World War Z

Brad Pitt is a movie star, no way around it.  By sheer force of screen presence, he is able to elevate a zombie movie to summer blockbuster fare.  This is not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film on its’ own mertis.  In fact, it’s probably the most impressive zombie film since Danny Boyle’s ’28 Days Later’ (bias alert: Danny Boyle can do no wrong in my book).  It’s just that, as I watch this film, I kept wondering if it would have the draw if Brad Pitt wasn’t the centerpiece.  Drawing it’s inspiration from the Max Brooks novel ‘World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War’, it varies from the source material’s multi perspective story telling and rests the entire vantage from Brad Pitt’s character, Gerry Lane.

Gerry is a family man living in Philadelphia.  Retired from his job as a globe trotting UN inspector, he has settled down into domestic bliss with his wife Karin (played generically by Mireille Enos) and his two daughters.  His idyllic life is thrown into a tail spin when he gets caught in downtown gridlock with his family.  He immediately senses something is wrong as people begin fleeing in a blind panic (police included).  The zombies are invading and multiplying exponentially as it only takes a bite to turn a person into a zombie within minutes. Gerry and his family barely escape Philly with their lives.  Fortunately, what is left of the government needs Gerry’s talents to help locate the source of the zombie infection, so he and his family are wisked away to a military flotilla where he realizes the true global scope of the problem.

Zombie movies mirror our fear of a global panademic that could someday happen, which scientists love to tease us with.  It’s also the terror of dealing with something that is unstoppable and can't be reasoned with.  The speed and ferocity with which these zombies attack also lends itself to our heightened sense of uncontrolled terror.   One scene especially, in the walled off city of Jerusalem, where the zombies act with the persistence of an ant colony to climb over each other to get over the wall is especially chilling.  

This movie is an exciting ‘race against time’ film and has all the explosions and excitement needed for a summer block buster.  I will say, I found the back story on all the troubles it took to get this movie made more interesting than the film itself.  There had been several rewrites and even the last 40 minutes of the film was reshot because it was considered not ready for release by the studio heads.  It’s also interesting that in the book, the contagion started in China.  Due to current politically correct issues and the desire not to alienate the Chinese government or audiences, the movie has the contagion starting in South Korea.  I guess they don’t care about offending Koreans.  

This is a fun popcorn matinee if you still like your monster movies.  Despite the rewrite of the ending, I felt the movie lost it’s way and fizzled with an unsatisfying finale.  Still, that doesn’t mean the entire roller coaster ride was a waste. Lot’s of fun and excitement.  Brad Pitt can still rock as a lead in an action movie as he approaches 50 years old.  I’m glad he and his production company, Plan B, finally got this movie made, but it’s nothing I’ll be renting anytime soon.

I give this film ** stars

 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3545146393/

Man of Steel

         The long awaited arrival of a rebooted Superman has arrived.  After the mega successes of The Dark Knight series and almost all of the Marvel comics franchises, the fanboy public has been clamoring for an up-to-date take on The Man of Steel after the disastrous 2006 ‘Superman Returns’ (in fairness, it wasn’t that bad, but they just tried to redo the classic 1978 version with Christopher Reeves.   Trying to carbon copy the past is never a recipe for success in the super hero world).  Given the success of the Batman franchise, Warner Bros brought on Christopher Nolan and David Goyer as the production and writing team.  The square jawed Dudley Doo-Right characters who wear their underwear on the outside of their costumes no longer cut it in today’s grittier world.  The public likes their super heroes dark and with a bit of existential angst. 

Zack Snyder has been tapped as director and his ‘Man of Steel’ delivers a thoughtful and action packed if not always satisfying film.  Henry Cavill, with an impressive american accent and a Bowflex body, is spot on as the modern Superman.  There was a time when it was considered slumming for a major movie star to do a super hero movie.  Most just did it for a large paycheck, whether it was Marlon Brando or Jack Nicholson.  Now, the stars clamor to get in these vehicles as they are huge and respected box office draws.  While Henry Cavill is relatively unknown to American audiences, the supporting cast of Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishbourne, Michael Shannon, and Amy Adams are all Oscar level actors who are in top form in this film.

