for McCormack's performance and the terrific production design (be sure to check out the informative extras on the DVD to see how they built the cabin interiors and created the snowy exteriors). The ending may be a bit too tidy – it's certainly not an M. Night Shyamalan twist – but at least we know what happened to the wife, and if Terence is sane, mad or just a little under the weather. If you're looking for something that will send chills down your spine without a lot of blood, gore, masked killers or scary monsters, then this just might be the movie for you.

Argo brings history to gripping life

We always talk about how Madonna has reinvented herself over the years, but her popularity has never really been in question. Ben Affleck, on the other hand, has become the master of reinvention after his Hollywood golden boy status was tarnished by more than a few stinkers: Gigli, Daredevil, Surviving Christmas, to name a few. But after winning an Oscar for his screenplay for Good Will Hunting (with pal Matt Damon), Affleck has now turned his attention to directing. His major screen debut, Gone Baby Gone, was a gripping tale of a child's kidnapping that nabbed Oscar, Golden Globe and SAG Award nominations for Amy Adams. His follow-up was the critically acclaimed The Town, in which he also acted and which scored an Oscar nomination for Jeremy Renner.

Now Affleck is back in the director's chair – successfully – and on screen in the new real life thriller Argo. Argo tells the formerly classified story of six Americans who escaped the US embassy in Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979. The Americans managed to slip out of the embassy and after trying to find sanctuary at several different embassies, the Canadian ambassador and his wife took them in at great risk to their own lives. The US government went through several scenarios to try to get them out, but hostage extraction expert Tony Mendez said none of the ideas would work because none of them made sense (for example, providing them with fake teacher visas when there were no US teachers in the country). Mendez, who had worked with some Hollywood connections including makeup artist John Chambers (the original Planet of the Apes) and other Hollywood contacts, came up with the idea to make the six Americans members of a film crew scouting locations for a sci-fi flick called "Argo." The government wasn't thrilled with the idea, but it was the "best bad idea" they had. And it worked!

That's not to say the plan was foolproof or without peril, but even though we know the outcome – they were returned home safely – Affleck manages to ramp up the tension as they attempt to get through the military security at the airport as a sweatshop of workers try to piece together shredded images of the six missing Americans. You really are on the edge of your seat and holding your breath until that plane clears Iranian air space. Affleck not only nails the story and the tension, but the period as well. The fashion, the hair, the porn 'staches, the décor, everything is done to perfection. And the proof is in the pudding as the end credits juxtaposes actual photos of the people and key events with the recreations in the film.

Aside from a few familiar faces like Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Victor Garber, Kyle Chandler, and Alan Arkin, the six Americans are played by mostly unfamiliar actors (or those with faces you know but can't place the name … and they're almost unrecognizable anyway under the period hair styles) which gives the film an even stronger sense of realism. Casting BIG names in those roles would have been too distracting, so the right decision was made to go with less well-known faces.

As a historical drama – and there is a brief but crucial introduction of Iranian history to put the whole conflict in perspective – Argo is a movie that could probably be shown in classrooms. Some of the incidentals have been changed for dramatic purposes, but it still tells a compelling story from an important moment in American and world history. That's not to say it's just as dry as the desert sands either. Argo is suspenseful and gripping, with just the right amount of humor (mostly provided by Goodman and Arkin as they try to get their fake movie financed without revealing that the entire operation is a farce) to make this a crackling piece of entertainment. I don't think I'm going too far off base here by saying that the film is almost sure to get a Best Picture nomination at next year's Oscars, and if Affleck doesn't get a director nomination as well, there is no justice in Hollywood. As it is in the here and now, Argo should be on your must-see list.

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.