Well, it looks like somebody’s borrowing from Gary Marshall (  lifting ideas in Hollywood? Shocking! ). A few years ago Mr. Marshall scored a big hit with an ensemble comedy centered around a major holiday in VALENTINE’S DAY. He repeated that basic idea a few months ago with NEW YEAR”S EVE. Well, there’s not too many romantic holidays left, so how can this formula be tweaked? Maybe a birthday? No, a ” birthing day’! It’ll be about several couples trying to have a baby! We’ll get multiple stars and try to mix them up in the months prior to the big day. This way we can re-use the Marshall plan ( history reference! ) and maybe do a CRASH ( the Best Picture Oscar winner ) riff for the final hospital scenes. And as Woody Allen did forty years ago with EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX…, we’ll use the title of a best-selling instructional book. And so these marketing elements are mixed together for the new feature comedy ( maybe dramedy ) WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU’RE EXPECTING.  But does this cinema concoction deliver ( get it? ) big laughs?

OK, let’s get out our programs and meet the  players and ( prospective ) parents. First up is photographer Holly ( Jennifer Lopez ) and her musician mate Alex ( Rodrigo Santoro ). She’s more excited about adopting an infant than him, so she sends Alex to meet with a friend’s hubby who’s part of the ” daddy dudes” ( kind of a ”Mr. Mom mob” ) led by Vic ( Chris Rock ). Next up is Wendy ( Elizabeth Banks ) who owns a maternity shop that extolls the beauty of motherhood ( she’s even written a children’s’ book on the joys of breast-feeding ). After much effort she and husband Gary ( Ben Falcone ) conceive. When they break the news to Ben’s hypercompetitive auto racer dad Ramsey ( Dennis Quaid ), he announces that he’s having twins with his much younger trophy wife Skyler ( Brooklyn Decker ). Couple three is TV show fitness trainer Jules ( Cameron Diaz ) and her TV show dancing partner Evan ( Matthew Morrison ). Wow they’ve referenced two reality shows ( because, you know they’re hot and trendy! ). And for the young twenty-somethings we’ve got former flames and competing food truck owners ( because, you know they’re hot and trendy! ) Rosie ( Anna Kendrick ) and Marco ( Chase Crawford ). After some fast flirting they hook up after a gig and…the chiefs have a bun in the oven! We follow the ups and downs of these couples leading up to the mad dash to the hospital in the final frames.

Unfortunately this film may copy the Marhsall formula too well, since the momentum is stopped with each story as the film feels compelled to jump to another one. Still some moments work better than others. Banks is one of our most gifted comic actors ( on the big and small screen as shown on TV’s “30 Rock” ). Her future mom wendy  is a sweaty, bloated, raw nerve who can’t believe that her own pregnancy is the opposite of the lovely experience she’s been promoting at her shop. At said shop, the film makers cut to Rebel Wilson for a Melissa McCarthy-type sight gag or one-liner to get a cheap,quick laugh. Adding to Wendy’s frustration is the fact that young Skyler seems to completely comfortable. Most of the other couples spend too much of their screen time arguing. Jules and Evan fuss constantly about circumcision. Really?!  Dramatic tension is ramped up by Holly losing her big photo gig and keeping it a secret from Alex. A subplot about Gary and Ramsey in constant competition never really works, but Quaid has lots of rugged ” good ole’ boy ” charm ( Burt Reynolds might’ve place this a part a couple of decades ago ). It’s a shame that Ramsey’s stereotypical Southern belle missus is saddled with too many “y’alls” in every line of dialogue. Rock is wasted in the repetitive sequences with other dads in the park. I guess the tales of nearly maiming their infants is endearing, as are scenes of near disaster with a clumsy toddler. Rosie and Marco really get short-changed in their screen time. They’re absent from most of the last half. And of course on the big day we get lots of running down long hospital corridors and urgent instructions to breathe and push. This another one of those movies you can see with an older relative ( surprised it didn’t get released on Mother’s day weekend ). There’s nothing to upset anyone and there’s plenty of sweet infants to coo at. For those of us that enjoy unpredictable comedies with an edge and some wit, at a very full two hours this feels longer than nine months. Hollywood has delivered another safe, ” sit-com”y bundle of blah.

Overall Raing 1 Out of 5 Stars

The history of cinema has had many long-running actor/director partnerships. What first springs to my mind is the long collaboration between actor John Wayne and director John Ford, which has inspired several film books and documentaries. More recently we’ve had the Martin Scorsese and Robert DeNiro team-ups ( although Leonardo DiCaprio may just catch up to Mr. D ). And now we have the eighth film that actor Johnny Depp has done with director Tim Burton since they first paired all the way back in 1990 for EDWARD SCISSORHANDS ( Wow! ). After films based on children’s books, a low-budget filmmaker’s life, and a Broadway musical what have the duo decided to tackle now? Why, it’s a classic cult TV show from the late 1960′s : DARK SHADOWS. What’s their take on this supernatural soap opera?.

Time for a bit of disclosure here. During its original run on ABC television, I was mad for this weird little show! My grade school was almost in my back yard, so I literally ran out those exit doors when the last bell rang in order to plant myself in front of the bulky console TV and get creeped out Monday through Friday. ” Dark Shadows ” was the brainchild of the late Dan Curtis, who went on to produce the original TV movies, ” The Night Stalker ” starring Darren McGavin as reporter Carl Kolchak and ” Trilogy of Terror ” with Karen Black fighting those vicious little dolls, in addition to the acclaimed mini-series ” The Winds of War ‘ and its sequel ” War and Remembrance “, and he also directed two feature films based on ” Shadows ‘ along with BURNT OFFERINGS. This daytime drama with elements of gothic romance was about to be cancelled when Curtis had a desperate, brilliant idea :  Let’s put a vampire into the show ! Unknown ( to US TV audiences ) actor Jonathan Frid was a sensation as the lovesick bloodsucker Barnabas Collins. The program became must-see viewing for young people everywhere ( it’s odd to recall that the fortysomething Frid was cover featured on teen fan magazines alongside the Monkees and Bobby Sherman ). And that canny Curtis helped unleash an avalanche of merchandising. Barnabas was the star of a daily newspaper comic strip, monthly Gold Key comic books, board games, model kits, record albums, and a long-running series of original paperback novels. And I had as many of them that I could lay my grubby little hands on! But these bright star burned briefly. Dark Shadows ended it’s five-year run in 1971, but like Mr. Collins it’s not been completely dead. Curtis spearheaded an NBC prime time remake in the early 1990′s and a TV movie in 2005. The original series has played om cable, been released on home video, and inspired fan conventions ( though not as many as ” Star Trek” ). Talk of a new big screen version has been kicking around for years. I was intrigued by Depp and Burton’s involvement and, like many fans of the original, were taken aback by the comedic tone of the trailer. But I must keep an open mind. This is intended for modern movie audiences who have probably never heard of the series. Ya’ know, this may work!

And then I finally viewed the new film. The plot tries to incorporate several storylines from the show’s early season. Prior to the opening titles, we are introduced to Barnabas as a young boy in Liverpool as he and his parents are about to begin their voyage to America. Also headed across the pond is young Angelique Bouchard and her mother , who will work as a servant to the Collins family. The young lass is already smitten with the dark-haired boy. Upon their arrival in Maine, the prosperous family begins a successful fishing business, establishes the city of Collinsport, and starts construction on the opulent Collinwood estate. Years later Barnabas ( Johnny Depp ) gives his heart to the lovely Josette ( Bella Heathcote ) and spurns the affections of Angelique ( Eva Green ). You know what they say about a woman scorned. Ms. A turns to witchcraft to end their romance and turn Barnabas into a vampire. Later she leads a group of torch wielding villagers to trap him in his coffin, bind it with heavy chains, and bury him in the deep woods. The film then jumps to hip, happenin’ 1972. Victoria Winters arrives in the town in answer to a  child care help wanted ad. She finds Collinwood a dark, gloomy shell of its former glories. Victoria first encounters Willie ( Jackie Earle Haley ) who is the estate’s main caretaker along with the doting, elderly Mrs. Johnson. Seems only four Collins family members occupy the great mansion:  matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard ( Michelle Pfieffer ), her rebellious teenage daughter Carolyn ( Chloe Grace Moretz ), Elizabeth’s brother Roger Collins ( Jonny Lee Miller ) and his pre-teen son David ( Gulliver McGrath ). Also living there in order to treat David’s emotional issues ( he sees his deceased mother ) is the hard-drinking Dr. Julia Hoffman ( Helena Bonham Carter ). Later that evening a construction crew working in the woods outside Collinwood unearths a coffin wrapped in chains. To their regret, they sever the bonds and release a famished Barnabas. After a culture shock stroll through town, he returns to his ancestral home. He makes Willie his hypnotized servant, strikes a deal with Elizabeth, and vows to restore both the estate and the family fishing business. Only one thing stands in his way ( besides that nasty thirst ) – a rival seafood cannery run by the still youthful and gorgeous Angelique, who has convinced the town that she’s just the latest in a long line of family moguls. Oh, and it turns out that Victoria is the spitting image of the vamp’s long-lost love Josette. Can Barnabas Collins turns things around for the family while romancing a new/old flame and staying a step ahead of his spell casting nemesis?