There is much to admire in ‘Man of Steel.  Russell Crowe gives a compelling performance as Jor-el.  He is the voice of reason on the doomed planet of Krypton, who sends his only son to earth in order to survive. The first twenty minutes of the film showcases a world every bit as impressive as the one in ‘Avatar’, yet is more reminiscent of the classic ‘Dune’.  I hope in subsequent sequels there is a chance to explore the world that was Krypton because it is an intriguing piece of science fiction in it’s own right.   For those of you who are comic nerds, it takes obvious inspiration from the John Byrne series ‘The World of Krypton’.

Once on earth, David Goyer avoids the linear time lines and introduces us to Clark Kent as a drifter trying to discover his purpose in the world.  Whether working on an oil rig or busing tables, we see his childhood through a series of flashbacks with the eerie dreamy quality of a Terrence Malick film.  Clark, at the behest of his adoptive father, tries to keep who and what he is hidden.  However, he can’t help being a hero and when disaster happens he is always there to help, leaving people to wonder what they have witnessed.

Amy Adams did not strike me as a great choice for Lois Lane, but she does a fantastic job as a Pulitzer prize winning reporter trying to uncover the source of these miraculous rescues.  The clues lead her around the world and once she finally meets the mysterious Superman, she is able to track him back to his origins in Smallville.  While she is often rescued, she is no damsel in distress and comes to Superman’s rescue almost as much as he to hers.

Where I think the film took a wrong turn were the over abundance and over blown action sequences.  They came fast and furious and often left one off balance.  In fairness, Superman is a hard character to portray.  His omnipotence is difficult to capture on screen (or even the comic page for that matter).  The sheer mass of the destruction was so constant and huge that it soon became tedious.  Sometimes less is more and this film definitely tried to go for the more.  How often can a building explode or collapse before you start saying ‘Okay, been there, done that’?

Michael Shannon does a great job playing well... Michael Shannon.  He has an unparalleled bad guy demeanor (in fact, I can’t think of a single film where he hasn’t played a bad guy).  HIs General Zod is a welcome change from the typical Lex Luthor stories.  How do you challenge someone who is omnipotent?  Have a villain who is equally omnipotent.  Nobody does psychotic better than Michael Shannon.

Despite my criticism, I feel this was a worthwhile movie and I’m glad it was made.  Superman is back and up-to-date and ready to start down a new franchise.  Warner Bros is going to try and compete with Marvel’s ‘The Avengers’ franchise, by coming out with ‘The Justice League’.  The Superman movie is the first step in this direction.  Upon writing this, I read that both ‘The Avengers 2’ and The Justice League’ are scheduled to come out in the summer of 2015.  That will surely be a battle of the summer blockbusters.   Despite my loyalty to Marvel, I can’t wait to see what Warner Bros comes up with, especially with Zac Snyder and David Goyer at the helm.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1226090265/

Before Midnight

     

     I didn’t think they made films like this anymore.  A movie that tells a story strictly through dialogue.  A cinematic canvas that is painted through the art of conversation and stripped away of everything else. No soaring movie scores, no special effects or clever camera shots.  We are merely voyeurs in the lives of two people as they discuss things that are universal to all people.

     I’m a big fan of director Richard Linklater’s ‘Before’ series that has spanned more than 20 years in the life of Jesse and Celine.  In 1994 (hard to believe that was almost 20 years ago) the indie film ‘Before Sunrise’ was an unlikely hit (it cost $35,000 to make). It was the story of an American named Jesse (a 22 yr old Ethan Hawke) who has a chance meeting with a young French grad student (the enchanting Julie Delphi) on a train bound for Vienna.  Jessie’s plane is scheduled to take off at sunrise the next day and he convinces Celine to spend the evening exploring Vienna with him.  What follows was probably one of the most thoughtful and romantic films of the the 90’s.  A film head and shoulders above the teen age romance genre it was marketed as.

Almost 10 years later in 2003, Richard Linklater revisits Jesse and Celine running into each other in Paris in ‘Before Sunset’.  The characters are not as innocent and naive as they were in the first film, but the spark and memory is still there.  What follows is a rekindling of a more mature romance that is every bit as captivating as the original.  

