The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Despite boasting a terrific voice cast and entertaining stop-motion animation, Fantastic Mr. Fox ends up being merely very good, and not quite fantastic.

It's difficult to pinpoint what Fantastic Mr. Fox could've improved. The cast does as good of a job as is expected of such big names (George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Billy Murray, and Jason Schwartzman, among others). The animation, although somewhat old-school, is done superbly and is constantly entertaining. The story is fast paced and never drags, although occasionally it would've helped to have an occasional breather, as the story hops from plot point to plot point to plot point with no down-time in between.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the fault lies directly in the way the screenplay was written. I enjoy most of the prevous movies written by Wes Anderson (The Darjeeling Limited) and Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale), yet I've also noticed that they occasionally write in a style that borders on self indulgent.

In Anderson's repertoire, I've never found Rushmore as exciting and poignant as most, as too much of the "humor" in it is, well, utterly unfunny. For the most part I believe Anderson's films work better as drama's with moments of dark comedy, rather than being billed purely as comedies (which they often are). As for Baumbach, I still can't figure out what the motivations were behind Margot at the Wedding, but it was over-long and, at times, almost painful to watch. While this is not necessarily a bad thing (some of the best movies test viewers' preconceptions and can make them feel uncomfortable), I couldn't really find the redemption in Margot and instead felt that it seemed puzzling unfinished.

The reason I mention these is because I found The Fantastic Mr. Fox to be filled with a lot of the "wink and a nudge" humor that didn't completely work in Rushmore and the sometimes hard to pinpoint character motivations that brought down Margot at the Wedding. I'm sure that it's supposed to be funny when Mr. Fox points out that the characters are wild animals (even though the "animals" act ostensibly like humans), it came across as smug and I found myself rolling my eyes. Other moments seemed to have the air of a collection of in-jokes.

That's not to say that these moments in the story completely bog down the film, because they don't. There are genuinely funny moments (Willem Dafoe's country bumpkin Rat; the fast-paced description of the game of Whackbat), and, at 87 minutes, Fantastic Mr. Fox has trimmed all of the excess fat and never drags. The story is interesting and entertaining, and some of the in-jokes that I just admonished still manage to work on some level, just maybe not at the level that Wes Anderson hoped that they would. It's possible that, being a Wes Anderson film, I expected too much from Fantastic Mr. Fox, and that these expectations made it difficult to fully enjoy the movie for what it was: An enjoyable lark that's much better than a lot of comedies that are churned out to theaters.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is not a terrible film or even a bad one. It's a very good film that, unfortunately, doesn't reach the transcendent level of greatness that it aspires.

Rating: 3.5 (out of 5)

Movie Review: The Road (2009)

It's difficult to review a movie when you've read and loved the book. It's even more difficult when the author of said book is someone known for their densely packed, sometimes even vaguely poetic prose. As an adaptation, The Road is well done, yet falls short of the novel's ability to elicit a visceral reaction from reader/viewer. As a movie, standing on its own, The Road is a great movie where the positives far outweigh the occasional missteps.

The Road takes place in the near future. The world has been devastated by an unnamed disaster. The sky is an infinite stretch of gray, buildings have been reduced to smoldering scrap heaps, and those few people who survive are either cannibals or doing their best to avoid the roving gangs of marauders. The story itself follows The Man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they attempt to travel to the southern coast of the United States, where they hope they will find the last remnants of society and be free of the constant threats of both starvation and aggressive cannibals.

Cormac McCarthy's novel, on which this movie was based, is one of the bleakest, depressing works in modern literature. Although there are glimmers of hope sprinkled throughout, the overall tone of the novel is dark, and it offers a very stark picture of a world that has fallen into utter anarchy and destruction. Although this picture itself would be tough to portray in a film, the source novel is also written almost like an epic poem, with the words and how they fit together playing an integral role in the overall experience. If that wasn't enough, the characters in the novel do not have names and the event that precipitates the story is never explained.

With these issues at play, it's quite the feat that The Road ends up being as good as it is. Joe Penhall's screenplay follows the novel's progression fairly faithfully, while doing a great job of knowing when to add poetic touches and when to abandon them so as to not bog down the movie. John Hillcoat, whose previous film The Proposition was a somewhat bleak affair, is well-suited to direct The Road, and rarely gives in to the temptation to hasten or somehow "Hollywoodify" the pacing of the movie.

The music, written by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis (who have previously composed the musical scores for both The Proposition and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), is note-perfect for almost the entire movie. Unfortunately, the times when the music becomes overbearingly loud and attempts to force a feeling of tension onto the viewer is perhaps the biggest misstep in the entire film. Although only a couple of scenes have this problem, I can't figure out why it was deemed necessary to do this, as The Road is already likely to elicit tension and unease in all but the most hardened viewers.

It's amazing that I've gotten this far into this review without talking about the main reason why The Road works: The powerful acting performances from Mortensen and Smit-McPhee.

Mortensen perfectly portrays a man who has seen his wife (Charlize Theron) fall apart and holds on only so that his son may possibly see happiness and sunlight someday. Although he still tries to instill a sense of hope into both himself and his child, he makes sure his son knows how to use the gun they carry. Not so that he can attack those that threaten them, however, but rather so that he can kill himself if he finds himself in a situation where it is either die a quick death his own hand rather than a slow death in the mouths of the cannibals. Mortensen does a terrific job at portraying this desperation, not only through his speech, but through his overall demeanor and expression. Much like his performance in Eastern Promises, Mortensen fully becomes the character he is playing, and I would not be surprised at all if he receives his second Oscar nomination for his role in The Road.

Smit-McPhee, meanwhile, must both portray a child's hope and the bleak despair that comes from being born into a destroyed world. Only thirteen years old, Smit-McPhee does a great job of making his character not only believable, but on an emotional par with Mortensen's. It is a powerful and driving performance from someone so young.

Considering the story revolves almost solely around The Man and The Boy, The Road's success hinged on the performances of the two main actors. Luckily, both did a tremendous job with very difficult material, and The Road stands as a must see for those that have the fortitude to sit through such a bleak affair.

Rating: 9/10

Album review: The Cribs - Ignore the Ignorant

The Cribs have made four albums since 2004, yet the Cribs remain relatively unknown outside of the United States. Their third album, Men’s Needs, Women’s Needs, Whatever, was their first major label release and featured fast-paced jangly guitars and aggressive pseudo-Brit-punk vocals, and was probably the best album The Cribs have released. Their fourth album, Ignore the Ignorant, features the addition of former Smiths guitarist Johnny Marr, and although it continues their maturation as a band, it does not quite reach the heights of their last album.