I may have made this flick sound more exciting than it really is. At two full hours, you’ll feel as though you’ve been chained inside a buried casket. Perhaps it needed a merciless editor, or, more likely, a couple more passes at this unwieldy script. Much is made of the Barnabas/Victoria romantic subplot, but she seems to vanish for a good half hour while more time is devoted to the tiresome antics of Angelique. There’s not one, but two big confrontation scenes in her company boardroom. This affords the filmmakers a chance to indulge in some juvenile sex jokes, as seen in the trailer when the two enemies give in to passion ( with a nod to the Catwoman lick from Burton’s BATMAN RETURNS ). There’s even more coarse sex gag ( literally ! ) with the doctor. Really guys? Seems the ladies find the bloodsucker irresistible even with pounds of clown white covering his mug ( in the TV show Frid looks like an average Joe till he bared his fangs ), and a dark airbrushed streak down his cheekbones. The seventies era is reconstructed well, although items like lava lamps and troll dolls appear in order to garner easy laughs. As does a TV performance by the Carpenters on an old-fashioned color TV. Speaking of music, I was let down by the usually reliable Danny Elfman. He uses a few music cues from Robert Colbert’s classic TV score, but the show’s main theme is never heard. Instead we get lots of FM-style classic rock ( ” Nights in White Satin ” over the main titles? Okaaay ). However I did enjoy seeing the real Alice Cooper recreating his early performances.

Speaking of performances, the actors make a valiant effort with the meager source material. Depp seems to be enjoying his role immensely, although at times he seems to be doing mix of his James Barrie and Sweeney Todd while strutting about in his odd costume choices ( at least he kept the wolf’s head cane ). Pfeiffer has little to do until the messy finale. It’s hard to accept her in this matronly part.Moretz is one of our most promising young actors, but here she’s trapped as a sullen, surly teenager. Miller and Carter are there to model funny 70′s fashions and be funny, sleazy types while mugging at the camera. Heathcote is a lovely ingenue, but sets off no real sparks with Depp. Neither does the usually engaging Green whose witch character becomes a campy, cartoon villainess who’s more tedious than menacing. When it comes to screen menace, few actors are greater than 60′s and 70′s vampire movie icon Christopher Lee, who graces the screen in an all too brief cameo. But the best cameo may be that of cast members from the original TV series : Kathryn Leigh Scott ( Victoria ), David Selby ( Quentin ), Lara Parker ( Angelique ) and Barnabas himself, the late great Jonathan Frid who passed away just weeks ago. Kudos for including this brief nod.

Tim Burton has always been stronger with visuals than narrative, so it should come as no surprise that the big finale is so disjointed. One big reveal of a family member’s secret pounces in from left field. The film’s opening scenes seem to have the proper dramatic tone, but once Mr. B returns home, everything is jokes- the 70′s decade kitsch , sex patter, and whoosing cartoon sound effects. That’s not to say that the original TV show wasn’t funny. Rewatching the series on DVD, you’re struck by the cheesy effects, flimsy sets, often hammy acting, and overwrought dialogue ( the show was shot live on tape, so many flubs are preserved ), but the producers were striving for more than cheap laughs. Sometimes a dramatic TV show can be transformed into an enjoyable big screen comedy, like 1987′s DRAGNET and the recent 21 JUMP STREET. Here everything seems forced. A friend recently asked, ” Fans of the original won’t appreciate the comic tone, young moviegoers don’t know of the old show, so who did Johnny and Tim make this for? “. I believe they really made it for themselves and only their most hardcore fans may join them. For the rest of us…well, uh, at least Barnabas isn’t sparkly!

Overall Rating: 1.5 Out of 5 Stars

With a title like YOUR SISTER’S SISTER, I was expecting to see something more along the lines of a Nicholas Sparks or Danielle Steel adaptation rather than the truly hilarious and heartfelt sort-of romantic-dramedy it turned out to be. Jack (Mark Duplass) has had a rough time dealing with the death of his brother, which happened exactly one year ago. Jack’s best friend / late brother’s ex, Iris (Emily Blunt), gives him the keys to her father’s remote cabin for a little alone time to relax and reflect on his life. Once there, he discovers Iris’ sister Hanna (Rosemarie DeWitt) is already staying at the cabin after ending a 7-year relationship with her girlfriend. After a drunken night of confession, Jack and Hanna sleep together only to be woken up the next morning by the arrival of Iris, who decided Jack shouldn’t be entirely alone after all. You may think you know where this is going but the film will still surprise you.

YOUR SISTER’S SISTER is done in the same loose and largely improvised style of Lynn Shelton’s previous films; however, it feels much more refined here. This is partly due to an upgrade in equipment but it also seems like Shelton has grown as a filmmaker both in terms of storytelling and visuals. True, there is not much story to work with but the three main characters are fully realized and a joy to watch, which is great considering they are the only ones on screen for the majority of the running time. Mark Duplass, Emily Blunt and Rosemarie DeWitt are all fantastic, bringing their roles to life with a naturalistic but never ordinary approach. Most of the comedy stems from their rapid-fire dialogue, which is equally witty and earnest.

The film is not without flaws but they are so minimal in comparison to all that it gets right. While the editing is fairly tight for this kind of style, there are a few moments that tend to linger on just a little too long, especially during a montage towards the end. Speaking of the end, I personally felt it concluded perfectly but those who prefer everything to be wrapped up may be upset when the credits begin scrolling. The story may not be the most original, nor are some of the situations, but the manner in which they are presented in makes it all feel fresh and authentic.

Despite being a fan of Shelton’s HUMPDAY and this film’s solid cast, I was just not really looking forward to seeing this. I really think the title played a large part in that but the less than riveting description found in the Tribeca guide probably didn’t help either. On the advice of several people at the festival, I gave the film a chance and I’m so glad I did. Not only was it one of the best films there but also one of the finest I’ve seen this year. IFC Films will be releasing the film next month and I highly recommend you make an effort to seek it out.

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

Oscar Svendsen (Kyrre Hellum) wakes up in a seedy strip club, underneath the body of a dead oversized stripper, and surrounded by cops. What follows is the story of how he got there told mostly through flashbacks while being investigated by a very thorough and incredibly compelling detective (Henrik Mestad). This is a tale of lottery, greed, corruption and fake recycled Christmas trees.

JACKPOT is bloody good fun, pure and simple. It is a pitch black Norwegian comedy that tosses around clever dialogue and dead bodies with glee. The structure is similar to films like THE USUAL SUSPECTS and there are familiar elements throughout, although it all still feels fresh and fun. Jo Nesbo’s writing is sharp and each character is a good mix of quirky and dangerous. Director Magnus Martens handles the material quite well and strikes a good balance of comedy, blood splatter and intrigue. There are some really great visual gags including some set up early that lead to fine payoffs later on. I’d rather not spoil any of them but my favorite is on display at the very end of the trailer below if you are curious. Personally, I suggest only watching the trailer up to the title card if even that far.

If this sounds at all like a film you want to see, I highly recommend seeking it out rather than wait for the (most likely) inferior American remake, which is always a strong possibility with films like this.

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

EDDIE – THE SLEEPWALKING CANNIBAL is a fun little dark comedy that will surely find a nice audience although it might not rise to a level of cult phenomenon that one might think based on the deliriously twisted plot. Lars Olafssen is a former well-known artist who lost his muse 10 years ago. Finally content with not painting anymore, he takes a small teaching gig in Koda Lake, Canada where he ends up also having to care for Eddie, a seemingly harmless handicapped adult played perfectly by Dylan Smith. Eddie was traumatized as a child by the death of his parents so he no longer speaks. He also has a tendency to wake up in the middle of the night, shed his clothing down to his tighty-whities and eat people while still asleep. This would be horrible if not for the fact that seeing Eddie’s carnage somehow triggers a creative response in Lars, leading him to start painting again.

One of the things I absolutely hate about movies set in the art world is that often people are depicted as creating their so called masterpiece and when you see the artwork, it is nothing special. A large part of EDDIE is Olaf’s paintings yet they are given the golden briefcase treatment, meaning we never actually see them. This is one of the many things the film gets right. It knows exactly what to show, as evidenced by the very brisk pacing and perfectly short running time. While the film may not always be nonstop hilarity or thrills, it is certainly never dull. I do agree with some other people’s sentiments that the film gets better the bloodier it becomes but I think the restraint from showing much gore at first works thematically as both Eddie and Olaf strive towards their magnum opus. There are a lot of other little details in the film that work equally well, such as the running joke of the radio DJ commenting on how each of the classical music pieces played throughout the film directly correlate to tragedy and scenes of death.