And now, in 2013, we visit the lives of Jesse and Celine on vacation in southern Greece.  Together 10 years with the beginnings of a family, we explore a much more   world weary couple, but no less connected.  The dialogue is straightforward and honest and delves in topics that movies rarely discuss.  Despite what blockbusters would have us believe, there is drama in everyday life and intrigue in feelings of the mundane.  Once the ‘honeymoon’ is over in our relationships, the conversations become unobstructed from the filter of star struck endorphins.  Where ‘Before Sunrise’ was all about connection and falling in love, ‘Before Midnight’ explores what happens after you fall in love.  Love is powerful, but not always as shiny once the realities of day to day life set in.  

Hopefully you have seen ‘Before Sunset’ before reading this and you know that Jesse has decided to move to France to be with Celine. Ten years later they have settled down and are vacationing in the south of Greece with their twins.  Jesse feels guilt that he is missing the life of his son from his first marriage as he sends him back home to Chicago after staying with him over the summer.  Celine adores Jesse’s son and senses Jesse’s unhappiness over missing major parts of his life.  She begins to fear they are moving in different directions as, additionally, her professional career begins to take her on a path that Jesse doesn’t like.

The opening conversation around the open air table at the house of a writer friend they are staying at is everything a pretentious New Yorker dreams of.  It’s nothing but good food and good conversation and the director does an incredible job making you feel you are right there and part of the meal time interaction.  Four couples sit around the table, each with their own perspective on life.  The conversation flows and is extremely warm and gratifying.  As the film progresses, we gain a deeper understanding into both Jesse and Celine’s feelings and how, despite their love, forces might pull them apart.

All three ‘Before’ films feature exotic european backdrops that aren’t necessarily breathtaking, but enhance the story.  We don’t see much of Greece until Celine and Jesse take a long walk into town to spend their last night of vacation in a luxury hotel in the local village.  The last act of the movie in the hotel room is also the showcase conversation.  The conversation is brutally raw between the two despite their love for each other.  The dIrector does a great job at capturing the ebb and flow of arguments between couples.  We live the conversation with them and all the while there is a sense of deja-vu as I would venture to say that everyone has been a part of such conflicts at some point in their lives.

The dialogue is continuous, in some cases for up to a half an hour.  It flows naturally and organically. So much so, that I wonder how much of it is scripted and how much is improv.  The conversations wander from topic to topic much as a normal conversation would.  It’s often difficult to tell where the conversation started considering where it ends up.  If it was scripted, I’m amazed that the actors were able to memorize such a continuous block of dialogue.  And so naturally at that.

Much like life, director Richard Linklater does an incredible job at capturing people at different points in their lives.  From the young idealism of youth to the more world weary realism of middle age.  It is fascinating to see this journey in real time over the course of twenty years.  Both the actors and director say they plan to do one and maybe even two more films, both at 10 year intervals.  

If you couldn’t tell, I loved this film.  It is definitely one of the best I’ve seen this year.  Be prepared that this film is entirely dialogue and derives it’s purpose from the art of conversation.  It’s candidness and honesty is something rarely seen in today’s films.  I recommend this film whole heartedly and I thank Richard Linklater for making a film that most studios wouldn’t consider bankrolling.  This is a work of art.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4031948313/

I give this film **** stars.

After Earth

       ‘After Earth’ is an interesting film (interesting, not great) on several levels.  Not the least of which is how they chose to market it.  This is an M Knight Shyamalan film, but Columbia pictures made a conscious choice not to promote him as the Director.  There was a time when M Knight Shymalan’s name would have been top billing like a Martin Scorcese, a Steven Spielberg, or a Quentin Tarantino.  A series of box office flops have put into question M Knight’s bankability.  It’s a shame, because I still view him as an inspired filmmaker despite his string of set backs.  Unfortunately, this film will not help him with his box office credibility.

‘After Earth’ features the extremely likable (and bankable) father/son team of Will and Jaden Smith.  They say nepotism is a bad thing, but in this case I can forgive as the two have a strong on screen chemistry that is a pleasure to watch.  Still, their star power is not enough to save this well meaning and well intentioned film.  It misses it’s mark even though there are several things I enjoyed about the movie.  If I can be presumptuous, what made M Knight’s films memorable was not the movie themselves, but the payoffs at the end.  Most of his films trudged along slowly, but the surprise twists at the end of ‘The Sixth Sense’, ‘Unbreakable’, or even to a lesser extent ‘The Village’ were so powerful and visceral that it left an impact that audiences long remembered.  A long wind up that delivered a powerful punch.  Unfortunately, ‘After Earth’ is all wind up with no knock out punch.  