The core sound of The Cribs’ past is still intact, but more mellow this time around. Marr is a great guitarist, but fast he is not, and his addition slows down the entire sound. Although parts of Ignore the Ignorant are much better for this mellower sound, the Cribs’ dynamic and sound doesn’t suit itself as well to this new, slower sound.

The influence of indie rock gods Sonic Youth (whose member Lee Renaldo was a guest on the last Cribs album) is still very evident throughout Ignore the Ignorant, although it is most obvious on “City of Bugs,” a six and a half minute, feedback laden manifesto that is probably the best song on the album. Another highlight includes opener “We Were Aborted,” which probably bears more resemblance to Men’s Needs than any other song on the album.

Unfortunately, the second half of the album, while enjoyable, is not exactly memorable. There isn’t a song on the album that is bad or unlistenable, but after the album is over, it’s tough to remember what they sound like. On Men’s Needs, I can still remember about half the album having not listened to it for months. Although I’ve only listened to it a few times, none of the melodies on Ignore the Ignorant have managed to worm their way into my head yet. It’s possible that, with a few more listens, the songs will start to take more shape.

So, again, I don’t hate or even dislike Ignore the Ignorant. It’s just an initial disappointment considering the strength of The Cribs’ first three albums and the strength of everything Johnny Marr has touched. Maybe this is one of those albums that needs more than the average number of listens to really sink in and display its greatness. As is, Ignore the Ignorant is a very good album that only disappoints because it isn’t “great.”
Rating: 7/10

Movie Review: The Men Who Stare At Goats (2009)

As far as absurdist comedies go, The Men Who Stare at Goats is better than most.  It doesn't reach the echelon of truly great like The Big Lebowski or Annie Hall, but manages to be an entertaining movie throughout.

Although the story bounces around a lot, the basic frame is as follows:  Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a down-on-his luck journalist.  His wife has just left him for his editor and his job isn't exactly fulfilling, so he decides that a drastic shake-up is needed.  Thus, he decides to go to the Middle East as a war correspondent.  It's there that he meets Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), who claims to be a former member of an elite group of psychic soldiers known within the military as "Jedi."

Told as a mix of contemporary dialogue between Wilton and Cassady and flashbacks detailing the rise of the psychic soldiers, the film relies on the performance of its actors.  Fortunately, everyone is up to the task.  McGregor plays a terrific "slightly off-balanced straight man."  Clooney builds upon his strong performance in Burn After Reading, although this time his character is less paranoid and more delusional.

In addition to the leads, both Jeff Bridges, in a role that bears remarkable similarities to his performance as "The Dude" in The Big Lebowski, and Kevin Spacey, in a role that is disappointingly one-dimensional, provide strong performances, although their characters aren't nearly as strong as either Clooney of McGregor's.

Unfortunately, the first half of The Men Who Stare at Goats is so funny and original that the second half feels like a let down.  What starts as a comedy about the absurdity of the military funding a unit of psychic soldiers turns into a slightly bored war melodrama, and the jokes start coming fewer and farther between.  It never dips into the realm of being unwatchable or even truly boring, but I was hoping for more out of the end.  Perhaps the fault of first time director Grant Heslov (who did help co-write Good Night, and Good Luck with Clooney) or relatively inexperienced screenwriter Peter Straughan (whose largest credit so far has been How to Lose Friends and Alienate People), but the movie definitely needed a change in pacing.

Although spreading the drama and comedy more evenly throughout the film would've made it a better film overall, The Men Who Stare at Goats is still a worthwhile film.  The first of three high-profile movies for Clooney this holiday season (with Fantastic Mr. Fox scheduled for a Thanksgiving release and Up in the Air scheduled to come out on Christmas) and possibly the least hyped of the three, The Men Who Stare at Goats' quality definitely predicates a great year for Clooney.  Whether the quality of these three films turns into box office returns or merely critical acclaim remains to be seen, but it's definitely going to be a great year for Clooney.


Rating:  8/10

Movie Review: The Accidental Husband (2008)

I didn’t expect a lot from The Accidental Husband.  It was originally released in the United Kingdom in early 2008, but its United States release was suspended indefinitely when the distribution company, Yari Film Group, declared for bankruptcy in late 2008.  Thus, it was resurrected as a straight-to-DVD movie for US distribution, released November 10th.  Unfortunately, The Accidental Husband was not even able to meet my relatively meager expectations, and it stands as possibly the worst movie so far of 2009.

The story, what little there is, is riddled with clichés and illogical character actions.  Dr. Emma Lloyd (Uma Thurman) is a “relationship expert” who has her own radio show.  One night, she gives Sofia (Justina Machado) the advice to break off her engagement to Patrick (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) based on the results of an online compatibility test (yes, you read that right).  To get back at Emma, Patrick decides to have his neighbor’s son, who also happens to be an unbelievably proficient computer hacker, to hack into the national registry and make Patrick and Emma “married” so he can teach her a thing or two about relationships.  This, obviously, does not sit well with Emma or her fiancé, Richard (Colin Firth).

The story only manages to go downhill from there.  The characters act in unbelievably ridiculous ways, adding lie upon lie when it’s fairly obvious that if anyone decided to take two minutes to stop and think about things, they’d realize how stupid the situation is.  Add this to incredibly insipid dialogue, a Razzie worthy performance from Thurman (do they give Razzies to straight to DVD movies that may have actually been released the year before in other countries?), and absolutely unbearable music that would seem hamfisted in a children’s movie, and it’s not hard to see why the theatrical release of The Accidental Husband was never resurrected. 

The more I try to find a redeeming value in The Accidental Husband, the more I seem to come up short.  I feel bad for Colin Firth, who has been in much better movies and his screen time in this is almost non-existant.  His character is so underwritten I forgot about him when he wasn’t on the screen, which may be to Firth’s benefit in the long term.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan, meanwhile, looks like an American Javier Bardem (same hair style, facial hair, etc) but without half the talent that Bardem brings to the screen.  Not that I would ever wish a movie so terrible upon Bardem...or any actor, for that matter.

I’m not the biggest fan of romantic comedies, but I can generally find at least a redeeming performance or scene in one.  Some even manage to be good despite the clichéd nature of the story (for an example of this, see I Could Never Be Your Woman).  The Accidental Husband, however, was absolutely horrible from beginning (with Thurman reading off romantic advice that is both dumb and unrealistic) to end (I can’t really discuss it without giving away the cliché conclusion, but it was painfully sappy). 