Rather than spoil any more surprises, let me just recommend checking out EDDIE when it finds some sort of a release. This is a damn fun film and despite the outlandish concept, it is easy to relate to especially for creative types. There’s no telling how far some artists will go to get their muse back…

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

Whichever distributor picks this film up is going to have a hell of a time figuring out the proper way to market this beast. RESOLUTION tells the story of Michael (Peter Cilella) who attempts to get his former best friend Chris (Vinny Curran) to leave the burnt out shell of a house he is living in and go to rehab. When Chris refuses, Michael handcuffs him to the wall and plans to wait the seven days it will take for the drugs to clear out of his system. During the course of the week, some strange characters show up including drug dealers, Indian reservation security, and members of a local cult. With Chris suffering from extreme withdrawal, Michael cares for him while piecing together various forms of media he finds scattered throughout the surrounding woods that seem to be hinting at a much bigger story. Oh, and it’s a comedy, albeit a fairly dark one. As I said, not an easy sell but I truly hope someone rises to the challenge because this film deserves to be seen.

Similar to THE CABIN IN THE WOODS in that it is a film that works best with the audience knowing as little as possible going in, I will not reveal anything else about the plot. If you are at least intrigued by the film, I suggest you don’t even watch whatever trailers they eventually release for fear of spoilers. I genuinely had no idea where the film was headed next and that is a rare feat nowadays. Full of clever twists and witty dialogue, the film culminates in what may be the most spectacularly meta ending in cinema history. I know the meta term scares some people but it really works in this film.

The script is sharply written by Justin Benson, who also did an equally fantastic job co-directing with Aaron Moorhead. Visually intriguing, utilizing interesting camera and editing techniques, the film has a great look and feel that really enhances the story it is trying to tell. Peter Cilella and Vinny Curran get the bulk of the screen time, which is great since they have excellent chemistry and are totally engaging to watch. These are really breakout performances for each of them and I look forward to seeing more of them in the future. I am also looking forward to future collaborations between Moorhead and Benson because these guys seriously know what they are doing.

Not that this means anything but of the 18 features I saw, RESOLUTION is my favorite film of the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival.

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

Judd Apatow (BRIDESMAIDS) has become synonymous with successful modern comedy, much like Martin Scorsese is to gangsters and Steven Spielberg is to aliens, or James Cameron and his endless obsession with the Titanic. ANCHORMAN, 40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN, KNOCKED UP, SUPERBAD, STEP BROTHERS… the list goes on with only a very small handful of flops. (i.e. – YEAR ONE, and the less severe failure of FUNNY PEOPLE) As a producer, he has helped redefine funny, but I’m not all that interested in talking about Judd Apatow right now.

No, in all fairness, I give credit to Jason Segel (BAD TEACHER) and director Nicholas Stoller (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) this time around. Segel and Stoller co-wrote THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT, their follow-up project to THE MUPPETS, which also had Segel and Stoller in the same acting, writing and directing roles and showed audiences they are a force to reckon with in the coming years of comedy. Jason Segel stars in THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT as Tom Solomon, a talented sous-chef in San Fransisco on track to one day realize his dream of running his own restaurant.

Emily Blunt (THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA) co-stars as Tom’s British girlfriend Violet Barnes, to whom he proposes imperfectly amidst awkwardness in the opening moments of the film, setting the tone of the journey that has just begun for these two lovably flawed characters. Violet is pursuing a post-doctorate path in psychology with hopes of landing a tenured career as a collegiate professor, but her dreams are proving elusive… until her luck changes. Unfortunately, this change in Violet and Tom’s lives means entirely different and polar opposite things for the couple deemed “perfect for each other” by family and friends.

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is ballsy for a comedy, with it’s 124-minute running time, but the time flies and the film never drags. As I watched, I became quickly become attached, no… emotionally invested in these two wonderfully detailed human beings. Segel and Blunt have a smile-inducing, naturally pleasant chemistry that makes it damn near impossible not to feel all warm and fuzzy inside and it breaks my heart whenever things don’t go as planned. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is a humorous, witty alternative to the sappy, fake soap operas that finds truth in it’s self-deprecating realism.

This is a situational comedy at it’s finest. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is the feature length yin to television’s MARRIED WITH CHILDREN yang. Where Al and Peggy Bundy make us smile in their shared misery and pessimism with each other, Tom and Violet make us smile with their mutual cuteness and optimism, and those are the stakes. This is a film for the realistic romantic at heart, not the pipe dreamers who naively think everything can be peachy and perfect forever. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT delivers a slice of real life, enhanced for laughter, but reminds us that while our plans rarely ever go as we’d hoped, even when everything falls apart, there’s always still some glimmer of hope if we really want it bad enough… why?

Because, damn it, for better or worse, life is what we make of it and that’s the journey that Tom and Violet take us on in THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT. Lovers, sweethearts, parents, couples, however you define yourselves, there’s plenty to enjoy and take away from this film. The supporting cast certainly adds to this broad appeal. Chris Pratt (PARKS AND RECREATION) plays Tom’s best friend and fellow sous chef Alex, a somewhat moronic, impulsively immature man. Alison Brie (COMMUNITY) plays Violet’s stuck up, selfish sister with theoretical high standards. These two popular TV stars bring a much appreciated depth of comedic charisma to the film, both of whom are sort of like the worst-case scenario versions of Tom and Violet from a parallel dimension. Curiously enough, these two lost causes ultimately play a crucial role in what will become of Tom and Violet.

As always, the list of appearances in THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT holds true to past Judd Apatow films, including David Paymer and Mimi Kennedy as Tom’s parents, Kevin Hart, Molly Shannon, Brian Posehn, and Rhys Ifans as the head of Violet’s department of psychology. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT works so well, not just because of the writing and shear comedic talent of the cast, but also because the circumstances are real, even if the situations are often just within the borders of awkwardly absurd. What Jason Segel does so well is he combines his faintly child-like persona with a sort of everyman philosopher of life.

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT begins in San Fransisco, but spends much of it’s time in a colder, less visually appealing locale, adding to the building tension and looming fear of self-destruction. The creative team of Segel and Stoller capture several contemporary cultural details that add greatly to the relevance of the film’s story, but they do so in such a brilliant tongue-in-cheek manor that produces laughs without losing it’s true-to-life edge. I especially enjoyed the ending of the film, which I can only say instantly led to my conjuring up the newest addition to the reality television game shows… see if you don’t envision the same.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH was the first major Hollywood film to address the wandering eye ( and libido ) of long time, staid husbands. The subject was explored in greater depth in the 60′s with the anthology A GUIDE FOR THE MARRIED MAN and in the 80′s with THE WOMAN IN RED ( except Gene Wilder just fixated on Kelly LeBrock as the title character ). As it turns out RED is based on a European film where the rules of marriage are quite a bit looser than in the good ole’ USA. And they’ve been doing many more films across the pond about hubbys gettin’ frisky over the years. For the new film THE SALT OF LIFE, we get a chance to see Italy’s take on love and marriage ( and a little something on the side ).

SALT tells the story of Gianni ( writer/ director Gianni Di Gregorio ), a schlubby sixty-something married father who’s sure that he’s missing out on all the action. He’s retired, collecting a pension, and sharing a spacious apartment in Rome with his still working wife, college age daughter, and her boyfriend ( who seems to always be staying over ). After fixing breakfast for his wife, Gianni spends much of his day dashing to the home of his frail, aging momma. But , prodded by his lawyer buddy Alfonso, Gianni’s on a quest to score. His mamma’s luscious live-in nurse is a possibility. How about his downstairs neighbor, a party girl with an enormous St, Bernard ( Gianni takes the beast for long walks in the park ) ? But then there’s the overly friendly, now grown-up daughter of one of his mamma’s poker pals. Maybe he should rekindle the passion with an old flame from years past. At one point, Alfonso enlists Gianni as his ‘ wing man ‘ when two blonde bombshell sisters arrive at his office. Later Alfonso gives Gianni a male performance pill along with confusing directions to a brothel ( can he arrives before the effects wear off? ). After his many calamities, will he ever succeed?

This is a gentle character study that has a timeless quality. It’s not gut-busting hilarious, but Gianni’s hapless attempts should make you smile ( or perhaps wince in recognition ). It’s hard to stay angry at him for his wanderlust due to the sprightly performance of Di Gregorio. He gets terrific support from the actors playing his friends and family and particularly the bevy of beautiful actresses that cross his path. The cast along with the beautiful Rome location work makes THE SALT OF LIFE a slighty spicy look at a retiree who’s still a kid ( maybe a horny teenager ) at heart.