The story takes place 1000 years after the population of Earth, for reasons not fully explained, has abandoned the Earth and relocated to a planet called Nova Prime.  The planet’s greatest military leader , Cypher Raige (Will Smith), is returning home from an extended tour of duty to spend more time with his 13 year old son Kitai (Jaden Smith).  During a trip, their spacecraft is damaged by an astroid storm and they are forced to land on the quarantined planet Earth.

The two are the sole survivors of the crash, but Cypher is gravely injured. Their only hope for survival is for Kitai to cross over 100 kms of rough terrain to reach the broken tail section of the space craft that contains the distress beacon.  This is where the film is turned over to Jaden who does a great job at playing a scared boy who is trying to prove himself worthy to be his father’s son.  Thanks to the advanced technology of Kitai’s suit, Cypher is able to virtually travel with Kitai on his journey and offer his guidance, as well as share his fear.  We’ve all seen dangerous landscape adventure movies before and this film offers nothing new.  The Earth has evolved since humans departure to be a dangerous landscape (think Avatar) where all things are hostile to human survival. It’s not like there is anything wrong with the film, it’s just a ‘been there, done that’ feeling throughout.  

The true foundation of this film is the father/son relationship between the stern and stoic Cypher and the emotional and guilt ridden Kitai (the movie explains the guilt ridden part).  Jaden is not just Will Smith’s son.  His turn in ‘The Karate Kid’ shows that he has the family talent and even though he possesses many of Will’s mannerisms, he definitely has his own presence.  He has extremely expressive eyes and where Will excels at bravado, Jaden’s strong suit is introspection. You can feel his emotions through his expressions.  It’s interesting to see that talent in someone his age.  I hope he has a long career in front of him.  

Like I stated earlier, this is not a bad film.  It’s impressive on many levels and for M Knight Shymalan fans, you can see him employ some of his favorite film techniques on a Science Fiction palette.  Great visuals and an intriguing human story of a father and son trying to connect.  Unfortunately, as a Summer Blockbuster, it lacks the visceral excitement necessary to compete.    This would have been much better off if it was released early in the Spring or during the Christmas holiday where these type of films tend to do better.  

I like this film, but can only give it ** stars.  (sorry M Knight, I still think you are the greatest).

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3916539417/

Star Trek Into the Darkenss

‘Star Trek: Into the Darkness’ is a worthy sequel to the reboot started by J.J. Abrams in 2009.  It lives up to it’s promise: “This is not your father’s Star Trek”.   Given that I consider myself a purist when it comes to Star Trek, I am surprised I enjoy this reboot as much as I do.  In fact, in some ways, it veers away from what Star Trek is supposed to be all about.  Growing up, there were two groups of people.  Star Wars fans or Star Trek fans.  Both are impressive views of the future and of science fiction story telling, but they approached it in very different ways.  Star Wars is all about the swashbuckling.  Basic stories of good and evil told in a classic fashion albeit in the wondrous worlds of science fiction.  Star Trek was more subtle. The voyages of the Starship Enterprise were about exploration and the discovery.  It explored the philosophical and human conditions through science fiction metaphor.  We saw our own political and moral crisises illustrated and exaggerated through the stories of observing other races and planets.  Star Trek was much more of an intellectual exercise of what was possible for humans to aspire to.  Star Wars was all Saturday matinee swashbuckling adventure.

The director J.J.Abrams takes the Star Trek concept in a decidingly more action based direction.  In this day and age of summer block busters one has to compete with the explosions and super human exploits of almost every big budget film out there.  Abrams does this unapologetically and I must confess that I thoroughly enjoy his vision.  This isn’t to say that Abrams doesn’t explore the characters or the inner demons they wrestle with, but the star of these movies is the visceral. 