Although it’s only two movies, Thurman’s performances in both The Accidental Husband and My Super Ex-Girlfriend, another absolutely atrocious rom-com, would make me think twice about ever going to a romantic comedy starring Thurman again.  

Rating:  1/10 (I reserve zeroes for movies that are not only horrible but also truly offensive to my sense of decency.  At least The Accidental Husband didn’t do that.  I guess I do have something positive to say about it)

Movie Review: A Serious Man (2009)

The Coen brothers are masters at making both absurdly dark comedies and bleak dramas.  Although it’s tough to place at the onset, A Serious Man isn’t content to be a comedy or a drama.  Frequently oscillating between laugh-out-loud absurdity and increasingly complex dramatic torments, A Serious Man may not be the most cohesive Coen movie to date, but it nonetheless fits in well with the rest of the Coens’ impressive canon.

A Serious Man centers around Lawrence “Larry” Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a university professor who, to put things lightly, is encountering some faith-testing problems.  His wife is leaving him for his recently widowed friend, his kids are always fighting, and the committee in charge of judging his application for tenure may or may not be receiving disparaging letters regarding Larry’s credentials.  He also has to deal with neighbors who constantly give him menacing looks and the presence of “Uncle Arthur” (Richard Kind), who is having more luck draining his cyst and writing his statistical manifesto than finding a job.  Oh, and Larry’s rebellious son has a looming bar mitzvah.  Did I mention the student who’s attempting to blackmail Larry over a recent test score?  It may not be a quick moving film, but A Serious Man has a lot going on.

The cast, made up mostly of relative unknowns and background players, does a good job of keeping the material moving and no one really seems out of place or overmatched.  Stuhlbarg does a superb job of playing Gopnik, who is neurotic and troubled and doing his best not to break down, even in the face of a relative whirlwind of troubles coming his way.  Although probably far-fetched, it’s not completely out of the realm of possibilities that Stuhlbarg could even find himself with an Oscar nomination for his role.  The Coen brothers and the actors they direct are no strangers to Oscar nominations.

Even though it’s complex, A Serious Man is not overly confusing, at least not in the literal sense of knowing what is going on and who people are.  The Coens do a great job, both as writers and as directors, of making sure that the story, for all its endless piling on and taking away plot points, never becomes overwhelming.  In fact, I never really thought about how much was going on in A Serious Man until the credits started rolling and I began to think about how many points were left only semi-resolved.

Halfway through A Serious Man, a rabbi tells a story about a dentist.  The story is a few minutes long and ends up having more questions in it than answers.  In a way, this story is a microcosm of the movie’s plot as a whole:  The Coen’s didn’t forget to wrap up all their plotlines; on the contrary, they leave things purposefully ambiguous, knowing that they themselves don’t always have the answers to the questions they ask.

To some, the ending of A Serious Man will be frustrating and confounding.  In fact, it seemed that about three or four new ideas and situations were introduced in the last five minutes of the film, and many more from earlier on are never answered.  The movie chooses to end during the climax of all the preceding action instead of winding down and attempting to concretely settle every bit of plot.

I probably don’t know enough about the Jewish faith (or religion in general) to fully comprehend the metaphors and ideas that were present in A Serious Man.  What I do know is that the movie made me think and question many different things, and that’s something that I come to expect out of every movie the Coen brothers make. 

Rating:  9/10

Movie Review: Mr. Brooks (2007)

Kevin Costner has been accused in the past of being stiff and bland as an actor in roles where he isn’t playing an athlete.  Although the movie itself is riddled with holes and shaky logic, Mr. Brooks proves to be an ample showcase of Costner’s acting talents and is, overall, an enjoyable movie.

Costner plays Earl Brooks, Portland’s “Man of the Year,” business owner, and loving husband/father.  He also has a sinister alter ego, nicknamed Marshall, who drives Brooks to kill random people for what appears to be pure psycho-sexual thrills.  Instead of having Costner stand around and talk to himself, however, Marshall is played by the wonderfully creepy William Hurt, and although he appears everywhere, he is merely a physical representation of Brooks’ inner demons.

Mr. Brooks works because of the amazing chemistry between Costner and Hurt.  Costner has to play the restrained family man who just happens to also be a serial killer, which allows him to harness his “blandness” and, with just a slight tweak, turn it into a spot-on portrayal of an amazingly successful person who has to juggle his commitments to his family and business and his murderous impulses.  Hurt, who is often called upon to play someone with a screw or two loose, provides as expected and seems like the perfect person to play Marshall.  Together, Brooks and Marshall scheme, converse, and even argue like old friends.  It’s a testament to both actors’ abilities that they took a somewhat flimsy script and made it both believable and intriguing.
It’s a shame that the same can’t be said of the other performances in the movie.  Demi Moore plays Tracy Atwood, a stereotypical police detective, and even does that somewhat poorly.  I’ve never been a fan of Moore as an actress, and she doe absolutely nothing in Mr. Brooks to change my mind.  Meanwhile, Dane Cook plays “Mr. Smith,” an amateur photographer who witnesses one of Mr. Brooks’ murders and ends up trying to become Brooks’ friend and protégé.  Much like Moore, I’ve never been a fan of Cook’s previous movie roles (or his stand-up comedy, for that matter), but he does a serviceable job bringing a level of compassion and energy to Mr. Smith.

What’s most baffling about Mr. Brooks is the way the story is sequenced.  The strongest (and, coincidentally, most disturbing) scenes of the movie happen in the first hour, while the second hour is spent trying to wrap up the main story and the multiple side plots.  It ends up being a case of having too many storylines for a two-hour movie, and if one of the sub-plots had been axed from the final product Mr. Brooks would probably have been a great film.  Although it’s tough to decide which subplot lends the least to the movie, my vote is the storyline involving Brooks’ daughter.  Every scene with his daughter stalls the momentum of the movie, and the movie would still feel complete without it.  As much as I dislike the Moore’s police detective storyline, it’s necessary to develop a possible antagonist for Brooks, and thus much more difficult to cut from the movie and have it still feel cohesive.

Even with all of these problems, however, Mr. Brooks is a fairly enjoyable movie.  The directing and cinematography do an effective job of building genuine tension, and rarely rely on things jumping out at the viewer.  The movie is dark but glossy, which really seems to fit in well with Brooks’ personality.  The combined effect of Costner and Hurt’s amazing acting with effective directing rises Mr. Brooks a level above the dime-a-dozen thrillers that come to theaters every week, and although it isn’t a classic, it’s at least a fun ride.