Overall Rating: 3.5 Out of 5 Stars

Every decade or so, one or two film makers become a major force in cinema comedies. The 1980′s saw the influence of ZAZ (AKA Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and David Zucker) starting with AIRPLANE! and RUTHLESS PEOPLE . For the last ten years or so Judd Apatow (40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN) and Todd Phillips (OLD SCHOOL) have ruled the comedy roost. In between there’s the Farrelly brothers (Peter and Bobby), former sitcom writers who invaded the multiplexes with the big box office laugh fests DUMB AND DUMBER and THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (which opened the gates for the return of the R-rated movie comedy). When interviewed during their salad days, the guys related their affection for a decades old comedy team and vowed to bring them back to the big screen (they even appeared on a tribute  NBC-TV special hosted by their KINGPIN star Woody Harrelson). After some recent under performing movie missteps (HALL PASS couldn’t connect with today’s raunchy comedy crowds), they’ve decided to finally put together their dream project/love letter. The end result is THE THREE STOOGES. Several fans of the trio have been quite vocal on the internet decrying this new film as sacrilege. They say that this will tarnish the good name of the classic comedians. Really? The Stooges?  While they were still with us, the fellas did plenty of material that was not exactly sterling. Remember SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES? What about the crudely produced 60′s cartoons (from the “Clutch Cargo” folks) with cheaply made color live-action intros? A decade later “The Three Robotic Stooges” from Hanna-Barbera (a real low point for HB-and that’s saying something!) premiered on CBS Saturday mornings. And the boys nearly co-starred in BLAZING STEWARDESSES (Emile Sitka was to replace the ailing Larry Fine, but Moe’s death put the kibosh on this!). So whether this should be done is beside the point. It’s here. Let’s see how it works as a film..

First, here’s a quick stooge history lesson (a Stooges 101). The Three Stooges were a comedy group assembled by vaudeville comic Ted Healy in the early 1920′s. They were Shemp Howard, his brother Moe, and wild-haired violinist Larry Fine. When Hollywood beckoned they were featured performers in a couple of Fox films. Shemp left the team for a solo career and was replaced by another Howard brother, Jerry AKA Curly. They made some features and shorts with MGM before the stooges split from Healy. Soon they were signed by the struggling Columbia Pictures for a series of short subjects (16 to 18 minute films sometimes called two reelers) over the course of 25 years! When Curly retired due to illness, brother Shemp came back to replace him. When Shemp died, veteran comic Joe Besser filled the spot till the final short in 1959. The advent of television had pretty much shuttered all the studios’ shorts departments. Looked like the end of the road for the trio. But suddenly TV made them more popular than ever! Columbia’s Screen Gems division sold the stooges shorts to local TV stations around the country during the heyday of the kiddie show host (usually aired during the afternoon with local ads, a live audience of youngsters, and assorted short cartoons). They were in demand again. Comic vet Joe DeRita (AKA Curly Joe) replaced Besser and the fellows packed stadiums, hit the TV variety shows, and even starred in new feature films from Columbia (beginning with HAVE ROCKET, WILL TRAVEL). No doubt the young Farrelly boys were glued to their sets watching the boys during this big resurgence. Sadly the last of the stooges, DeRita passed away in 1993.

In putting together this new screen romp, the Farrellys are aiming squarely for family audiences (the ads tout its PG rating) since the stooges’s rapid slapstick and cartoon look always connected with kids. Now this is not an autobiography of the team (been done), nor is it a period piece set during the stooges golden era (late thirties, early forties). It features the most popular trio 0f Moe, Larry, and Curly, set in today’s world with a good deal of topical humor. As in the Brady Bunch feature films, the stooges don’t quite seem to belong (Gene Siskel used to say that they were always out-of-place) in these modern settings which gives the film the old fish (or fishes) out of water premise. There’s one plot flowing through the film’s 90 minutes, but there are title cards and animation inserted to make it appear that three new short subjects have been strung together. The story harkens back to the plots of several of the old shorts. The boys leave the orphanage where they grew up (on the entrance sign it states “est. 1934″, the same year as the release of the first stooge short, WOMAN HATERS-nice inside joke) in order to raise $830,000 and save it from closing (shades of THE BLUES BROTHERS). They get into many mishaps along the way and get entangled in a plot to do away with the rich husband of a femme fatale’ (Sofia Vergara). Although they’re in 2012, the stooges remain in somewhat familiar story territory.

Quite a lot of publicity has been stirred up by the Farrellys about the casting of the comic icons. Russell Crowe is Moe. Now it’s Benicio Del Toro. Sean Penn’s a lock as Larry. He’s out, Paul Giamotti’s in. Jim Carrey’s gonna wear prosthetics and a fat suit to be Curly. Nope, maybe Jack Black will shave his head. Finally three TV vets were cast who bring a great deal of energy and skill in re-creating the trio (hard to imagine those higher-profile stars doing a better job). The real discovery is Chris Diamantopoulos as Moe (Chris is a vet of several TV shows including “24″). He’s quick-tempered, easily frustrated, and dishes out punishment (and takes a lot) with authority. Surprisingly he shows some vulnerability and tenderness in a couple of scenes (A sensitive Moe!). His nicknames for by-standers (he calls a stout matron “Jumbotron”) are a hoot! The biggest star of the three may be Sean Hayes who got an Emmy for his work as Jack on the long-running “Will and Grace”. He displays his expert comic timing as the frizzy-haired Larry. While in the old shorts Larry would blend into the background, Hayes’s Larry gives the film some of its biggest laughs. And he can take a smack almost as well as the original. Interesting side note: both actors played comedians in TV bio films. Diamantopoulos played Robin Williams in “Behind the Camera: the Unauthorized Story of ‘Mork and Mindy’” while Hayes was Jerry in “Martin and Lewis.” And then there’s perhaps the most beloved and imitated stooge. Curly is played by the former “MadTV” cast member Will Sasso. He more than brings the required manic energy to the role, while reproducing the child-like nature of the groups’ wide-eyed innocent. Curly always seemed to be off on another dimension from his two pals and Sasso gets that, too. I was concerned about his being taller than his team mates, but that was not an issue after a few minutes in. During several sequences, the actors are like a well oiled machine as they engage in a rapid bopping, eye-poking, slapping whirlwind worthy of a top drill team or dance troupe. There have been several recreations on TV of the boys over the years: SCTV (with the legendary John Candy as Curly), ABC’s Fridays (with Larry David as Larry!), Fox’s In Living Color, and the ABC bio movie (produced by Mel Gibson), but Chris, Sean, and Will are the best yet.

And the guys have some great supporting players (besides the talented youngsters that play the trio at age ten). The biggest scene stealer has to be Larry David as the orphanage’s Sister Mary Mengele. Excitable and full of fury, he holds his own against the stooges and several overly cloying orphans (guess the kids are there for young audience identification. Seemed like a lot of forced pathos). Craig Bierko is terrific as the sap who enlists the stooges in the murder plot, but then suffers the most abuse from them. Vergara is as lovely as she is on “Modern Family,” but here we get to see her ruthless side as a variation of the classic double (and triple) crossing film noir bombshell. The other ladies don’t have as much to work with. Jennifer Hudson gets to belt a bit of gospel as one of the nuns, but spends the rest of her time responding the boys’ antics. The real waste is the great Jane Lynch in the somber, bland role of Mother Superior (one of the best comic actors working today, and she doesn’t get to crack wise?). There’s a welcome cameo from Bill Murray’s brother Brian as a priest and a very satisfying sequence involving the cast of a much reviled (but strangely popular) reality TV show (perhaps cathartic is more appropriate). A few moments lag, but there’s a whole lotta’ fun packed in these ninety minutes ( try to stick around for the end credits music video ). You might find yourself laughing more than the kids. Like the Farrellys, I watched those black and white gems on my favorite TV host’s show (hey Cactus Pete’s Funny Company!) and this new film gave me some  nostalgic amusement. There’s some clever sight gags and slapstick along with clever riffs on time-tested bits. It’s silly and crude, but I laughed a lot in spite of my “adult sophistication.” You stooge-iphiles need not worry. This is a film that captures the spirit of the old classics and is filled with affection for those ’chowder-heads.’ Should you give this flick a look? Why ‘soitenly’!

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

A movie from Israel about the politics of academia set against a backdrop of Talmudic studies might not sound like a fun time at the movies but FOOTNOTE is far from the dry, scholarly tome the premise suggests. It’s actually a low-key comedy about the desire for recognition directed with a great deal of style by Israeli-born, New York-educated Joseph Cedar who won the best screenplay award at Cannes for his clever script. Israel’s entry in this past year’s Academy Awards begins with an extended close-up of older man listening to a speech by his son, a producer of popular books on Jewish culture who’s being honored for academic accomplishments. This shot goes on for several minutes and, though the speaker is acknowledging his legacy, the old man is clearly not happy and the movie sets about telling us why. Eliezer Shkolnik (played by Shlomo Bar Aba ) and his son Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi), are both professors in the Talmudic studies department at the prestigious Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Eliezer is a bitter man who’s dedicated his life to discovering obscure discrepancies in various forms of the Talmud. Not only do few care about his arcane research but he’s seen his theories published by other writers before he has the chance to claim them as his own. Unlike his son, Eliezer is a stubborn traditionalist who rejects new theories and is doomed to obscurity by his colleagues who deny him any recognition beyond the one footnote he once received in the book of a revered scholar. By adopting the changes his father hates, Uriel is popular with his students and his peers. Things improve for Eliezer when he hears that he’s finally going to be given, after twenty years of unrewarded consideration, the prestigious Israel Prize. But there’s some confusion. Is it really Eliezer who’s received the prize or was it meant to go to his son? Uriel knows that if his father discovers the truth, it would absolutely devastate him but as he researches his father’s life in order to write notes for the award, he finds less and less to admire in the old man.