J.J.Abrams has found a way to skirt the Star Trek purist’s devotion to sequence and timeline in the Star Trek universe by deftly creating an ‘alternate universe’.  This allows him more freedom to create a vision where we are not exactly sure what will happen.  SPOILER ALERT: This film borrows loosely from the events that took place in the classic “Star Trek :The Wrath of Kahn”, the 2nd installment in the original movie series and by many accounts, the best of the Star Trek series.  It’s difficult to go into too much detail without revealing too many of the surprises in this film.  In my humble opinion Ricardo Montalban (who was almost considered a kitsche actor at that time) deserved to be nominated for an Academy Award for his Milton inspired performance of Khan Noonien Singh.  To this day, he is arguably the best Start Trek villain ever.  With that being said, I was pleasantly amazed by Benedict Cumberbatch’s rebooted portrayal of this great villain.  He is receiving universal praise for his performance and I predict this will be a breakout role for him.

The story itself takes place just prior to the 5 year mission made legendary by the TV series.  When a series of terrorist attacks rock Star Fleet to it’s core, The impulsive and brash (and still untested) Captain James T. Kirk talks Star Fleet Command into letting the Enterprise go after the suspected culprit.  Unfortunately, the rogue villain (called Ben Harrison at this point) has taken refuge on the Klingon home world and any attempt to bring him to justice could ignite an interstellar war.  While the original series celebrated Kirk’s brashness and cowboy ways, this version explores the consequences of action without prudence.  Ego coming before decisions of llfe and death is not always a good thing (or even mostly). 

The relationship between Kirk and Spock was always one of polar opposites.  Kirk leaps before he looks and prefers action to prudence where Spock was a study of dispassionate logic and analysis.  Each viewpoint ineffective and dangerous  taken to the extreme, but the two balance each other out and somehow the two form a close bond because of it.  This film does a great job exploring the budding ‘bromance’ between Kirk and Spock.  One where, despite the tension and frustration,  grows stronger than any other relationship they have known.  

This film provides the action and adventure that the current money spending theatre crowd demands, but provides plenty of inside jokes and tributes to the old series to quell the agitated über nerds who obsess on how this film doesn’t fit into the Star Trek universe. Cumberbatch is the true star of this film even though I thought much of his performance borrowed liberally from Tom Hiddelson’s Loki portrayal in last year’s ‘The Avengers’.  Cumberbatch is the visceral force of this film and you are mesmerized during each solioqy (actually , they aren’t soliloquies, but you barely notice anyone else in the room when he goes off on a rant).  Cumberbatch’s excruciating pronunciation and emphasis of every syllable that comes out of his mouth  oozes evil and menace.  The slower he talks the more intently we listen.  Just a great performance.  

I give this film high marks and is a worthy successor not only as a sequel to the last Star Trek, but to J.J. Abram’s status as an A-list Hollywood director.  It’s going to be interesting to see how he transfers this mojo as he heads the new Star Wars trilogy coming out in 2015.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1207936793/

The Great Gatsby

I pride myself in liking all types of movies.  In my mind, I hold very few biases in regard to artistic vision as I admire the act of creation.  So i am surprising myself as i call the latest interpretation of F Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby a complete pile of garbage.  This is one of the worst movies that I have seen in recent memory.  I have no great love for the original  work of F Scott Fitzgerald, so I have no purist’s bias when I watched this film.  While I respect The Great Gatsby for the great American novel that it is, i went into this film with a relatively open mind.  I will admit that I find the director Baz Luhrmann underwhelming in the extreme, but I was excited by the talent in the movie and looked forward to a modern and artistic interpretation of the film.

This film is what I hate most in artistic vision; style over substance.  This entire film is an exercise in self gratification.  It’s gaudy, loud, and tries to be edgy just for the sake of being edgy. Baz Luhrmann creates a vision that seeks to impress through the fabulousness of his visual canvas as opposed to trying to tell a decent story. The characters are there only to have something to hang the visual party he is trying to throw.  I find it all the more frustrating as I felt several of the actors gave some pretty impressive performances.

Leonardo takes on the title role of Gatsby with the dash and charm required.  He faltered a bit in 1920’s mannerisms and his overuse of the term ‘Old Sport’ when addressing anyone. Carey Mulligan was flawless as the pure yet conflicted Daisy Buchanan.  I didn’t even mind the miscast Tobey McGuire as the narrator Nick Carraway.  What I did mind were these great performances taking a back seat to a Director’s need to impress himself with empty stylism.