Rating:  7/10

Movie Review: The Invention of Lying (2009)

Ricky Gervais is one of my favorite comedians.  The British version of The Office was extremely funny, Extras is perhaps the funniest British show I’ve ever watched, and Ghost Town was kept afloat by Gervais’ comic timing and dry wit.  Needless to say, I had high expectations for the new comedy starring and written by Gervais, The Invention of Lying.

The Invention of Lying tells a somewhat simple but ingenious story:  In a world where no one lies, Mark Bellison (Gervais) discovers the ability to lie.  Bellison, considered a loser by almost everyone, including himself, finds that the ability to speak “that which is not” can come in handy, both professionally and personally.

Unfortunately, The Invention of Lying takes a premise with nearly endless possibilities and manages to partially squander its potential.  That isn’t to say it isn’t good.  It is good, but it’s just not great.  Hilarious situations are introduced and then either go nowhere or disappear from the screen.  Hilarious cameos from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Edward Norton make one wish that their scenes had been twice as long as they were.

On the flip side, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill make brief appearances that do almost nothing to the plot, and their scenes either needed to be extended or cut from the film completely.  As is, they barely work.  Rob Lowe and Jennifer Garner both perform adequately in supporting roles, although neither of them takes full advantage of the material provided.

Ricky Gervais, however, is at his comic best.  He has always had great timing and a natural inclination of how to sell jokes, and in The Invention of Lying he has to do his fair share of selling jokes.  Unlike in Ghost Town, which was written by someone else, Gervais appears more comfortable when performing in something that he had a hand in writing.

The crux of whether you like or dislike this movie, however, is probably going to come down to one particular plotline.  Ricky Gervais has not been shy about approaching contentious subjects in the past.  In The Invention of Lying, this subject happens to be religion, which in America is a subject possibly more contentious than any other.  Although I don’t want to give away any of the jokes, I will say that The Invention of Lying falls of the side of the coin that says that religion is a man-made phenomenon.

I personally found the entire sequence to be the funniest part of the movie, but I can see how some people could be offended by the way The Invention of Lying tackles the ideas of both religion itself and religious faith.  The ad campaign for the movie completely ignored this aspect of the movie and its plot, and I have seen a few very negative reactions to The Invention of Lying solely resting on the religion sub-plot.

I personally wonder why the movie ends when it does.  It sets up Gervais’ sacrilegious argument, runs with it for a few minutes, and then the movie veers off and never goes any further than a couple of comments near the end of the movie that are pretty tame compared to what happens in the middle.  The extent to which it’s in The Invention of Lying is enough to offend those who will be offended by material of this ilk, and thus it seems somewhat odd that Gervais didn’t go any further with the material than he did.

The Invention of Lying is funny and, at times, flirts with greatness, but never is able to put the whole package together.  Maybe Ricky Gervais wasn’t quite sure how to make a movie for American audiences.  Maybe Gervais has softened his comedy to achieve a larger audience (although this seems unlikely given the religion aspect of the movie).  It is a small step up from Ghost Town, but not much of one.

Rating:  7/10

Movie Review: The Informant! (2009)

(As a note, I will not be using the "!" at the end of the film's title within the review. Too much grammatical hullabaloo for me, thank you very much).

Look at the poster for The Informant. Look at Matt Damon's mustache, the childlike bewilderment in his eyes, the painfully bright orange background, the giant letters spelling out the film's title. Although it tells you nothing directly about the movie, it's a great distillation of everything you'll find in The Informant minus any possible story/plot elements.

Although a movie about corporate corruption, The Informant takes a very unorthodox approach to telling the story. Although set in the early 1990's, director Steven Soderbergh has decided to wash everything in a 1970's orange glow and to tell us the time and place with giant 1970's lettering. Matt Damon, taking on the role of whistleblower/eccentric Mark Whitacre, sprinkles narration throughout, which may or may not have anything to do with what's actually going on in the movie at the time.

Sound confusing? For the first fifteen or twenty minutes, it's nearly impossible to really tell what's going on. Things happen, Whitacre gives random narration about corn, Japan and ideas for television shows. After deciding to tell an FBI agent (played, no less, by Scott Bakula) about his employer's corrupt price-fixing schemes, however, the movie picks up and doesn't let go until near the end.

In essence, the casting is what makes The Informant a success. Damon does an exquisite job as Whitacre, perfectly hitting that chord of seems-weird-but-can't-be-that-crazy-can-he that is necessary for the role. Bakula does a great job as the idealistic FBI agent who trusts Whitacre, even when it seems highly possible that Whitacre is going further and further off the deep end. Joel McHale, snarky commentator from "The Soup," plays Bakula's partner, and does a great job of making normal scenes absolutely hilarious (and shows off how he can stare at something for ten or fifteen seconds and not blink. Trust me, in the context of the movie, it might just be the funniest scene in the entire film).

Unfortunately, the story, which is based on true events, often seems rushed, as if a lot of expository information was left on the cutting room floor so that the movie could clock in at 108 minutes and not have to be cut into two films (Soderbergh's previous effort, Che). It doesn't derail the movie, but keeps it firmly in the realm of "very good" instead of "great."

Rating: 8/10

Music Review: Kid Cudi - The Man on the Moon (2009)

(I'm going to try going with shorter reviews for music than for movies. Let me know what you think).

Kid Cudi's debut album is a tough album to judge. On first listen, it paled in comparison to Cudi's mixtape work. The beats seemed sparse and unengaging, and Cudi's rapping seemed stale and, at times, bored. However, after listening through the album a couple of times, I realize it's actually a work of genius. An uneven, inexperienced work, but nonetheless has moments of greatness that point towards Cudi becoming something of a hero in both the worlds of hip-hop and of electronica and indie rock. Cudi's at his best when he's tackling issues close to his heart, like feeling out of touch with the world and being somewhat of a lost soul ("Soundtrack to My Life," "Day 'N' Night") and not when he's trying to weave sexual innuendo that's all too common in mainstream hip-hop ("Make Her Say"). His collaborations with indie rockers Ratatat and MGMT also come across as inventive and fresh, making me hope that, in the future, Kid Cudi decides to do more collaborations with indie rockers and lesser-known artists than with rap superstars (Kanye sounds surprisingly flat on "Maker Her Say").