An intelligent comedy that ridicules the ivory towers of academia, the strength of FOOTNOTE is that it works on numerous levels – especially in the way it approaches Eliezer’s complexity as an individual. Is he overrated, deserving of just being a literal footnote of those who achieved true greatness in their field, or has he been unfairly treated by his fellow scholars? Cedar’s filmmaking style is bouncy but overdone, constantly fussed-up with inter-titles, voiceovers, cutesy graphics, and a bombastic musical score. It’s as if he’s trying to overcompensate for what may be perceived as too dry a subject but it’s the comedy aspect of FOOTNOTE that is the most enjoyable. The envy and pettiness among Jews behaving badly is sharply satirized in awkwardly sized rooms, especially in the film’s best sequence when Uriel is trying to convince the group of old scholars squeezed into a closet-sized room to give the award to his father, a scene that gets more humorous and uncomfortable as it plays out. Elizer constantly wears a giant headset, shutting everything around him down just to get some peace, and for the old scholars roles, Cedar casts actors who look just like stereotypical Jewish professors. Both Eliezer and Uriel are comically obsessed with the notion that success can only be found in one’s achievements, that recognition from peers is somehow proof that someone is better at something than everyone else. FOOTNOTE is unique and recommended.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

FOOTNOTE opens today, April 13th in St. Louis at Landmark Theater’s Plaza Frontenac Theater

Before all the big Summer vacation escapes and adventures, some folks want to take time to remember the past and re-connect with old friends. The same is true for the characters in one of the last decade’s most influential comedies. Building on the return of the R rated sex comedy begun with the big box office of THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY in 1998, AMERICAN PIE exploded at the cineplexes in 2000. As SCREAM did with the slasher genre ( or as Siskel and Ebert referred to them, ” the dead teenager movie ” ), PIE brought back to life another genre from many years ago: the youth-oriented sex comedy ( or as S & E called them, ” the horny teenager movie ” ). In the years since the original, its theatrical sequels and a few direct to DVD flicks, the HANGOVER films and BRIDESMAIDS have shot to the top of the list of movie grossers ( in money and raunch ). So can the old PIE gang return in AMERICAN REUNION and show these cinema upstarts a thing or two ( I mean they’re ” gasp ” in their thirties now! ) ?

As with the original  AMERICAN theatrical trilogy, Jim Levenstein ( Jason Biggs ) is the main focus of this installment. He’s working for a big Chicago company and has made a home with his ” band girl ” Michelle ( Alyson Hannigan ) and his adorable three-year old son. But it seems that the couple have lost that ‘ spark ‘. What could rekindle, or re-ignate said spark? How about a trip back to their home town for the big thirteenth high school reunion ( Hmm, thought most classes get together in five-year increments. Oh well )? They’ll stay with Jim’s dad ( Eugene Levy ), a widower of the past three years who may try to get back out in the dating scene, and meet up with the old gang. Kevin ( Thomas Ian Nicholas ) is a house-husband to a very successful woman. Finch ( Eddie Kaye Thomas ) arrives with tales of globe-trotting adventure. Oz ( Chris Klein ) has perhaps made the biggest splash as a TV sports talk show host. He’s living the LA high life in an opulent mansion with a hot blonde girlfriend ( Katrina Bowden ). Except for an embarrassing stint on a TV reality / talent competition , Oz seems to have it all. And then there’s Stiffler ( Sean William Scott ), still a wild man even in the corporate world. All’s going well with the big get-together prior to the main event, until the ladies from their pasts shake things up. With Kevin, it’s old high school sweetheart Vicky ( Tara Reid ) and Oz meets his former flame, ‘ choir girl’ Heather ( Mena Suvari ). Jim is stunned, not by a former girlfriend, but by his next door neighbor. Turns out the little girl who Jim babysat is now a very stunning 18-year-old woman who wants to celebrate her birthday by acting on that crush she had on her old sitter. What’s going to happen to all these relationships during this long wild weekend back home?

So, is this reunion worth attending? The script hits a few bumps ( The Jim and Michelle conflict is a bit tired ), but there are some big laughs ( although we can see the set-ups sometimes ) and the cast is very eager to please. In the last few years, many of them have fought their demons publicly , so here they’re given another chance to show us their comedic skills. Biggs is still a master of embarrassment and humiliation ( this time, the now chunkier actor is referred to as an Adam Sandler clone! ). Kudos for the addition of Dania Ramirez as Michelle’s old band geek buddy who’s now a smokin’ hot bartender ( a bit of ethnic diversity helps spice things up ). Most get their chance to shine, although several orignal classmates only have glorified walk-ons ( you could miss them if you go on a bathroom break ). John Cho does return as the guy who launched ‘ MILF ’ into cinema lexicon. Speaking of that term, the cougar queen, Stifler’s Mom ( Jennifer Coolidge ) is back too and has some great scenes with her Christopher Guest team-mate Levy ( be sure and stick around for the end credits for a great bonus bit ). The most dependable laugh-getter of the bunch maybe Scott as the oddly endearing Stifler. By all rights this coarse, clueless oaf should be the villain, but somehow we feel bit protective of him ( to paraphrase one of his pals, ” Stifler may be a d**k, but he’s our d**k” ). The guy’s like an overly frisky puppy that goes right for your leg, Annoying, but still lovable. This may be in part because of the zeal the talented Mr. Scott infuses into every line reading ( look for him as a sweeter, but still dense  guy in GOON ). The movie’s a tad too long at just under two hours, but you’ll have a good deal of fun spending time with the old crew. They’re not horny teenagers anymore, but as the Who classic ( and recent film ) states, the kids are all right

Overall Rating: 3.5 Out of 5 Stars

Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures are reteaming with Todd Phillips for “The Hangover Part III,” the third installment in the record-breaking comedy franchise, which is slated for release on May 24, 2013. “The Hangover Part III” will star Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis, who will reprise the roles of Phil, Stu and Alan, collectively known to moviegoers as “the Wolfpack.” In the previous two films, the three friends’ attempts to plan a celebration have resulted in disaster for them, but led to a combined billion-dollar success at the worldwide box office.

Phillips said, “I’m so excited to embark on another ‘Hangover’ film with Bradley, Ed and Zach. We’re going to surprise a lot of people with the final chapter we have planned. It will be a fitting conclusion to our three-part opera of mayhem, despair and bad decisions.”

Phillips is writing the screenplay with Craig Mazin, who also collaborated with him on the screenplay for “The Hangover Part II.” Phillips is again producing the film under his Green Hat Films banner, together with Dan Goldberg. Thomas Tull and Scott Budnick will serve as executive producers.

In making the announcement, Jeff Robinov, President Warner Bros. Pictures Group said, “We are extremely pleased to have Todd Phillips and the guys back together again for another ‘Hangover,’ and we look forward to collaborating with them on another great movie.”

Production on the film is projected to begin in September 2012.

A presentation of Warner Bros. Pictures, in association with Legendary Pictures, “The Hangover Part III” will be distributed worldwide by Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company.

“What does it take to get America’s attention?”

The perfect tagline for an introspective short film about American politics and a skewed sense of morality. Written and directed by Rebecca Rojer, ASHLEY/AMBER is a 22-minute short film starring Diane Guerrero as Ashley, an attractive young woman who recently lost her boyfriend to the war. Heartbroken and conflicted by her loss, Ashley struggles to reconcile her boyfriend’s duty and commitment to fighting for his country with her pain and sadness, even a little anger over losing her loved one.

Ashley is also struggling financially, so following a current American trend (and let’s be honest, a global trend), Ashley responds to an ad to make some quick cash performing in a fly-by-night, amateur online sex video under the assumed name of Amber. Now, not only is Ashley conflicted by her boyfriend’s death, combined with the constant pressure from her anti-war activist friends to protest with them and speak publicly about her own experience of loss, she now has the added weight of having sold herself to pay the bills looming on her conscience. Ashley will soon discover just how volatile, fickle and hypocritical society can sometimes be about sex, war and free speech.

ASHLEY/AMBER is a small, independent project, as are most short films. This drama is gritty and honest, but the pacing is decidedly slow and methodical. At times, I do feel the editing lingers just the tiniest bit too long, leaving the camera to linger just beyond the point of comfortable observation, but I also feel that perhaps this is intentional, hoping to convey a sense of relentless voyeurism. In a society obsessed with reality TV and celebrity gossip, ASHLEY/AMBER also touches on these themes indirectly, even if unintentional. As Ashley comes to terms with her situation in life, with the circumstances she is both forced into and entered into by choice, she takes a chance and reaches out as an anti-war activist but finds that instead of her outspoken message of peace making a positive impact, the two-sided Internet proves to be the curse that subjects her life to further ridicule.