Fitzgerald’s story of The Great Gatsby is an American success story whose warnings still hold true and relevant today.  It’s a worthy story for film adaption, even a modern adaption.  Gatsby’s story of a self made man who goes from rags to riches is quintessentially american.  A man whose same passions and drives ultimately prove his undoing is also a quintessential american cautionary tale. Throughout this entire movie I found myself trying to wade through the glitz and wipe away the excessive glamour in order to see this story.  Unfortunately, like aVolkswagon Beetle’s windshield wipers trying to compete with a torrential rain, it was a futile effort.  There was just too much distraction to appreciate any type of story that was trying to be conveyed.

I’m not going to recap the story as most anyone who took High School literature is familiar with it.  I’ll just say that this is not a respectable attempt to retell an American classic.  I want to know how Baz Luhrmann keeps getting work in film.  His level of artistic vision are better suited to a Calvin Klein commercial than a full length feature film.  I would implore everyone to stop buying tickets to his films because this man needs to be stopped.  

http://www.fandango.com/thegreatgatsby2013_149090/movieoverview

I give this film * star

Iron Man 3

I’m going to start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  That being said, I did not get caught up in all the hype (as much as I wanted to).  I found this to be a worthy sequel that was vastly superior to the 2nd Iron Man, but fell short to the mojo that the first installment of this franchise produced.  It was a slick piece of action film making that ultimately falls victim to it’s own grandiosity.

So the first question: Is this a sequel to Iron Man 2 or to the Avengers?  I know most fans, myself included, just want to forget Iron Man 2 ever happened.  It’s actually a sequel to both, but let’s just say that it’s The Avengers direct sequel as much of the movie is Tony Stark dealing with the emotional aftermath of the events in that movie. Iron Man 3 marks the first salvo in Marvel Studio’s ‘Phase 2’ plan.  The first phase culminated in the glorious  Avengers movie and now the second phase will continue until Avengers 2 (nice how that works out).  This movie is a great start and prepares us for the Thor, Captain America, and Guardians of the Galaxy movies that will be coming in the next year.

Iron Man 3 is big and brash and fun.  No doubt about it.  The story starts in the aftermath of the Avengers movie with Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey JR) dealing with the emotional problems caused by his experiences from the alien attack on Earth. He can’t sleep and has frequent anxiety attacks.  Despite all of this, RDJ’s trademark sardonic quips and one liners are in play and often, IMHO, overshadow the story itself.  I felt the story itself was weak and most of the movie rested on special effects and waiting to see RDJ go off on humorous rants.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy great special effects and always respect RDJ’s razor wit and this was a great showcase for them, but it could have been a much greater film if it balanced the style with a little more substance.

The introduction of the Mandarin as an Osama Bin Laden type villain starts off promisingly enough, but soon fizzles out albeit in an amusing fashion.  The Mandarin was never a great comic book villain, but there was a lot of unrealized potential here.  Even the seemingly secondary villain of Aldrich Killian seemed a little ‘cartoonish’ for my taste.  The organization he represented; A.I.M., was not fully developed as it could have been given that in the comic story they are the evil nemesis of S.H.E.I.L.D.  These may seem like petty complaints, but all of the conflict situations felt forced and artificial to me, especially Tony’s anxiety attacks which just seemed to come out of nowhere and with no real resolutions.

Again, I’m complaining a lot here, but that is more out of love for the character and a distaste of manufactured big budget special effect movies.  This was a fun ride and a lot of super hero fun that captures why so many of us loved superheroes when we were younger.  Iron Man the movies have been far more impressive than the character or the comic books were in the Marvel universe, so hats off for not only making Iron Man the flagship of these movies, but improving on the character.  Marvel has done an exceptional job at bringing their characters to the big screen.  Each one makes me look forward to the next.  So despite my critique, I have a lot of respect for this movie.  It’s hard to imagine that the original director, Jon Favreau, had to fight to get RDJ cast as Iron man.  I can’t imagine anyone else in this role (although RDJ hinted that someone will eventually have to take over the character from him).

A very fun time at the movies.  However, go expecting a roller coaster ride of fun over substance.

I give this film *** stars 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1265935385/