Rating: 8/10
Standout Tracks: Day 'N' Night, Soundtrack to My Life, Alive (Nightmare)
Weak Links: Make Her Say, My World

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Quentin Tarantino movies are often an enigma, a collection of hyper-violent images and self-indulgent homages to movies that most of the viewing public have never even heard of, much less seen. They are also, in the opinion of this reviewer, some of the greatest movies of the past twenty years.

Inglourious Basterds is neither as good as Pulp Fiction nor as overbloated as the Kill Bill duology (which was still a damn good set of movies). The most surprising thing about it is, outside of three or four scenes, it is much less about gratuitous violence and more about how people act and feel, playing out more like a European art film than an American action movie.

The best performance of the movie is easily Christoph Waltz's, and without his tour de force, Inglourious Basterds would most likely be the weakest film in the Tarantino canon. Waltz moves easily among English, French, German, and even a little Italian, and does so in a way that it seems effortless (and indeed it may be), and he infuses all of his scenes with a sense of black humor that slides in easily with Tarantino's writing.

In fact, Waltz's performance is so nuanced and well done that it's difficult to judge the other acting performances, as they all pale in comparison. Melanie Laurent does a good job as Shosanna, and she shows why she's one of the up-and-comers in the French movie scene. Brad Pitt does a serviceable as Southern redneck Aldo Raine, but it's not going to win him any awards.

The main complaints that can be leveled against Inglourious Basterds is that it A) is a little too long, with some scenes dragging on for a good 15 or 20 minutes, making the total length of the movie stand at over two-and-a-half hours and B) has a very poor marketing scheme, with many of the trailers focusing on the Brad Pitt storyline, which is NOT the main story arc, and doesn't prepare viewers for the long periods of quiet talking and tension building that makes up the bulk of the movie's time on the screen. This doesn't really effect how good the movie is, but has probably led to some of the more negative reviews of the film, as most people were expecting Pulp Fiction in a War Zone, which this movie most definitely is not.

We haven't reached Oscar-bait season yet, but as it stands, Inglourious Basterds is the best movie of 2009 so far (narrowly edging out Up), and stands a good chance of being one of the ten best movies at year's end.

Rating: 9/10

Sorry for the delay

Well, it's been a while since I've submitted any new reviews, mainly due to personal laziness/not having the time after moving to Syracuse. I'm going to try and submit reviews of a few films I've seen recently in the next few days, with the new philosophy of just focusing on a movie's pros and cons, and not including any plot rehashing that most reviews have (and that I've tried to include sometimes), mainly because these details are readily available on a lot of websites/TV trailers, and thus you probably don't need my rendition (unless, of course, it's something I either like/dislike about said movie.

Again, sorry for the wait, hope you all enjoy the new reviews!

Movie Review: Two Lovers (2008)

Since being nominated for an Oscar for Walk the Line, Joaquin Phoenix has done a great job of baffling the public with increasingly odd behavior. His movie choices since his nomination have all been mediocre fare at best, and his attempt to become a bearded rapper have brought on speculation that he's gone certifiably insane. It's a shame that his (possibly) last movie role is Two Lovers, a bland indie drama that doesn't even come close to living up to the hype that it has garnered.

Phoenix plays Leonard Kraditor, a man who has just moved back in with his parents after becoming suicidal when his fiancee leaves him. He could be anywhere from his late twenties to his mid-thirties, but acts like he's fifteen. He's impulse, he mumbles almost all of his dialogue, and he has no real concern for the overarching effects of the decisions he makes.

Shortly after moving in, he meets both Sandra (Vanessa Shaw), the daughter of a family friend who likes Leonard from the first time she sees him, and Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), the new neighbor who's erratic behavior makes her character almost completely unlikeable...except, of course, to Leonard.

The story unfolds uncommonly slowly, and the characters are surprisingly one-dimensional for a drama of this magnitude. The characters' motivations are almost all completely selfish, and it's easy to wonder why Leonard continues to fall in love with Michelle when all she does is use him and play with his emotions. This is made even worse by almost insufferable performances from two of the leads (Phoenix and Paltrow).

Phoenix's performance is grating because of his constant mumbling. Every time he spoke, I wished there were subtitles on the screen to let me know what he said. Luckily, the dialogue is fairly sparse, and the long moments where very little happens allowed me to piece together what he said, and in the end I had a fairly good idea what was going on through most of the movie.

Paltrow's performance, however, was inexcusably bad. She seems bored, and her character comes off more annoying and manipulative than confused. Her voice rarely wavers from a dreary monotone, and she brings absolutely no life to the character. Leonard Kraditor might as well have fallen in love with a cardboard cutout. At least then it wouldn't have had any dialogue, and would've been just as believable as the situation we are actually presented with.

Two Lovers isn't all bad. Vanessa Shaw manages to deliver a good performance in her (very) limited screen time, and the story itself has some merits and good ideas, they're just drowned out by the utter stupidity of the two main characters, shattering the ability to actually connect with the characters directly, and unfortunately that is what lingers more than the few good moments that are found sprinkled throughout.

Rating: 5/10

Movie Review: Death Sentence (2007)

When a movie boasts Kevin Bacon in a leading role as a middle-aged office worker-turned-killer and John Goodman going off the rails in a supporting role as a psychotic gun dealer, there are two possible outcomes. The first is that it will be an off-the-wall, crazy adrenaline rush that surprises no-one by having plot roles but surprises everyone by actually holding the viewers' interest. The second outcome is that it will turn into a godawful mess that is barely watchable. Unfortunately, Death Sentence very firmly falls into the latter category.

The blame mainly falls in the lap of director James Wan (Saw), who muddles every action sequence by washing things in dull colors and poor lighting and using enough random cuts to almost rival music videos in their franticness. There was not one major action scene that did not at least once confuse the hell out of me, and thus the rest of the sequence was spent wondering who was where and trying to keep up with what the hell was actually going on.

This is made even more difficult by the utter stupidity of the plot. We're supposed to believe there are cartoonish street gangs who just go around and kill people for sport (and never with any real motivation). We're supposed to believe a somewhat wimpy office worker can not only be transformed by the brutal murder of his son, but actually be a very effective killer even though he looks like someone who has never even held a gun before in his life. We're supposed to believe that the police are so inept that this newly transformed killing machine can, without much effort, evade the police's grasp until his mission for revenge is complete.

Both Kevin Bacon, as the aforementioned office lackey-turned-Dirty Harry, and John Goodman, as a wildly eccentric gun runner who seems more likely to shoot someone rather than sell them guns, put more into their roles than was necessary. Both are, in the midst of continually building plot holes, somewhat believeable, which is a testament to the acting chops of both actors. The supporting cast, however, falls in line with the material, offering portrayals that are either excrutiatingly over the top or so bland that they might as well have not even been in the movie.