Diane Guerrero does a fascinating job, portraying an emotionally scarred woman stunted by her confusion and pulled apart by a society that deems sexual freedom far more morally reprehensible than a controversial war and the corrupted comfort we have developed for violence in general. Her emotions are reserved, but dwell just beneath the surface of her skin. ASHLEY/AMBER has some very minor production flaws, but the message and direction of the film on display from filmmaker Rebecca Rojer are of a respectably high caliber. This is an intelligent film, even subversively, darkly humorous film on a subconscious level. ASHLEY/AMBER plays as a smarter, far more poignant counterbalance to the trend of mindless, frivolous reality programming that clogs the bandwidth of television and the Internet. Rojer clearly has a strong vision for storytelling and encourage her to follow this path and discover in what direction this compass will lead her.

ASHLEY/AMBER was nominated for a Golden Berlin Bear award for Best Short Film in 2011 and can be purchased in Europe as part of a DVD compilation titled BACK TO POLITICS.

Filmmaker’s Background:

Originally from Maplewood, NJ, Rebecca produced her first short films and animations as a student at Columbia High School. In 2004 she was selected to participate in the William H. Cosby Future Filmmakers Workshop at NYU and the Innerspark-CSSA Animation Program at CalArts.

Rebecca currently studies film production in the Visual and Environmental Studies department at Harvard University. She also illustrates for the Harvard Lampoon. Her most recent film, Beauty Machine, received an Award of Merit in the Accolade Film Competition and has been selected to screen at Anthology Film Archives in New York as part of the New Filmmakers Program.

Can a single guy and a single gal be best friends without romance ( and perhaps sex ) messing things up? This question was probably best explored many years ago with WHEN HARRY MET SALLY ( and countless uninspired rom-coms since the 1989 classic ). The new film FRIENDS WITH KIDS puts the conflict right up front. Yeah, these two are BFFs and yeah, they procreate. Now, Harry and Sally did hook-up, but it was not part of a well thought-out, negotiated plan.  These modern New Yorkers want parenthood without romantic committment. Can they really pull it off, or will they go down the path from 23 years ago?

Well, let’s meet these friends prior to the kids. Julie ( Jennifer Westfeldt ) is a gorgeous thirty-something who’s hesitant about jumping back into the old dating pool after a bad break-up with an old beau. Jason ( Adam Scott ) is having a great time splashing about in the deep end of said pool. He’s not exactly a ” player ” , but his relationships don’t last from weeks into months. The two live on different floors of a swanky Manhattan apartment building and are friends with two married couples. Leslie ( Maya Rudolph ) and Alex ( Chris O’Dowd ) are squabbling ( well, more  like teasing ) long-time married, harried parents. Missy ( Kristen Wiig ) and Ben ( Jon Hamm ) are newly marrieds who have a tough time keeping their hands off each other ( lotsa’ risky public action! ). After a group dinner, Julie and Jason hatch a plan. They both want to experience parenthood while still young, but don’t want to commit to a life partner. They’ll make a baby, and commit to taking care of the tot, trading off duties and time. But once the child is past infancy ( and Julie’s back in club-shape ), they’ll both start dating again. The other couples are perplexed by the plan ( some more than others ), but offer their support. Soon Julie hooks up with a hunky single dad ( Ed Burns ) while Jason finds his dream gal in a shapely Broadway star ( Megan Fox ). Things seem to be going great for both new parents, but can these buddies really keep their parenting separate from their new relationships?

For most of its running time FRIENDS WITH KIDS is a smart, witty Big Apple relationship romp that’s more Nora Ephron than Woody Allen. The main problem is that it’s being marketed almost as a BRIDESMAIDS reunion with Wiig, Rudolph, Hamm, and O’Dowd featured predominately in the ads. Sure there are a couple of baby excrement gags ( a tired staple of baby rom-coms now ), but that’s as close as this film comes to the raunch of last Summer’s smash flick. And there are only three or four scenes involving all the couples. The majority of screen time is devoted to Westfeldt and Scott. Both are talented actors ( with Westfeldt pulling triple duty as screenwriter/director/star ), but they have little chemistry together ( as opposed to Scott’s TV job on ” Parks and Recreations ” where he sizzles with Amy Poehler ). It’s tough to accept Stone as this great ladies’ man, while Westfeldt’s character comes of a tad whiny in many scenes. As for those other two couples, Hamm is given little to do until a big confrontation in which he channels a bit of the Don Draper arrogance and insensitivity. Wiig is given even less to do besides drink and glare at Hamm. Her wild, zany comic persona is in small supply. The more interesting couple may be Rudolph and O’Dowd. They have an easy rapport and great comic timing. His character is six years her junior and often is in the child role ( like a goofy adolescent ) with her in their scenes. Rudolph’s a great big sister to Westfeldt- supportive with a great B.S. detector. Fox tries to shake her big movie diva ( rhymes with witch ) persona and gain some indie film cred, but comes off as her usual stiff screen self especially in her scenes with the ensemble. You just can’t buy her and Scott together. Speaking of indie film cred, Burns has that in spades, but his dream guy dad just seem to be a good-natured doormat. He’s there mostly to be supportive of Julie. The NYC location work is great, as is a jaunt to the slopes. Unfortunately all the sparkling dialogue comes crashing to a halt after a big holiday gone bad and the film marches into rom-com cliche-land. The ending is almost cringe-worthy. Ms. Westfeldt is a talented film maker. Let’s hope her next effort can avoid some of these pitfalls. She and her fellow actors are deserving of a better, less predictable screen story from start to finish.

Overall rating: 3 Out of 5 stars

PROJECT X is not an off-shoot of the TV talent competition or a remake of the Matthew Broderick chimp thriller, but the latest in what seems to be an endless entry in the found footage / hand-held video genre, a film subset ( or conceit ) that is quickly wearing out its welcome at the multiplex. I suppose it really exploded with the box office smash over ten years ago with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and continues today with the horror series PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Just weeks ago the format was used in the super-powered fantasy CHRONICLE. Now the shakey-cam is utilized for this new ” party ” comedy ( not the first found comedy - THE VIRGINITY HIT was a 2010 dud ). Will X fire up lots of big screen yucks or go down like warm stale beer?

The plot ( to be it loosely ) centers around the 24 hours of the eighteenth birthday of Thomas  played by Thomas Mann ( who starred in IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY, one of this film’s few movie veterans ). His parents are headed out of town to celebrate their anniversary ( hmmm, really? ) and have left son Thomas with many strict rules for use of the home (oo-kay). The birthday boy’s best pal Costa ( Oliver Cooper ), along with JB ( Jonathon Daniel Brown ) decide to help throw the party to end all parties all while being video documented by the mostly silent ( and more than a bit creepy ) Dax ( Dax Flame ). We follow them at school as they invite their classmates ( who don’t really know Thomas ), purchase some herb in a shady part of town, and pick up party supplies. Soon the sun sets and the guests arrive. And arrive. And ( … well you get the picture ). Thanks to Dax ( and other video devices and TV news feeds ) we’re in the middle of this raging, out-of-control, endless night.

But is this party worth attending? Well it would help to have some interesting characters involved. Thomas, Costa, and JB are a riff on youthful comic trios used in films since THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN all through the vastly superior SUPERBAD. The hero Thomas is the really, nice guy who gets swept up into bad boy behavior ( ala’ RISKY BUSINESS ). JB is the bespectacled uber-nerd, who might just get lucky despite his cluelessness. And then there’s the ringleader, the crass motor-mouth Costa. When he’s not waxing nostalgic on the glories of Queens, he’s going out of his way to be crude and crass to everyone he meets. And he’s playing to the camera constantly ( he favors himself a future viral video superstar ). At least we can hope this little weasel gets his comeuppance. I did find their security team ( two over-eager junior high age guys in bright yellow windbreakers ) a bit amusing. The producers try to shoe-horn a romance subplot into the fracas. Thomas lusts after super hot brunette bad-girl Alexis while not appreciating best pal, blonde gird-girl Kirby ( almost literally the girl-next-door ). Or maybe he will go past the buddy stage. It’s the classic ” Archie-Betty-Veronica ” triangle once again! But without the complexity of those comic book icons. I don’t know when I’ll felt so ancient watching in a movie theatre. The twenty-something target audience was erupting in roars during the wild party scenes while I was using my interior calculator to add up the quickly mounting property damage. PROJECT X is an ode to excess, irresponsibility,and destruction. When the camera not zooming in on the revelers mugging into the camera as they dance and imbibe, we’re treated to random acts of cruelty ( blowing pot smoke in the lil’ pup’s face then tying it to helium balloons-calling PETA! ). I guess we’re suppose to laugh at the old squares in the neighborhood trying to get some sleep. Most of the guys here are selfish pigs while the girls ( except for Kirby ) are there to shake their stuff and drop their tops. One of the main marketing points for the film is the involvement of Todd Phillips as one of the producers. Well, this film made his Hangover flicks look subtle and subdued. It’s tough to laugh when the film makers glorify antics that get ‘ spring-breakers ” killed every year. In that aspect, the movie veers from sloppy to contemptable.There’s little consequences to anything here! Although the film clocks in at 90 minutes, it more than wears out its welcome. PROJECT X goes from party mode to gruelling endurance test. Shut out the lights and call it a night! And stay off my lawn, you darn movie!