If you want an action movie with frantic editing and a disposable plot with John Goodman, Speed Racer was a hundred times more entertaining than Death Sentence. If you want a thriller with Kevin Bacon, he's done quite a few over the years, most of which are probably more thrilling and engaging than Death Sentence. If you want a creepy movie directed by James Wan (not exactly sure why you would), just check out Saw. Whatever you do, don't watch Death Sentence unless you're either a masochist or are easily entertained by horrible movies.

Rating: 2/10

Movie Review: The Lookout (2007)

Image via Wikipedia

Young TV actors have a tough time breaking out after their TV series ends. For every success story (Michael J. Fox, for example), there are countless others who toil in low-budget films or even ditch acting altogether (The entire cast of Saved by the Bell, for example). In the past few years, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is starting to show that he may be more Michael J. Fox than Saved By the Bell.

In The Lookout, Gordon-Levitt plays Chris Pratt, a once promising high school hockey player who now can only hold work as a janitor after a horrific car accident robs him of his ability to sequence events correctly and makes him blurt out inappropriate comments (such as telling someone he just met that he wants to see her naked). Pratt's inability to sequence events or remember the placement of objects is so bad that he can't even make his own dinner, and instead has to rely on his blind roommate, Lewis (Jeff Daniels).

Pratt's life is changed, however, when he meets Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode), who claims to have gone to the same high school as Pratt. Preying on Pratt's inability to perceive events correctly and his anger towards his father's view of Pratt as a lost cause, Spargo enlists Pratt as the lookout man for an upcoming bank robbery that he's planning.

The Lookout relies heavily on the performance of its actors, and in that aspect it does not disappoint. Gordon-Levitt plays Pratt well, generating genuine affection for the character and pulling off the consequences of his brain injury admirably. Daniels and Goode both play their characters to the best of their abilities, although the script doesn't allow for too many multi-dimensional characters besides Chris Pratt.

The story, however, is fairly straightforward and littered with obvious holes, something atypical of writer Scott Frank (Get Shorty, Out of Sight), who makes his directorial debut with The Lookout. Nothing comes as a surprise throughout the story's run, and the ending is disappointing at best. In addition, the female characters (including the main love interest, played by Isla Fisher) are almost completely inessential to the plot, and some characters seem to come and go without any real rhyme or reason. One character even disappears with about half an hour left in the movie and never returns. Their absence is not adequately explained, and constitutes possibly the largest plot gaff that I saw.

The Lookout performed somewhat poorly in the box office, which is a shame, for despite the plot holes it was a moderately engaging movie with a lot of promise. Perhaps it could have been marketed better (the bank robbery that is implied to be the film's catalyst doesn't happen until near the end of the movie), or perhaps just a little bit more needed to be added to the movie, a few extra minutes to tie some loose ends together. As it is, The Lookout is a very good movie that missed out on the potential to be great.

Rating: 7/10

Movie Review: Passengers (2008)

Although it is arguable what exactly is needed to have a successful thriller, there is one thing that seems pretty obvious: Thrills. A thriller can be a lot of things, but if the words "suspenseful" and "thrilling" are not used, chances are good the movie failed as a thriller. Passengers, starring Anne Hathaway and Patrick Wilson, falls into the trap of not living up to it's genre namesake. Passengers is contrived, easy to figure out, and worst of all, boring.

Claire Summers (Hathaway) is a counselor who has been in school her whole life, but has never had the chance to practice what she's been taught. After a horrific plane crash, however, Claire's boss (Andre Baugher) decides it's time that she get some real world experience and provide group counseling to the survivors of the crash.

Things get off to a rocky start almost immediately. Most of the survivors spend their time in therapy arguing about the events of the crash, while Eric (Wilson) refuses to go to group meetings and instead suggests that Claire make a "house call." It becomes apparent very quickly that Eric much more interest in Claire than he has in getting therapy.

Unfortunately, Passengers goes nowhere with the premise, and instead settles into contrived situations and fails to build any realistic tension. The characters are almost universally unbelievable (Claire will go along with anything as long as you ask twice) and the ending twists are pretty easy to see coming a mere 10 minutes into the movie.

I'm not completely sure the director knew what direction to go with the script. He implements false scare tactics (Hathaway had to do her best to appear scared as a newspaper blowing in the wind accidentally hits her) and an ending that feels like it's from a completely different movie. In fact, the last five minutes of the movie have more tension and emotion in them than the ninety minutes combined.

It's pretty easy to see why Passengers didn't generate much buzz in limited theater release. Of all the things it did wrong, the absolute worst was that it was flat-out boring. Thrillers can get by with a mediocre script and an implausible premise if it manages to keep the suspense level up. When they don't, however, they end up failing miserably.

Rating: 4/10

Movie Review: Charlie Bartlett (2008)

Image via Wikipedia

Cliche, stereotypical comedies come to major theaters around two dozen times a year, so what distinguishes Charlie Bartlett from the rest? Absolutely nothing.

Charlie Bartlett is a story about Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin), a prep-school rich kid who so desperately wants to be popular that he'll do anything, regardless of legality, to achieve this popularity. After getting kicked out of the last in a long string of private schools, Charlie's mother (Hope Davis) decides to try Charlie out in public school.

At this new school, Charlie goes through a series of misadventures involving the principal (Robert Downey, Jr.), the principal's daughter (Kat Dennings), and the resident bully (Tyler Hilton). Everything that happens in the movie is unsurprising and follows the most basic "teen comedy" template. The story is derivative, the dialogue is derivative, and Charlie Bartlett has more random, inessential montages this side of an 80's sport flick.

Now, I've seen some bad comedies in the past that've been redeemed by the charisma/acting ability of the principal cast. In Charlie Bartlett, the only one who even approaches believable/entertaining acting is Downey, and even he is not able to muster even half of what he is capable of. Yelchin and Dennings seem to be in a battle through most of the movie to see who can sound more out of place, and in the end I think Dennings wins slightly, but maybe that's because Yelchin is on screen so much that I just got used to his awkwardness and never got used to Dennings'.

However, none of this marks the worst aspect of Charlie Bartlett, which is the inexcusable cover of Cat Stevens' "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out." First off, Charlie Bartlett is not even on the same planet as the terrific Harold and Maude. Secondly, Kat Dennings' voice is so ill-equipped for singing that she single-handedly turns a pleasant song into an excruciating three-minutes of warbling.