Overall Rating: 1/2 out of 5 stars

Sometimes film makers can unknowingly tap into a certain public movement or trend when making a piece of entertainment. This can be even more surprizing considering the long gestation period of movies ( usually scripts can collect dust on a desk or shelf before the cameras roll ). The trend I’m referring to with this flick is the recent occupy movement that took root in many cities across the country this past Fall and Summer ( the expanded trailer for this coming Summer’s THE DARK KNIGHT RISES seem to be picking up on those protests, too ). Well, before Batman leaps into the economic battlefield, here comes the new comedy from David Wain ( WET, HOT AMERICAN SUMMER and ROLE MODELS ) called WANDERLUST. In this, a young married couple decide to stop their quest for the ” almighty dollar ” and return to a simpler time of communes ( when hippies walked the Earth! ). Of course they’re not the only movie big city duo to get back to basics ( THE EGG AND I  and LOST IN AMERICA are great examples ), but this film taps into that 60′s spirit that was floating through those make-shift tents and towns that sprung up in city parks late last year. And this film shows the lighter, flip-side to last year’s commune flick, MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. So it’s riding a recent a wave of sentiment, but does it deliver the big laughs with the relevancy?

Linda ( Jennifer Aniston ) and George ( Paul Rudd ) are upwardly mobile young marrieds in Manhattan. Suddenly their city life crumbles ( their jobs go down the drain ) and George hatches a plan to work with his brother Rick ( Ken Marino ) down in Atlanta until they can regroup and return to the Big Apple. Desperate to pull off the highway for the night, they encounter a bed and breakfast deep off the trail, in the wilds of Georgia run by the odd, mature flower child Kathy ( Kerri Kenney ). Soon the couple find that the place is part of a sixties-style commune started by Carvin ( Alan Alda ), but really run by the group’s enigmatic guru Seth ( Justin Theroux ). After a wild, but restful night George and Linda resume their journey and arrive at the sprawling suburban home of brother Rick and his family. Quickly George clashes with his obnoxious sibling and he decides that a return to nature at Carvin’s may be just the thing for himself and Linda. Can they really change their lifestyle and fit in with the commune’s free spirits ( and wild eccentrics )? And what about the plans of an evil developer to turn the Carvin’s land into a big, ugly casino ( pave paradise, put up some slot machines )?

Once again Wain has assembled a group of terrific comic actors, many from his previous films and his superb TV work ( from ” The State” to ” Childrens Hospital ” ). Co-writer Marino scores big laughs as the insensitive idiot Rick while SNL vet Michaela Watkins is funny ( and a bit sad ) as Rick’s frustrated, numb wife Marissa. Besides Kinney the commune is filled with terrific talent like Lauren Ambrose ( ” Six Feet Under” ) as Earth-mother Almond, ” MADTV” vet Jordan Peele as her old man Rodney, and Kathryn Hahn ( OUR IDIOT BROTHER ) as annoyed feminist Karen. Malin Akerman is the ultimate sexy hippie chick Eva, while Alda is his usual sly, delightful self riffing on his left-leaning rep. Many readers of the tabloids and gossip site may flock to this flick to get a better look at the new Anniston beau, Mr. Theroux. Well Mr. T scores many big laughs as the pretentious, blowhard leader, whose tech knowledge ended a decade or so ago. He and Aniston work well in their few scenes together, but newstand mag fans don’t get a chance to see the new ” it ” couple sizzling up the screen. Most of Aniston’s romantic scenes are with her movie hubby and they crackle with energy ( as does an early scene with some TV execs ). With this film, and the recent HORRIBLE BOSSES, she solidifies her status as one of our top comic actresses. They’re all superb, but the film really belongs to the endlessly charming Mr. Rudd. Whether he’s doing slapstick farming schtick or delivering a very R-rated pep talk to himself at a mirror, Rudd effortlessly brings home the same kind of big laughs he did as OUR IDIOT BROTHER. He’s a great, goofy leading ( every ) man for our times. The movie itself goes on a bit too long and its ending can be seen all the way up Highway 75, but it’s a pleasure to see this talented group tweak the noses of the 1% and the 99% ( I’ll raise my hands and rub my fingers together, since clapping is too aggressive, man ).

Overall rating: Four Out of Five Stars

So, Valentine’s Day was a few days ago. Doesn’t mean it’s too late for another romantic comedy. Now this one hedges its bets by trying to appeal to adrenaline lovin’ guys. No simple hearts and flowers stuff like THE VOW are going on here. Action director McG injects some Bond and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE style thrills into the genre with THIS MEANS WAR. But can he rescue the wounded rom-com after recently being roughed up by the likes of SJP, Heigl, and Kutcher?

WAR starts up right at the end of a dangerous Hong Kong adventure. CIA agents and best pals Franklin AKA FDR ( Chris Pine ) and Tuck ( Tom Hardy ) are there to break up some dirty deal instigated by Heinrich ( Til Schweiger ). After much mayhem the guys return to LA HQ where they’re called on the carpet by their boss Collins ( Angela Bassett ) and assigned desk duty. We then meet adorable product tester Lauren ( Reese Witherspoon ), who’s great at her job but unlucky in love. She keeps running into her ex and his new gal all the time! After much prodding by her best pal, harried married mom Trish ( Chelsea Handler ) Lauren goes on an internet dating site. Back with the spies, Tuck’s got the blues. He’s still not quite over his divorce and misses his little boy. One night he decides to go online. And what do you know? He finds Lauren’s profile! FDR ( no internet dating for this “player” ) volunteers to shadow their meeting. Oddly enough ( not really ) FDR bumps into Lauren after her drink with Tuck and they exchange sparks. Soon Lauren is dating both guys and they discover their mutual new flame. They agree to behave as gentlemen ( like that’ll work ). I mean with all those cool spy gizmos at their disposal? C’mon! In addition to all the one-upmanship, that nasty old Heinrich is heading to the states to get revenge on the two buds. Can FDR and Tuck stay BFFs and keep Lauren from finding out about their agreement and their line of work before that angry German catches up to them?

It’s strange for this to come out so closely on the heels of the brutal spy thriller SAFE HOUSE. In that film , the Agency’s full of ruthless backstabbers and cruel torturers. The CIA in McG’s film is a fun place with cool toys and co-workers that don’t mind helping you out with a new gal. The offices are plush and slick like Ari Gold’s offices in TV’s Entourage. Then again the LA shown here is a fantasy fun park where you can run into the ex and show him up with your new fella. McG shoots the town with a golden glow, but can’t seem to bring a lot of life to the plot until the obligatory fight scenes and car chase. He edits those so frantically that you can barely tell who’s doing what to whom ( do you really needt o cut every two seconds? ). The actors can only do so much with this predictable script. It’s tough to believe that Witherspoon’s Lauren would be such a disaster in the dating pool. The clueless character is a waste of her considerable acting talents. Lauren’s more of a prize than a person. For a rom-com she doesn’t have much chemistry with her leading men. Hardy’s Tuck is too quiet and sullen for this light fare. Pine seems to be still in Captain Kirk mode, but can still throw out a funny line or gesture. These are two fine actors, but they don’t really gel as pals. Pine’s a Roger Moore type of spy while Hardy’s in the Daniel Craig vein. Speaking of chemistry. Witherspoon has that in spades with Handler’s Trish, who seems to be living vicariously through Lauren. Handler’s deadpan delivery makes a terrific contrast to the flighty Lauren character. A movie about those two very different woman would be much more interesting than this sophomoric cloak and dagger,dating farce. Everyone ( including the locations and vehicles ) are very attractive, but very forgettable. And shame on the producers for invoking Mad Magazine’s classic Spy Vs. Spy in the advertising. Now those spy guys are really funny!

Overall Rating: Two and a Half Out of Five Stars

Big kudos to the fine folks at MGM Limited Edition DVD-R! They’ve dug deep in the vaults for a true oddity in the world of cinema and television ( sitcoms, to be more precise ) ! I will tell anyone who asks that my absolute favorite TV situation comedy of all time is that early sixties gem ” The Dick Van Dyke Show” ( desert island, only one TV comedy, no hesitation! ). Well one of the few people with even more admiration and affection for this bit of comic perfection is comedy writer and pop culture master Mark Evanier. One of the sites I’ve bookmarked ( and if you love entertainment  you should too ) is his website/ blog newsfromme.com . In 2007 he alerted his readers to DON”T WORRY WE’LL THINK OF A TITLE was airing on the Turner Classic Movie cable channel. He had seen it with his family while they were vacationing in Pismo Beach in 1966. It was playing on a double bill with WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR, DADDY? He says that unlike that film, TITLE  did not have a professional studio printed poster, but was promoted with a hand lettered sign! That should’ve been a clue to the film’s quality.