Although not the absolute worst comedy I have ever seen, Charlie Bartlett is nonetheless a film that leaves me grasping at straws to find positive things to say and is one of the worst comedies to come out in the past few years.

Rating: 2/10

Album Review: Sonic Youth - The Eternal (2009)

For nearly twenty years, Sonic Youth released their albums for Geffen records, starting with the both over- and under-rated Goo. Now, during what can possibly be described as a "career renaissance," they've gone over to the powerful indie label Matador Records. This doesn't mean Sonic Youth is taking a step back away from the mainstream, as The Eternal is probably as mainstream, if not more so, than 2006's Rather Ripped.

Not that sounding more mainstream means Sonic Youth are even close to approaching anything you'd hear on Top 40 radio. The sound on The Eternal, however, does hark back to the dirtier guitar sound used on Goo and Dirty, when Sonic Youth first really started to get some slight mass attention. Unlike those albums, which were atonal monstrosities that, along with Experimental Jet Set, Trash, and No Star, I still consider to be the nadir of Sonic Youth's career, the dirty guitar sound on The Eternal is used in conjunction with the new-found melodic tendencies that have been steadily growing in SY's work since 2002's Murray Street.

Unfortunately, this looking back to the past is precisely what Sonic Youth didn't need to do. Their last three albums (Murray Street, Sonic Nurse, and Rather Ripped) have all been great to varying degrees, mainly because Sonic Youth has found a way to continue their noise-rock tradition while still pushing things forward. On The Eternal, however, nothing seems new. Everything seems like "typical" Sonic Youth, something that could really never be said about past albums. Sure, some of their songs would sound similar across albums, but every album had at least a handful of songs that sounded unlike anything they had done in the past. On The Eternal, every single song reminds me of something from Sonic Youth's past.

The Eternal is not completely without merit, however. Both "Anti-Orgasm" and "Antenna" deconstruct into noise jams about halfway through, something that has always been a highlight of Sonic Youth's music. The duo of closers, "Walking Blue" and "Massage the History" are also very strong tracks, the second of which marks Sonic Youth's first over-nine-minute song since Murray Street, and is probably the strongest track on the entire album. Featuring a building mixture of acoustic and electric guitars, "Massage the History" is allowed to flow and evolve as it goes along, unlike the rest of the album, which sounds rushed and bored.

That brings us to the songs that don't work.  Tracks such as "Sacred Trickster" and "Calming the Snake" feature Kim Gordon at her most shrill, and her vocals alone make me want to skip the tracks almost as soon as the singing starts. "Leaky Lifeboat (for Gregory Corso)" and "What We Know," featuring vocals from all band members instead of just one like in most of their songs, are throw away tracks with no distinguished melody or direction, and are forgotten almost as soon as the next song starts.

If you really liked Goo and/or Dirty (I didn't), and would like to see what it would sound like if you threw them into a blender with Rather Ripped and Sonic Nurse (albums I loved), The Eternal is almost certain to appeal. Otherwise, it's probably the worst album Sonic Youth has recorded since Experimental Jet Set, Trash, and No Star.

Rating: 6/10

Album Review: Taking Back Sunday - New Again (2009)

Once again, Taking Back Sunday has to record an album with a new guitarist/back-up vocalist after the departure of Fred Mascherino. Although markedly different from Taking Back Sunday's previous work, it still holds up as a solid album with a couple of inspired moments.

The first thing that jumps out from the album is the glossy production and the lack of "call-and-response" vocals. Although Louder Now toned down Mascherino's vocal responses to lead singer Adam Lazzara, prominent background vocals seem almost completely absent from New Again.

Granted, with the strength of some of the album's songs, it's really not a problem. Opener "New Again" features Lazzara at his angsty best, and gets the album off to a fairly strong start, and, in its way, addresses the issue of this album being a new direction for the band. "Sink Into Me," the second track and lead single, is a strong track that would probably be the album highlight if not for the overused "hey hey" vocals in the background during the bridge.

The quality dips off a little after the first two tracks, although nothing on the album is truly bad. "Summer, Man" is a a pseudo-ballad that only works during the verses and falls apart when the chorus hits. Ditto for "Where My Mouth Is." "Cut Me Up Jenny" feels like straightforward TBS, but the intensity with which Lazzara approaches the chorus allows the song to avoid being too stale.

The end of the album, however, regains much of the strength of the album's beginning. "Carpathia" easily could've been called "Catharsis," and captures an intensity that has been missing from TBS songs since Where You Want to Be before fading into "Everything Must Go," a song that abuses the quiet/loud dynamic more than anything else in TBS' catalog. Softly sung verses are bookended by either moments of guitar pounding or the blisteringly biting chorus, "Everything Must Go" is a definite contender for best song TBS has recorded since Where You Want to Be.

Although not able to capture the amazing energy of their first two albums, Taking Back Sunday are still very much around and show no signs of slowing down, even after another lineup change.

Rating: 7/10

Movie Review: Get Smart's Bruce & Lloyd: Out o Control (2008)

Talk about a mouthful of a title! Get Smart's Bruce & Lloyd: Out of Control (henceforth referred to simply as Bruce & Lloyd) is a sometimes funny, often stale comedy meant to capitalize on the success of the recent Get Smart remake.

Unfortunately, Get Smart was a mediocre comedy to begin with, and thus a throwaway side-project based on the movie was bound to not be mind-blowing. In fact, it's either a testament to Masi Oka and Nate Torrence (Bruce and Lloyd, respectively) or a condemnation of the screenwriters of the main film that Bruce & Lloyd manages to not be that much worse than Get Smart.

Bruce & Lloyd takes place during the same time-frame as Get Smart, but instead of focusing on Agents 99 and 86, it instead focuses on the tech-geeks who make all of the gadgets seen in the main film. Interesting enough idea, but the execution here is so painfully straightforward that it's only mildly enjoyable to watch.

From the start, it's easy to tell that the budget on this was minuscule compared to the $80 million budget that Get Smart had. At times, with the low quality cameras and random joke-cuts, I felt like I was watching a TV pilot rather than a straight-to-DVD film. Like filtering Scrubs through the original Get Smart by way of the Sci-fi channel, but managing to remove most of the laughs along the way.

Both Oka and Torrence do a serviceable acting job (Torrence is especially funny when his character is attempting to practice flirting with a receptionist), which is more than can be said for most of the supporting cast (Marika Dominczyk is especially wooden, with an accent that is so obviously forced that it provides more laughs than any of the jokes her character makes).

In addition, the story about corrupt politicians from "Maraguay," a fictional South American country, seems unnecessary to the film, even though it's the main plot. It's hard to really care about what's going on, and it's even harder to find out why all the political intrigue was added to the subplot when there's no payoff for it in the end.

For a marketing ploy, Bruce & Lloyd could've been a lot worse. Taken without that context, however, it just feels like a TV show that would be bumped after three episodes so more Dancing with the Stars could make it's way onto our TVs. Maybe if it had been made with a larger budget and without being looked at as a throw-away project, Bruce & Lloyd could've been good. Too bad that's not what happened.

Rating: 5/10

Movie Review: The International (2009)

Anticipation can do much to taint one's view of a movie. If you go in expecting something that will change your world, you'll be disappointed if it is merely great and not extraordinary, and thus you're left with an unfavorable view of an otherwise great film. Likewise, if you go in expecting a total shit-fest, and it ends up being mediocre, you'll be pleasantly surprised, and possibly end up with a similar view of the movie that you did for the great movie that you had high expectations for, even though one was obviously better than the other.

My initial reaction to The International is that it was boring, and that Clive Owen has done much, much better films. It was nothing like I expected it to be. Instead of being filled with tension-building intrigue and adrenaline-releasing shoot-outs, the movie ended up wading through watered-down political wrangling and a solitary action sequence (which, by the way, was easily the best part of the movie).

However, the movie really wasn't as bad as my initial reaction. The main acting was serviceable, with Clive Owen bringing more intensity to his role than the script really called for, and Naomi Watts trying her best to infuse life into her meager, one-dimensional lines. The supporting actors were nothing special, but no one really seemed to detract from their scenes (barring the hitman in the scene directly before the centerpiece gun-fight).

The biggest problem with the story is that it doesn't take any surprising turns. Everything happened about the way I expected, except for possibly the ending, which I'm still not sure if it was a neat little twist or a head-banging cop-out. Everything is by-the-numbers intrigue, which ends up being an oxymoron. In addition, the story takes a somewhat plausible concept (multinational corporations getting involved in political conflict) and throws in so many illogical situations that it becomes almost painful to watch at parts.

The shoot-out at the Guggenheim museum, however, almost makes up for the missteps along the way. With an abundance of circular levels and ramps, visual artwork, and glass, the most likely reasons the Guggenheim has never been used in an action movie before are either, A) it's too costly to create a replica of the museum that can be shot up (which is precisely what The International did) or B) most people think that mixing "art" and action movies just wouldn't work.

Although it saves The International from being a complete bore, the Guggenheim shoot-out doesn't save it from being a truly mediocre movie. Worst of all, the movie can't even take it's own advice. At one point, a character says, "The difference between fact and fiction? The fiction must be believable." Too bad screenwriter Eric Warren Singer didn't take his own advice when it came to the rest of the story.

Rating: 5/10

Movie Review: Up (2009)

Pixar is the undisputed leader in current animation. Although Dreamworks isn't too far behind, Pixar is able to combine amazing graphical work with stories that pop with life and sometimes even manage to tug at the heartstrings. Up is not only a work of superb animation, but is possibly one of the saddest/best movies to come out in years.

I'm not one to cry at movies. I can find something sad, but rarely does it actually elicit a physical reaction from me. Up took all of my strength to not start bawling, and that was just in the first fifteen minutes. In fact, I'm going to say that the first fifteen minutes of Up tug at the heartstrings better than just about any two-hour melodrama could possibly hope to do.

That's not to say the entire thing is one big teary-eyed sadsack. Up also serves up a large dose of humor, the best of which comes from Dug, the talking dog who is actually able to personify the ADD spirit of a canine companion exactly the way I would have imagined. Russell also has some funny lines, but nothing as funny as Dug.

The story would fall apart without Ed Asner's performance as Carl, however. Carl is a crotchety old man, and Asner does a good job of not drifting into senile parody. He's the perfect combination of sad, angry, and confused, and never becomes unbelievable.

Pixar has crafted what is truly a definitively "family" film...the whimsical animation and humor can appeal to everyone, young or old, and the story itself is able to be engaging while still being emotionally strong enough that adults won't get bored by all the silliness. The only negative things I can really say about Up is that the 3-D treatment felt unneccesary and added nothing to the movie past the first half hour. I know 3-D is all the rage right now, but it really was unneccesary for this movie and felt tacked on.

Rating: 9/10

The animated short Partly Cloudy, which appears before the film, is funny and sweet, if somewhat innocuous. Definitely worth a watch, although nothing as strong as the actual feature film.

Movie Review: The Hangover (2009)

Sometimes, a movie comes along that no one is expecting to be any good, and ends up taking the public by storm. Juno and Superbad did this two years ago. Back in 2005, The 40-Year-Old Virgin. This year, The Hangover is that movie, and it just might be the best of the bunch.

When I first saw the trailer for The Hangover, my first thoughts were, "Great, another Vegas movie." My second thought was, "Man, has Zach Galifianakis fallen so far that all he stars in are Vegas movies?" (I refused to see What Happens in Vegas, by the way. Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz are not exactly on the top of my "must see" list). A week before it's release, however, it started getting some buzz. For a movie with such a cliche premise, the critics were actually liking it. So, when a couple of my friends wanted to go to the midnight showing, I gave in and went with them.

The only word needed to describe this film is hilarious. Not all the way through, but in enough spots for the lasting impression of the movie to be, "Damn, that was hilarious!" Like most modern comedies, it starts to flounder towards the end, but for the first seventy or eighty minutes, The Hangover is a riotous film, and one that reinvents what can be done with a cliche premise.

Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms do serviceable in their roles as buddies to groom-to-be Justin Bartha, but the real star of the show here is Zach Galifianakis, the soon-to-be-brother-in-law with a couple of screws loose. Galifianakis plays his character with such naive conviction that almost everything he says is funny. Even ordinary comments are transformed by his delivery and turned from dialogue filler into comedic gold.

Some credit must also be given to director Todd Phillips and screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore for letting the comedy flow through the characters and to make the decision that the bachelor party itself need not be shown for the movie to be funny. That's not to say the movie is without flaws. Some of the supporting performances are stale/predictable (I'm looking at you, Heather Graham), and the credits slideshow is not probably as funny as it was intended to be and doesn't help overcome the fact that the movie runs out of steam before it finishes. However, compared to past works Old School (Phillips) and Four Christmases (Lucas & Moore), The Hangover is a humongous triumph, and a movie that will surely stick around as a comedy classic for years to come.

Rating: 8/10