This is quite an oddity. I was shocked that Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie had made a feature film toward the end of their time as Buddy Sorrel and Sally Rogers, and I had not heard of it. Well, it’s probably because it’s a tough slog to sit through. What little plot the film has concerns a group of Eastern European spies ( one of those made up, cold war spots ) who believe that Morey’s character is a defecting astronut. The film was shot in 1965 near the end of the Van Dyke series, and dates itself not only with the spy antics, but with a scene set at a college beatnik ( ! ) party. It begins with a caricature of Amsterdam ( maybe drawn by the multi-talented Dick Van Dyke? ) as part of the logo for Courageous Cal Productions ( ? ).The film has the flat look of a one camera sitcom of the era ( the end title says it was shot on the legendary Desilu Studios ) and even employs that wacky sped-up effect that many shows used to balance out some the old, groaner jokes in the script from co-producer/star Amsterdam. The film’s main interest is as a time capsule of TV comics of that era. Morey must have called on many of his pals to stop by for quick cameos, and it’s amazing who he got to show up. We get to see Van Dyke co-stars Richard Deacon ( in a double role as a diner owner and policeman ) and Carl Reiner along with Forrest Tucker, Moe Howard ( solo, sans stooges! ), Cliff Arquette ( as Charley Weaver ), Nick Adams, Milton Berle, Steve Allen, and Irene Ryan ( in her Granny outfit and driving the Clampett truck ). Comic actor Henry Corden ( who soon took over as voice of Fred Flintstone ) shows up as a clumsy spy and an actress named January ( ! ) Jones ( not the “Mad Men ” actress, but perhaps a relative? ) plays Morey and Rose’s diner waitress pal who inherits a bookstore.

The DVD-R is bare bones. Not even a trailer ( was one made?). I was hoping for either a commentary track with the still active Rose Marie, but Evanier reports that she has no fondness for this big screen misfire. Picure and sound quality is sharp and crisp. It’s not a cinema treasure, but if you’re an affeciando of sixties TV ( and of the Van Dyke show ) then you’ll want to add this to your DVD library.

So far this holiday season we moviegoers have seen Martin Scorsese’s magical tribute to cinema’s infancy, HUGO. In that film he uses all the 3D CGI modern movie marvels to recreate the ” flickers” of the early twentieth century. And now from French director Michel Hazanavcius comes his loving homage to old Hollywood, THE ARTIST. But this film differs from HUGO in that it attempts to completely emulate those golden classics. No 3D or CGI used here. Or color. Or sound (there’s a great musical score, but no spoken dialogue-just title cards). You may think that this is just a gimmick, while some movie fans may roll their eyes at having to read the film. Ah, but it’s no gimmick and the title cards do not make viewing the film a chore. On the contrary, I believe this enhances the whole movie experience. It helps to immerse you into this quiet, stylized, alternate universe. If this is your introduction to the wonders of silent cinema, then you are a lucky film fan with many more wonders to explore.

Well, let’s first get back to THE ARTIST. It begins in 1925 at the big premiere of matinee idol George Valentin’s (Jean Dujardin) new big screen action epic. Outside the theatre as George talks to the press, a young flapper film fan, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) accidentally gets past the barriers and is photographed with the screen star. Back at this home, George’s unhappy wife (Penelope Ann Miller) is not amused by the newspaper photos of him with his fan. The next morning, with the paper in hand, Peppy, joins the hopeful actors at the extras casting station inside Kinograph Studios. Peppy and George are re-united as she lands a bit part in his new movie. The two’s paths will cross many times over the next few years. Her star is on the rise as she becomes Kinograph’s new screen sweetheart. George’s star is on a different course. The head of the studio (John Goodman) tells him that sound is the future of motion pictures. George laughs this off as a fad and refuses to join in on the “all-talking” craze. He decides to swim against the tide and produce (and write, star, and direct) his next screen all-silent saga. Can George somehow get his career back on track and perhaps team up with Peppy once again?

Most film fans will recognize that set-up as a riff on A STAR IS BORN (at least three big screen versions) with the “talkies” panic subplot of SINGING IN THE RAIN tossed in. Like a great dish, it’s what the master chief does with these familiar ingredients. And write/director Hazanavcius is quite the cook. I’ve enjoyed his two OSS 117 sixties spy spoofs (OSS 117 : CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES and OSS 117- LOST IN RIO) with star Dujardin, but here he really goes beyond these parodies. He’s really given us characters that we’re emotionally invested in while not ignoring the comedy. Dujardin is not the buffoon-ish secret agent, but a very complex actor who’s at once child-like, gentle, egotistical, romantic, and in the depths of despair. He also really looks like a classic screen star (Valentin resembles Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. with more than a touch of the sound-adverse Charles Chaplin) and has an infectious grin. He may be the happiest movie Frenchman on screen since Maurice Chevalier. Bejo has great energy as the big, bright-eyed beauty who truly enjoys every aspect of her back lot adventures. She and Dujardin have terrific chemistry just by the way they look at one another. Miller goes from being an awe-struck fan of Valentin to his screen equal and eventually his protector. These two get great assistance from the several American-born stars. Goodman’s wonderful as the big, blustery poppa bear of a studio boss (a combination perhaps of Louis Mayer, Jack Warner, and Harry Cohn) who tries to project a hard-nosed business exterior, but really loves his staple of stars almost like his children. James Cromwell is also a nurturing fatherly figure as Valentin’s devoted, loyal chauffeur. Besides his work with the human actors , Dujardin also has a special screen bond with a gifted canine performer, a scruffy terrier that is his constant companion. Havzanavcius makes excellent use of the old Hollywood locations and glorious vintage automobiles. The gorgeous black and white cinematography gives the actors a glowing, silver sheen like the movie icons of the golden age. Now, the movie’s not completely silent . There’s a musical score that ranges from a bouncy, comedy theme to a big, brassy jazz number to a great Bernard Herriman piece from a another movie classic. I hate to sound like a film Grinch and say that the film could’ve trimmed eight or ten minutes of Valentin’s downward spiral, because the movie’s strengths far outweigh this minor quibble. For want of a better word, THE ARTIST is charming. Completely, disarmingly charming. This may be the best present we’ve gotten from France since Lady Liberty.

Overall Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars

Why is it that some people never grow up? Unfortunately, I do not have the answer to this question, but it does serve to explain the premise of YOUNG ADULT. This most recent screenplay written by Diablo Cody (JUNO, JENNIFER’S BODY) is directed by Jason Reitman, the man who brought us films including JUNO, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and UP IN THE AIR.

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is a struggling author of a once popular series of young adult fiction. Think something along the lines of the “Wimpy Kid” series, but for high school girls, rather than Harry Potter or the Twilight series. Mavis is currently writing the last book in her discontinued series, but is experiencing writers block. As an adventure, or more accurately as she sees it, as a calling of fate, Mavis returns home to her small hometown to win back Buddy Slade, played by Patrick Wilson (INSIDIOUS). Buddy was Mavis’ high school sweetheart, but he’s now married with a new born child.

One thing we learn about Mavis early on is that she’s not exactly a role model of being a responsible, well adjusted adult. YOUNG ADULT as a title refers both to the genre of fiction she writes, as well as the state of mind within which Mavis is perpetually stuck. However, when it comes to winning Buddy back, Mavis proves as unstoppable as a Juggernaut. The first person Mavis runs into upon returning home is Matt Freehauf, played by comedian and actor Patton Oswalt (BIG FAN). Matt is what you might easily define as a grown up nerd. He lives with his sister, reassembles and paints action figures as a hobby along side running his own home whiskey distillery. Matt also has an unfortunate handicap, the story of which plays a crucial role in defining his relationship to Mavis.

YOUNG ADULT has Mavis and Matt become the unlikeliest of friends. Matt serves as Mavis’ unwanted and questionably successful conscience, while Mavis serves as the closest Matt will ever get to having something special with the popular, attractive cheerleader type that never occurred in high school. The chemistry between this odd couple is wonderfully awkward, but natural. Both are damaged goods, but Matt realizes and accepts the truth. Mavis fantasizes about what her life is supposed to be versus what it has become, leading her to pursue a self-destructive path of volcanic proportions.

The dialogue is clearly Diablo Cody’s, sharp and quick, but more refined than in JUNO. This is a dark comedy based in ordinary life. The eccentric edge, or the wackiness factor of YOUNG ADULT is also a bit more restrained than we saw in JUNO or THANK YOU FOR SMOKING. Reitman’s direction is continually finding a more “grown up” edge – if you’ll permit the cliché – a shift which began with UP IN THE AIR. While the humor and tone in Reitman’s first two films are more playfully over-the-top, his last two films are more reserved and more focused on specific character development.

YOUNG ADULT also scales back quite a bit on the star factor. Sure, Charlize Theron is a major star and talented to boot – possibly even worthy of an acting nomination come Oscar season – but Patton Oswalt – as much as I love that little funny man – is still a relative unknown for most people outside of the geek culture. Aside from this, Patrick Wilson and a brief role from veteran Mary Beth Hurt, this does not feature the ensemble cast that Reitman’s previous films are known for. YOUNG ADULT is a comedy that may taste slightly bitter on your tongue at first, but given time to savor after seeing the film allows for the sweetness to emerge, as well as the fiery kick of the film’s ending.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars