‘Funny People’ — not so funny, really (2/5)

Funny People

Starring: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann.
Directed by: Judd Apatow
Rating: R for language and crude, sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality.
Running time: 2 hours, 26 minutes.

If you’re looking for a quick chuckle or two, you might want to pass over “Funny People.”

Sure it has its moments — but considering it’s a two-and-a-half-hour movie, if it didn’t have any good moments, you might personally request reimbursement from director Judd Apatow.

Although Apatow is the mind behind “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” he takes a very different — and risky — angle with “Funny People.”

And that angle might not have paid off. The comedic moments that you may go in expecting based on the title, actors and advertising campaign aren’t what you get.

In fact, “Funny People” is surprisingly dark and depressing at times. Might have been nice to know beforehand. If a person isn’t in the mood for a drama, tricking them into thinking that it’s a comedy won’t make them like it any better. On the contrary.

“Funny People” tries to be both. It swings like a pendulum between a very light, crude comedy and a dark drama.

Couple that with an immense running time and a halved plotline, and you’ll think you just watched two boring movies with the same characters back-to-back instead of just one. Despite the stellar cast list, “Funny People” is too long and too bland to truly capture your interest.

The movie follows George Simmons (Adam Sandler), a highly successful comedian/actor who, despite his riches, has pushed away any kind of personal relationship he could have had, alienating his family, girlfriends and friends.

When he is diagnosed with a blood disease, George begins to take another look at his life and at the people who could have been a bigger part of it.

Following a depressing and audience-unsettling set at a comedy club, George crosses paths with struggling stand-up artist Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) and invites Ira to write jokes for him.

Because George has alienated everyone else from his life, Ira quickly becomes the closest thing to a friend that George has. He confides in Ira about his blood disease and together the two wrestle with the disease, as well as friendships and betrayals.

That’s part 1.

Part 2 takes a look at George’s attempt to win back the former love of his life, Laura (Leslie Mann), who has moved on with her life and married the unfaithful Australian Clarke (Eric Bana). This leads to a very in-depth (read: lengthy) and at times humorous encounter at Laura and Clarke’s home.

I’ll give “Funny People” one thing: The acting was awesome. Adam Sandler is George Simmons, I didn’t doubt him for a second. A slim Seth Rogen was great as Ira, as well. I only wish there were more Eric Bana!

The countless cameos were hilarious and one of the best parts of the movie. But, unfortunately, watching Eminem talk trash to Ray Romano can only take a film so far.

The incredibly lengthy runtime and tonal imbalance may make you regret watching this movie. Too, like a footprint in the sand (without the wet, sandy part), it won’t leave much of an impression. If anything, you’ll remember the bad parts over the good.

It’s a good nap-on-a-rainy-day kind of movie. Otherwise, don’t expect too much.

2 of 5 stars

‘Avatar’ not all it’s cracked up to be (4/5)

Avatar

Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver.
Directed by: James Cameron
Rating: PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.
Running time: 2 hours, 42 minutes.

“Avatar” has been said to be the movie that reinvents how movies are made.

That’s quite the statement. And, in my opinion, it’s also not true.

That’s not to say that “Avatar” isn’t a fantastic movie that will engage you at frame 1. In fact, it’s a spectacular movie, and the technology is nothing short of revolutionary. Director James Cameron has had his heart set on making this movie for about a decade, but wisely decided to hold back until the scope of computer graphics matched his grandiose plans.

Plot-wise, “Avatar” is the equivalent of an inter-planetary “Pocahontas” without the Disney singalongs. But visually, it’s a spellbinding adventure that is breathtaking in 3-D (and I would highly recommend taking the opportunity to see the movie in 3-D).

If you’re capable of not taking yourself too seriously and are able of enjoying what is essentially a decent science fiction movie, then “Avatar” could quickly rise up among your list of favorites.

It takes place on the planet Pandora, where bossman Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) has set up a mining operation in search of “unobtanium,” a very rare and very valuable rock found under Pandora’s surface. But it just so happens that the planet’s natives, known as the Na’Vi, live directly above the richest vein of unobtanium.

Understanding the bad press that would be given by simply wiping out the Na’Vi, Parker allows a team of scientists to interact with the natives with the intention of getting them to move.

And so, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) finds himself with the rare opportunity of walking again — only not in his own body. Aided by the team of Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), Sully is able to transfer his consciousness into that of an “avatar,” an engineered creature made to look like a 10-foot-tall, blue, felinesque Na’Vi.

Sully is quickly recruited by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who wants Sully to spy for him in order to gather as much intel on the Na’Vi and their location as possible.

But after spending days as his avatar, Sully soon finds himself unsure as to whether he is human or Na’Vi. Add to that a blossoming love interest in the Na’Vi princess, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and Sully’s loyalties begin to blur.

Despite the unfathomable $400 million budget, “Avatar” was still unable to pull away from the notorious sci-fi pitfalls of good versus evil and cookie-cutter characters.

What amazed me was the fact that, despite this being a two-and-a-half-hour movie, so many characters managed to fall by the wayside. Parts of the movie seemed made up of solely Jake Sully and Neytiri with an occasional popup of one of the other dozen characters.

I was a little disappointed with the role of scientist Norm Spellman. His early introduction and and overall attitude may lead you to believe that he will achieve “sidekick” status, but his character quickly drops out and is barely noticeable by the end. Weaver’s character was one of the more significant and even she had less screen time than I would have expected.

And even those who managed to show up on the screen seemed very archetype — you’re the battle-hungry war guy, you’re the tree-hugging scientist, you’re the money-loving capitalist.

But, what this movie may lack in characterization, it more than makes up for in the visual aspect and overall wonder the film brings with it. And, though I knock it, the plot itself isn’t bad — it was enough to keep me riveted even after the 162 minutes were over. The Na’Vi are exceptional and just plain fun to watch. And James Horner’s musical contributions were, as usual, stellar, especially when incorporating the Na’Vi language into the soundtrack.

The movie that reinvents movies? Maybe not. But it’s a definite step in the right direction.

4 of 5 stars

Flicks to get you into the holiday spirit

Feeling particularly “bah-humbug” this year? It’s understandable, given the poor economy and the fact that holiday décor seemed to peek its little head out of store shelves soon after the red, white and blue decorations were taken down July 5th.

One trick I use to cool down my inner Grinch is to watch a few heartwarming (albeit often cheesy) holiday movies. There’s nothing better this time of year than curling up with a cup of hot chocolate and watching Rudolph and friends travel to the Island of Misfit Toys, or seeing Will Ferrell parade around New York City in elf tights.

So step aside, Scrooge, here are the top movies to get you back in the holiday spirit:

• A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965, TV-G) — A classic for a reason. Charlie Brown and his little fir tree have long been the image of many people’s December, and I wouldn’t want to see one without it.

• A Christmas Carol (1999, TV) — Patrick Stewart makes the perfect Scrooge. An adaptation of Charles Dickens’ famous story, Scrooge’s inspirational transformation asks the viewer to question their own greed and anger in favor of love, generosity and family.

• Elf (2003, PG) — When one of Santa’s elves (Will Ferrell) discovers he’s not really an elf, he must travel to New York City to connect with his naughty-listed father. Bright and enjoyable, “Elf” is a lighthearted venture into the realms of family and belonging.

• The Holiday (2006, PG-13) — A bit of a sappy pick, but definitely an excellent chick flick/holiday film. Two women switch locations to escape the men in their respective areas and end up finding precisely what they were trying to avoid.

• Home Alone (1990, PG) — Although this movie is perfect at any time, it’s even more enjoyable this time of year. The scene with Kevin and Marley in the church is one of my favorites. The light-heartedness of “Home Alone” makes me not mind the snow and early sunsets quite as much.

• How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966, TV-G) — Sorry, Jim Carrey, but Boris Karloff will forever remain the ultimate Grinch. Dr. Seuss’ words come to life, the Grinch’s showdown with the unknowing Whos is a holiday must-see.

• It’s A Wonderful Life (1946, Approved) — Of course, but the film also touches on some of the true meanings of the holidays. With the economy being as it is this year, the inscription “no man is a failure who has friends” is especially important.

• Love Actually (2003, R) — Hilarious, heartwarming and, at times, wrenching, “Love Actually” follows a predominantly British ensemble as they discover that love, while not always what they may expect, is all around them.

• Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964, TV-G) — Another holiday staple. It’s never really Christmas for me unless I’ve seen claymation Rudolph guide Santa’s sleigh. Obvious sexism of the movie aside (Donner’s ”this is man’s work” makes me laugh every time), it’s still the No. 1 movie I have to watch every year.

• The Santa Clause (1994, PG) — Disregarding Tim Allen’s law issues, “The Santa Clause” is still a pretty awesome movie. Fun and humorous, the film touches on the belief in not only Santa Clause, but also in yourself.

Did I miss your favorite holiday film? Let me know about it by sending me an e-mail at rcrofut@fltimes.com.

‘All Saints Day’ sequel will keep fans happy (3/5)

The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day

Starring: Sean Patrick Flannery, Norman Reedus, Billy Connolly.
Directed by: Troy Duffy.
Rating: R for bloody violence, language and some nudity.
Running time: 1 hour, 58 minutes.

Sequels are difficult beasts to tackle. Not only do you have to maintain the feel of the original which drew in the fans to begin with, but you’re also obligated to make it even better.

This, as most of us know, is rarely (if ever) accomplished.

In the case of “The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day,” a sequel that has been heavily anticipated for 10 long years, director Troy Duffy had a lot to live up to.

For those unfamiliar, “The Boondock Saints” was a limited-release film focusing on the Irish MacManus brothers (Connor and Murphy) as they follow their religious calling to kill murderers, rapists and general scum of Boston. It made a mere $30,000 in American theaters, but, once released on video, “The Boondock Saints” erupted into a cult classic, making $50 million in home sales. The film’s excellent balance of comedic and serious tones matched with a quotable script and superb casting (Willem Dafoe, anyone?) made “The Boondock Saints” a fast favorite for many viewers.

When director Troy Duffy and actors Norman Reedus (Murphy MacManus) and David Della Rocco (who plays a beloved character of the same name) came to my college in the spring of 2005, there was a lot of talk about a sequel. It seemed that the script was mostly ironed out, but rumor had it that Duffy was a difficult director to work with from the production company’s side.

Whispers of a sequel continued for several more years until, at last, IMDB confirmed what many fans had been waiting for.

The film followed the original in terms of limited release, but thanks to the underground following, “All Saints Day” has swiftly expanded through the country (it’s even opening in Geneva tomorrow).

“The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day” picks up about eight years after the first movie’s ending. Connor and Murphy are living with their father (Il Duce, a fellow “killer angel”) when word comes of the murder of their Boston priest. Seeking vengeance, the brothers head back to America and are joined by newcomers Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Secret Agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz) as well as viewers’ favorite cops of Boston — Dolly, Duffy and Greenly.

“All Saints Day” will keep you entertained with plenty of shootouts and slapstick humor. But for those hoping for a film that can rival the original, this is not it.

You might think that having nearly a decade to work on a script could only benefit a sequel. But somewhere along the way, Troy Duffy seemed to forget all the things that made “The Boondock Saints” so engaging for its fans.

The vital target “All Saints Day” didn’t even seem to bother shooting at was viewer investment. “Boondock Saints” made you care about the brothers and their “mission.” Luckily, that attachment softly lingers on in the sequel — but Duffy forgot to reinforce it.

Too, the vigilante spirit, religious tone and general Irishness that the original is so steeped in seemed to have gotten spilled over in an attempt to, perhaps, attract a wider audience. Duffy would have been better off appealing to the already substantial fanbase rather than spreading himself too thin.

Duffy’s attempt to replace two of the original movie’s anchors (David Della Rocco and Agent Paul Smecker) with two far less engaging characters (Romeo and Secret Agent Eunice Bloom) was not appreciated.

Despite its shortcomings, “All Saints Day” is an above-average action film that tosses in a few priceless gems to the original’s fans that will keep them salivating.

In short, watch and love the original. Watch the sequel just for fun.

3 of 5 stars

‘Mr. Fox’ adaptation not so clever (2.5/5)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman.
Directed by: Wes Anderson.
Rating: PG for action, smoking and slang humor.
Running time: 1 hour, 27 minutes.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox?” Not so fantastic.

To say this movie is quirky is far beyond an understatement. It’s hard to expect anything else from director Wes Anderson, but maybe I was biased going in.

Not many people know about writer Roald Dahl’s work beyond the “Chocolate Factory,” so it doesn’t surprise me (but does sadden me) that most movie goers will see this film without reading or even knowing about the book.

And I guess in this day and age I should just accept the fact that few people read. But when a director takes what he touts as being one of his favorite books and totally changes it? That’s when I start getting annoyed. “Creative license” only takes you so far, Mr. Anderson.

My brother jokingly suggests that I should just stop reading — or at the very least stop watching adaptations. But with so few original movies nowadays, it’s almost impossible not to see an adaptation (especially when you write a weekly review column!).

Also, many people I’ve heard who enjoyed this film were Wes Anderson film fans from the start, and not Roald Dahl fans. Or they had simply not read the book and therefore had no idea how dramatically the plot and characters were altered.

Although “Fantastic Mr. Fox” didn’t irk me nearly as much as “Where the Wild Things Are,” it still makes me question directors’ motives and thought processes during writing and filming.
But, back to the film.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is about a fox (voiced by George Clooney, one of the few reasons to actually watch the movie) who steals from the properties of three local, and notoriously “evil,” farmers — Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Having been stolen from just a few too many times, the farmers decide to hunt and kill Mr. Fox, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), son Ash (Jason Schwartzman) and nephew Kristofferson (Eric Chase Anderson).

The stop-motion filming used in “Fox” gives it a unique feel, but at times makes you wonder if you could have achieved the same result with the money you spent on the movie ticket.

An enormous hindrance to the movie is Mr. Fox himself. The leading character is selfish, arrogant and a plain brute to his son. Clooney’s voice can charm you only so much.

The only good change Anderson made to the book was the development of Mr. Fox’s son, whom the movie names “Ash.” Without Ash, this movie would have been a total disappointment. Granted, this development would have been unnecessary if you actually cared about Mr. Fox, but lacking any kind of emotional connection with the main character, Ash will have to do. You’ll find yourself wading through Mr. Fox’s scenes in the hopes that his son will soon make an appearance.

Another reason to dislike this movie? The pure random inclusion of Kristofferson. He adds nothing to the plot and is more of an unwilling rival to Ash than anything the audience should be interested in. And for a “deep” character, he’s awfully flat, hinging his entire being on yoga and naiveté.

In an effort to be edgy, Anderson also felt the need to taint a perfectly good children’s book with having the characters insert the word “cuss” as a not-so-subtle reference to a variety of swear words. I’m not always an angel when it comes to speaking, but this seemed like a desperate attempt to get a couple of chuckles from the adults or to give the teenagers a brand new catchphrase.

In short, if Twentieth Century Fox truly wanted a film version of “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Wes Anderson should never have been let anywhere near it. If you haven’t read the book, you may be able to give the movie a decent chance. But for those who loved Dahl’s heroic fox, this is an adaptation you won’t want to see.

2.5 of 5 stars

‘Trek’ accessible by non-Trekkies (3/5)

Star Trek

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana.
Directed by: J.J. Abrams.
Rating: PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
Running time: 2 hours, 7 minutes.

At the risk of annoying half the readers out there, I’ll make the disclaimer now: I’ve never really watched “Star Trek.” All I knew about the show was Patrick Stewart, Spock, the Enterprise, something about Klingons and the old standbys: “Beam me up, Scotty,” and, of course, “Live long and prosper.”

What’s great about the latest “Star Trek” movie is that it didn’t seem to matter how little I know of the Trek universe. But, even if it did, I would have watched it anyway — after all, J.J. Abrams was at the helm. And, actually, being unfamiliar with the overarching story seemed almost an advantage in this case. I wasn’t attached enough to be annoyed with any of the changes made.

As fellow “Lost” aficionados will already be familiar with, Abrams and Trek co-producer Damon Lindelof (also co-creator of “Lost”) are big fans of time travel. So bringing that love to “Star Trek” was probably not much of a step for them. From my understanding, this film is a kind of “rebirth” for many Trek characters. It’s apparently a separate timeline from what the Trek show (and subsequent movies) are in, though with the same people — think “Back to the Future II.” It’s a great plot device for the writers and producers as it essentially allows them to reset to the beginning and truly make “Star Trek” their own vision with already-beloved characters.

“Star Trek” shows an alternate timeline for characters such as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu and Uhura as they attempt to bring the genocidal Nero to justice. Too, the film thrives on the character development and friendship of Kirk and Spock, profoundly different but both outcasts in their own ways.

The cast list for this movie is surprisingly star-studded (Eric Bana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Jennifer Morrison and, most surprising to me, a brief role by Winona Ryder). But perhaps it shouldn’t be unexpected. Abrams is usually heavy on character development, so it makes sense to eye accomplished actors for many of these nuanced roles.

One of the most exciting cast members, though, was Leonard Nimoy as an older Spock. And rather than just use a Nimoy cameo as a nod to Trekkies, Abrams takes full advantage of his access to the former longtime Vulcan and uses the role to bridge the connection between the original “Treks” and the new movie.

In the behind-the-scenes special features, co-writer Alex Kurtzman notes that, while the “Star Wars” films are the equivalent of rock ’n’ roll, “Star Trek” is more comparable to classical music. In the drafting of this script, Kurtzman made an attempt to bring more of the rocker style that would attract modern viewers who are used to faster-paced films.

But, despite its perks, the film rides along a slightly above-average line. Many sci-fi movies fall into the good-versus-evil standby, and while “Star Trek” struggles against this stereotype, it never quite makes it out. The attempt to “humanize” Nero falls short and it’s difficult to view him as anything but demonic. The end result leaves “Star Trek” as an entertaining, but not exceptional, foray into the space where no one has gone before.

I hope that everyone has a wonderful Thanksgiving. And if you see a good movie or two (or even a bad one), feel free to send me word of it to rcrofut@fltimes.com.

3 of 5 stars

Allen’s ‘Whatever’ draws a new fan (4/5)

"Whatever Works"

Starring: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson.
Directed by: Woody Allen.
Rating: PG-13 for sexual situations including dialogue, brief nude images and thematic material.
Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes.

I’ll admit, I haven’t watched many Woody Allen films, but that’s more due to a lack of opportunity than anything personal against the guy. But if the latest “Whatever Works” is any indication, he may have found himself a new biggest fan.

The comedic Larry David, the mind behind “Seinfeld,” is the scathing, cynical, pessimistic, detached, self-described genius Boris Yellnikoff. He lectures his beliefs to his friends and leaves his former wife because they are too perfect for each other.

In all respects, Boris does not seem like the type of guy to take in any runaways. But when young, Southern Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) asks Boris for a place to stay and something to eat, he finds himself not only endeared to the know-nothing optimist, but married as well.

Boris charmed me right away by telling the audience off the bat, “I’m not a likeable guy. Charm has never been a priority with me. And just so you know, this is not the feel-good movie of the year. If you’re one of those idiots who needs to feel good, go get yourself a foot massage.”

David’s opening monologue direct-to-camera completely sold me (“You read about some massacre in Darfur or some school bus gets blown up, and you go ‘Oh my God, the horror,’ and then you turn the page and finish your eggs from the free-range chickens”). And the film is stuffed full of great, insightful lines, all executed in a way to keep you laughing from title to end credits.

This is a movie that could have quickly turned depressing and haughty, but the characters and witty dialogue manage to keep the film strangely upbeat while discussing the pointlessness of it all.

The real driving force behind the movie is the title, “Whatever Works.” It’s something like Boris’ mantra — he believes that people must do whatever works in life (without hurting anybody, he amends) to squeeze out any bit of love and happiness before the end. It’s quite a simple philosophy for a former string theory professor who repeatedly casts himself above the “inchworms” he shares a globe with, but, hey, whatever works.

This “moral” is demonstrated through all of the characters, but none moreso than Melodie’s mother Marietta (Patricia Clarkson), the bible-thumper-turned-bohemian-sexual-deviant. When she discovers the repressed artist inside with the help of Boris’ friend, her former identity melts away with unexpected and hilarious events.

Evan Rachel Wood (whom I loved in “Across the Universe”) was hilarious in the role of the perky dimwit. Although she adores Boris and quite possibly believes that he is the smartest man alive, she eventually learns that she has opinions of her own outside his circle of pessimism.

Many stodgy film critics gave this movie scorching reviews, but maybe they simply felt like the chess kids whom Boris verbally assaults. They also all seemed to have a problem with Boris’ shorts-wearing, so if any of you have an issue with shorts, this is apparently the stay-away movie of the season.

But for the rest of you who aren’t averse to seeing an old man’s knees, “Whatever Works” is worth watching. And, despite Boris’ warning, you may just end up feeling good afterward.

4 of 5 stars

‘Away We Go’ offers a nice ride (3.5/5)

Away We Go

Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph.
Directed by: Sam Mendes.
Rating: R for language and some sexual content.
Running time: 1 hour, 38 minutes.

If you find yourself picking up “Away We Go” in a rental store, you couldn’t be blamed for quickly thinking the movie was meant not only to be funny, but downright hilarious.

Not only do the traditionally skewed and biased “review blurbs” strewn about the case tout the film’s comedic genius, but just take a look at this cast: John Krasinski of “The Office” fame, Maya Rudolph from SNL, Catherine O’Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney and Jim Gaffigan. Surely a movie with this much humor potential will leave you on the floor.

But this film is much more dramatic and introspective than the cover would have you believe. And while it’s good for a few laughs, it’s not the “comedy” that you’d expect.

Directed by Sam Mendes, the Focus Features film “Away We Go” is a very simple movie that seeks to examine the bevy of emotions brought on by unexpected parenthood.

Krasinski and Rudolph star as Burt and Verona, an unmarried couple in their 30s who are unexpectedly expecting. They live in a rundown apartment with a cardboard window in the same area as Burt’s parents. But when the parents (O’Hara and Daniels) tell the couple that they are moving to Europe, the two realize that they have no ties left in their current location.

Burt and Verona take a trip to various areas across the country and Canada, seeking “home” and meeting up with people from their past in the meantime.

Along the journey, the couple must confront their doubts of life and parenthood by encountering their fears manifested. This plot device lends itself to sometimes hilarious and at other times heartbreaking revelations.

Burt and Verona come across many examples of dysfunctional families, at times heightening their worries and at other times leaving them with a “Well, at least we aren’t that bad” sensation.

The couple faces a loud, abrasive, degrading mother (Janney); a family that may be just a little too close for comfort (Maggie Gyllenhaal); an adopting family who cannot have their own children; and a father whose wife abandoned him and their daughter. On top of it all, Verona must also cope with the early loss of her own parents.

The soundtrack is a beautiful and brilliant complement to the movie. I have been a fan of Alexi Murdoch for a while, and his folksy style and deep tone capture the spirit of the film well. If nothing else, hopefully the movie will expose more people to his music.

“Away We Go” is a different kind of coming-of-age movie. It’s about a couple who maybe should have come of age quite a long time ago, but eventually realize that there’s no true definition of a family and the best that they can do is love each other and weather the hardships the best they can.

Overall, it’s not a blockbuster and not a life-changing film. But it is a cute, realistic piece that leaves you feeling a little more optimistic and hopeful about where your life is going.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Slumdog’ deserved its Oscar (4/5)

Slumdog Millionaire 

 

Starring: Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal.
Directed by: Danny Boyle.
Rating: R for some violence, disturbing images and language.
Running time: 2 hours.

Obviously, “Slumdog Millionaire” has a lot of hype to live up to.

But director Danny Boyle gave the audience (and, apparently, the academy) plenty of reasons to love this movie.

Jamal Malik, a young Indian man, is a contestant on the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” But his goal isn’t to win the top prize of 20,000,000 rupees; rather, it is an attempt to reconnect with Latika, a girl whom he has encountered at various points throughout his life. But Jamal is an uneducated “slumdog” from Bombay, and his unexpected knowledge surprises not only the show’s creators, but also the entirety of India.

One of the most engaging aspects of “Millionaire” is how the plot unfolds. As Jamal answers each question, a flashback to his troubled childhood shows the background to his seemingly extraneous and surprising knowledge. The flashbacks not only show the audience the hardships of Jamal’s upbringing, but also attempt to illustrate the seclusion and forced independence that comes from living in such severe poverty.

The opening sequence introduces Jamal and his older brother, Salim, and acquaints the audience to the day-in, day-out existence of Bombay’s slum residents in a cinematographically beautiful but tragic fashion.

The turbulent relationship between Jamal and Salim is one of the primary driving points of the film. Boyle shows through their differences that where a person is raised does not necessarily determine who that person will be. But that is not to say that Jamal is purely ethical while Salim is amoral. They both must struggle to exist in their unbridled world, at times stealing or leaving others behind.

But one Jamal cannot seem to leave behind is Latika. Orphaned together, Jamal, Salim and Latika end up at the same crooked orphanage. When Jamal and Salim escape, they leave Latika behind, and though Salim insists that she will be OK and that Jamal must forget about her, he finds himself tracking her down not once but several times throughout his life.

At one of these meetings, Latika is watching “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” and mentions how it is an escape for her life. Jamal later takes these words to heart and attempts to escape his own life by becoming a contestant, hoping that Latika will be watching.

The film follows Jamal’s story through three major ages of his life, and as such, three different actors were used for the characters of Jamal, Salim and Latika. I am always impressed with young actors who truly seem to become their character, and the young actors of “Millionaire” are no different. In fact, I like them more than I like the older versions of the characters.

“Millionaire” is a heart-wrenching, gutsy, beautiful film with a unique plot and nice twist on the traditional boy-loses-girl story. Plus, mainstream stories of India are few and far between, so not only was the film very refreshing but also highly intriguing. The academy didn’t get this one wrong.

4 of 5 stars

‘Rise of the Lycans’ good for a prequel (3.5/5)

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Starring: Michael Sheen, Bill Nighy, Rhona Mitra.
Directed by: Patrick Tatopoulos.
Rating: R for bloody violence and some sexuality.
Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes.

Next to pirates, vampires are my favorite Halloween costume stand-by. I feel inclined every October to watch a few films featuring the undead, mostly because they’re not overly scary but still put me in that “Halloween” mood rivaled only by “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.”

What I like most about vampire movies is the dark mythology of it all. While still classified as “action” films, they often tend to have a better backstory and more structure and depth than the “Diehards” or anything with Vin Diesel.

So enjoying the “Underworld” series hasn’t been a stretch for me. And the latest installment, “Rise of the Lycans,” was as good as the other two (if not much better than “Evolution”).

Prequels can be tricky to pull off. The advantage that director Patrick Tatopoulos had is that most of the characters within the series are immortal, and so having the original two movies set in present day and the prequel in the Medieval Ages was easier than it could have been.

If you’ve seen the first two movies, you’re already familiar with the plot of “Lycans” (another tricky aspect of choosing to film a prequel). Essentially, it tells the backstory and origin of the war between the vampires and lycans.

For those who aren’t familiar, here’s a quick rundown:

The first vampire, Markus, and the first werewolf, William, were brothers. Unlike the common idea of a werewolf, in which a human becomes a savage animal at the full moon, William is constantly in the savage wolf state and cannot become human again.

William went on to infect many others, creating a large number of fellow werewolves. In an effort to stop him, Markus approached a Hungarian general and warlord, Viktor, and offered him immortality in return for Viktor’s aid in eradicating all werewolves except William.

Viktor captured William and the vampires made an agreement to have only one “elder” awake and ruling at a time.

At the start of “Lycans,” Viktor is the ruler of the vampires. He and his clan live in a castle and discover a human baby born to a werewolf. Viktor finds that the child is able to transform between human- and wolf-shape, so he saves the child and names him Lucian.

Soon after, Viktor has a daughter named Sonja, who is raised along with Lucian, whom she eventually falls in love with.

As Lucian grew up, he was forced to create others like him by Viktor. This new breed, called Lycans, is used by Viktor as “guard dogs.” Eventually, despite his love for Sonja, Lucian tires of his life as a slave and plans a revolution.

Although this film is nothing new, both in terms of the plot being explained in the other two and in the Romeo-and-Juliet-esque romance, the movie thrives on the characterization and historical aspect rather than the “surprise ending.”

Most of the actors did a great job. Bill Nighy as the cruel Viktor steals the stage in every scene, of course, but is given a good run for his money by Michael Sheen as the impassioned Lucian. As for Rhona Mitra as Sonja, I have to admit I actually thought it was Kate Beckinsale. Perhaps she was chosen for her resemblance rather than her skills.

The movie itself is dark in the sense that it is at times difficult to see what is going on, and the werewolf costumes are simply laughable. But if you can get beyond that, it’s a fairly good film, and its short running time shouldn’t leave you too fidgety. Overall, it’s been done before, but it’s still a fun adventure.

Hope everyone has a safe and happy Halloween, and a very happy birthday to my boyfriend, Chase, who is turning 25 on Sunday.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Wild Things’ not so wild after all (2.5/5)

Where the Wild Things Are

Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini, Catherine Keener.
Directed by: Spike Jonze.
Rating: PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.
Running time: 1 hour, 34 minutes.

“Where the Wild Things Are” ended up being, sadly, rather tame.

It seemed hard to go wrong. As far as book adaptations go, the expectations for taking a 10-sentence-long picture book to the big screen are vastly different than condensing an 800-page novel. Where screenwriters paring down a large text need to interpret and slice out scenes that readers know and cherish, it seemed that the beloved “Wild Things” would merely need an expansion.

And with author/illustrator Maurice Sendak himself in collaboration with director Spike Jonze, the movie was set to not only remain faithful to the book, but also to fully explore the book’s inherent feelings of childhood, imagination and freedom.

So what went wrong?

The film had a promising opening. Talented young actor Max Records seemed born for the role of the impetuous Max. His performance alone is reason enough to see the movie. “Wild Things” starts off strong, immediately throwing the older members of the audience into nostalgia.

The audience is with Max from the beginning, from the playfulness of a good snowball fight to the sadness of a ruined fort and the subsequent anger.

If the movie had ended after just these 10 minutes, it would have been an undeniable masterpiece.

Instead, Jonze begins to ruin things by introducing the “divorced parents” subplot. After that, Max’s outbursts suddenly take on the tint of “well, he’s acting out because his parents are divorced,” instead of “he’s acting out because he’s a kid.”

So when Max gets in trouble with his mother (who is frustrated with Max for embarrassing her in front of a gentleman friend) and runs away, the audience is almost inclined to think the divorce is why he is running away.

Introduce the “Wild Things” — sort of. Soon after being introduced to the creatures of the island, I found myself wondering “Just where ARE the Wild Things?”

I suppose if you think of the Wild Things as loving, relationship-capable, fuzzy emotional wrecks, then you won’t be disappointed.

But for those of us who pictured the Wild Things as, well, wild, you may want to see what else is playing.

With names like Carol, Ira, Douglas and KW, the “monsters” don’t really send off an intimidating vibe.

In fact, the Wild Things are more like adults in gigantic monster garb who act more like kids than anything “monstrous.”

When Max arrives, he finds the Wild Thing Carol upset that another Wild Thing, KW, has other friends. To alleviate his anger, Carol tosses his friends about and destroys their makeshift houses.

Finding this behavior suitable to his taste, Max unabashedly charges in and begins helping Carol.
When confronted by the other Wild Things, Max conjures up a story of his past kingdom and is crowned King of the Wild Things.

The rest of the film plays out as a group therapy session, as Max and Carol both try to cope with their feelings of abandonment.

One thing that Jonze did get right (other than the casting of Max Records) is to resist the urge of animation. Had this movie been animated, it would have been a total mess. Instead, the film masquerades as a deep, plot-driven movie while distracting the audience with cool costumes.

In the end, the unfortunate truth is that the movie seemed more like an opportunity for Jonze to explore whatever issues with divorce he may have and to project those into a “kids film” rather than to actually make a movie about the “Wild Things.” A very disappointing adaptation.

For any considering going to see the movie, I would recommend going to the library instead and borrowing the book.

2 1/2 of 5 stars

Funny ‘Zombieland’ still scares

Zombieland

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone.
Directed by: Ruben Fleischer.
Rating: R for horror violence/gore and language.
Running time: 1 hour, 20 minutes.

It’s that time of year again.

Time for costumes, candy and, oh yeah, horror films.

I am not the scary movie type. I was the one hiding in a corner with a blanket over my head while my friends watched the Chinese version of “The Eye” (you think it’s hard to watch a movie with subtitles, try to do it when you’re not even looking at the screen). But, to be fair, “The Eye” is a legitimate scary movie — at least the Chinese version is; I can’t vouch for the Jessica Alba fiasco.

I can take most slasher films. I actually really enjoy the “Saw” series. It’s the supernatural stuff that gets me, especially ones involving creepy little kids.

But that’s all beside the point. I watched “Zombieland” recently and had to keep myself in check — this was, after all, a comedy.

Doesn’t mean I didn’t jump on occasion. But, for fellow timid moviegoers, this film manages to satisfy the obligatory Halloween viewing without leaving you checking under your bed.

In “Zombieland,” the majority of the population has turned into (shockingly) zombies. The narrator (Jessie Eisenberg of “Adventureland” notoriety) tells the audience that these transformations began after a bad experience with a Mad Cow-diseased hamburger. And it was all downhill from there.

Now, the number of zombies greatly outnumbers that of normal humans. In fact, at the start, the narrator is our only known character, and he introduces us to the world by giving us a few of his most important zombie survival rules.

Rule No. 1: Cardio.

Narrator is a college-aged kid who was studying at the University of Texas when the mayhem struck and is now on his way back home to Columbus, Ohio, to see if his family is still alive.

On his way, he meets a tough, gun-toting, zombie-killing maniac (Woody Harrelson) who agrees to give him a ride in his truck. But, in order to avoid familiarity and, thus, any sort of friendship, he insists on calling the narrator by his destination, Columbus, and he refers to himself as Tallahassee.

Columbus soon discovers Tallahassee’s one weakness: Twinkies. It’s during a foray into a grocery store in search of the spongey snacks that they run into the untrusting Wichita (Emma Stone) and her intelligent 12-year-old sister, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who are headed to the rumored-to-be zombie-free amusement park Pacific Playland.

“Zombieland” is a fun, offbeat, clever film. Columbus’ “rules,” playing off the horror-flick stereotypes and the hilarious celebrity cameo, are reason enough to watch it.

Woody Harrelson is in a realm of his own in his role and is one of the main sources of the film’s entertainment.

Abigail Breslin also had a shining performance as the mouthy, know-it-all preteen, and it will be interesting to see what future roles she will decide to choose.

The one thing that really gets me is Jesse Eisenberg. I saw him in “Adventureland” too and I just can’t fathom how someone can look, act and talk so much like Michael Cera ("Superbad,” “Juno”) and not be related. It’s like watching someone acting like Michael Cera while he’s acting. But, besides that, Eisenberg did a great job.

And, though I would rather qualify “Zombieland” as the one “scary” movie I need to watch by Halloween, I grudgingly promised my boyfriend I’d watch an actual scary one soon. He may not be so eager to watch another after my fingernails have dug into his arm for an hour and a half.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Devil’ — fun, but superficial (3/5)

The Devil Wears Prada

Starring: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt.
Directed by: David Frankel.
Rating: PG-13 for some sensuality.
Running time: 1 hours, 39 minutes.

Looking for a fun little chick flick? “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006) is it, but not much more.

The movie itself is actually great, but it’s what they left out that plummets this movie back into the realm of typical.

“Prada” follows the course of Andy Sachs’ (Anne Hathaway) assistant tenure under the indomitable Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), editor-in-chief of Runway, the nation’s leading fashion magazine.

Andy makes no mistake — she doesn’t fit into this world of makeup, dressup, overbearing stress and 10-inch waists. But, as she tells Miranda at her interview, she’s smart.

After landing the job, Andy struggles to keep up in the fast-paced life of fashion and New York City, only to realize that her best efforts aren’t good enough. She seeks help from a fellow assistant, the conceited and pompous Emily (Emily Blunt), and from the magazine’s creative director, the harsh but kind-hearted Nigel (Stanley Tucci), but eventually realizes that the only person who can help her at her job is herself.

Andy undergoes a physical transformation to better fit in to the crowd of Runway and to show Miranda her serious intentions, and it isn’t long before she begins a mental and emotional change as well, sending her life careening into a pile of trendy handbags and designer scarves.

One aspect that David Frankel absolutely nailed was the casting. Every actor was sublime in her role. Meryl Streep simply is the boss from hell, but she also brings a sense of depth to Miranda that makes her seem like a real person rather than a horrific compilation of everything awful in a superior. Too, Anne Hathaway is the perfect go-to actress for a naive girl who undergoes a transformation.

The movie’s absolute scene stealer, however, is Emily Blunt. I had seen her before in “The Jane Austen Book Club,” and I look forward to a long and productive career from her.

One of the movie’s central themes of women in the workplace was insightful and refreshing.


Throughout high school and college, and now with my first “real” job, I have always been a work-oriented girl — and, through trial and error, have learned how work and life can never be truly separated. “Prada” shows the integration of life and work, and how one must be careful to not allow one to overcome the other.

In “The Devil Wears Prada,” the movie manages to capture an abhorrent work environment and yet keep the tone of the film light and fun. But, in doing so, many things fell by the wayside.

The most noticeable issue (as could be expected in a movie regarding the fashion industry) is weight. Nigel tells Andy that her size 6 is now considered a “size 14,” and there are countless insinuations about her size being a detriment throughout the script, including Miranda flat out calling her “fat.”

The movie addresses clothes as being a superficial element, but barely brushes on the absurd and unhealthy weight loss that so many in the industry feel forced to do. And even Andy celebrates becoming a size 4 near the end of the movie. With so many people, even those in the film’s target audience, struggling with weight issues and the feeling of self-consciousness, this should have been a point of higher value.

Too, the reconciliation between Andy and her boyfriend seemed lacking. Andy’s boyfriend, Nate, had a greater presence than I was expecting — up until the end. In fact, here her other friends who had been made to seem important in Andy’s life and as sources of love and support are inexplicably missing as well.

But, for its weaknesses, “Prada” was a fun watch and offered some neat insights into the fashion industry.

3 of 5 stars

Marvel’s ‘Iron Man’ nothing to be wary about (4/5)

Iron Man

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges.
Directed by: Jon Favreau.
Rating: PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.
Running time: 2 hours, 6 minutes.

In keeping with my superhero flick kick (and also because it was next on my boyfriend’s Netflix list), I finally had the opportunity to watch the much-acclaimed “Iron Man.”

And, thankfully, it didn’t disappoint.

Last week’s “Wolverine” threw me for a bit of a loop, and I simply didn’t know what to expect from comic adaptations anymore. But there’s no point in comparing the two, really. “Iron Man” blows “Wolverine” out of the water in any imaginable instance. Thank goodness.

First, Robert Downey Jr. was the perfect actor for the intelligent, womanizing, self-serving, pompous jerk-turned-unlikely-hero Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man).

The humor that Downey brings to the role complements the film excellently and is a constant undercurrent through the movie. The script in itself had decent pacing, and though the beginning seems to drag a bit after an awesome start, you’ll quickly find yourself re-immersed.

The basic plot follows weapons inventor Tony Stark through his realization of what his work truly does to the world and his attempt to right his wrongs — and how else to accomplish this goal but to don an astonishingly technologically advanced supersuit.

It’s a fun movie that introduces some sobering topics but never takes itself too seriously. Instead, it’s a great foray into adventure, action and comedy.

Perhaps what makes this movie stand out from the others is that the hero doesn’t start out as someone “good.” He makes his living off of, essentially, killing others. Most comic book heroes start off good. It’s the villains who do the changing — sometimes from normal, well-adjusted people to crazed madmen. But Tony Stark is different, and it’s refreshing. His self-realization is the driving force behind the Iron Man character.

Although the comics in themselves are about four decades old, the movie studio wisely moved the timeline of “Iron Man” from the Vietnamese war to the trials in Afghanistan and the Middle East, helping the film to feel contemporary and to better pull in the audience. Besides, if Robert Downey Jr. were traipsing about the jungle again, I’d wonder where he’d left his blackface makeup from “Tropic Thunder.”

Behind the camera, director Jon Favreau (“Elf,” “Zathura”) shows his immense capabilities, and I hope we see much more of him in the future.

Rest assured, fellow wary comic-adaptationists, “Iron Man” is “Marvel”-ous.

4 of 5 stars

Lame ‘Wolverine’ fails to impress (2.5/5)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston.
Directed by: Gavin Hood.
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and partial nudity.
Running time: 1 hour, 47 minutes.

That’s it. Hollywood has gone too far with the adaptations.

As a young writer, I used to envision my stories being converted to theatrical masterpieces. And now I can only groan as story after story, comic book after comic book gets torn apart and mutilated in the name of “blockbuster.”

Why take a story already known and loved and completely change it in the hopes of making a profit off steadfast fans who only feel beguiled and cheated?

I’ve never been a big comic book reader, but I understand the depths of characterization and nuanced plotline built over the decades of a comic’s life.

If all you had to go on was “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” you’d never even give the series a second chance.

The biggest question I was left with after renting “Wolverine” was an enormous “Why?” The first three X-Men movies were enjoyable enough and easy to follow.

Then you watch this one.

Not only does “Wolverine” cast itself in a horrific light, but it makes you question the other three as well. It has enough plotholes to drive a tractor trailer through and, from my understanding, totally maims characters’ relationships with each other. For example, turning Wolverine and Sabretooth into brothers.

The things that disappointed me most about this movie were:

• The supporting cast. There was a lot of potential here that was just plain flushed away. Although the movie is focused on one character, there are so many brief introductions that could have been expanded to give the film much more depth. Even Victor Creed’s character was lacking, turning him into a mindless villain.

• The cheeseball action sequences.

• Gambit. I was very excited to see what his character would be like (he was one of my favorites to play in the Sega Genesis version of X-Men) and ended up (surprise surprise) heavily disappointed.

• Kayla Silverfox. I had no love for her whatsoever, and I’m generally considered to be a sap.

• The wolverine and the moon story. It’s a trifle compared to the others, sure, but as far as I’m aware wolverines don’t howl at the moon.

• Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool. Normally, I like Ryan Reynolds. And he actually does a fine job in his role. But he’s just one of those actors who will always be himself in my eyes and not the character he is portraying. Not really his fault, probably mine for countless viewings of “Waiting...” and “Just Friends.”

• Will.i.am. Yeah, seriously.

The positives of this movie, though few and far between, include Hugh Jackman’s performance (which was good considering what he had to work with) and the inclusion of Dominic Monaghan (“The Lord of the Rings,” “LOST”). Granted, Monaghan’s character was one of those shortchanged, but it was a thrill just to see him.

Unfortunately, there is a “Deadpool” movie planned for 2011 (in which Reynolds will star, as he will in the other 2011 superhero movie “The Green Lantern”...that’s right, kids, Van Wilder is going to be the Green Lantern). I see no swift end in sight for these plummeting superhero movies. As with “Spiderman,” had they just left it at 1 and 2 it could have been a fine duology, but they just had to go for that third one. And don’t even mention “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.”

“Wolverine” could have been awesome. Instead, it’s just another lame offering from Hollywood.

2 1/2 of 5 stars

One-dimensional ‘9’ falls flat (3/5)

9

Starring: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly.
Directed by: Shane Acker.
Rating: PG-13 for violence and scary images.
Running time: 1 hour, 19 minutes.

“9” had a lot of potential.

Its unique visual style is nothing short of amazing. The look of the characters themselves is enough to draw in the audience.

Unfortunately, these should not be the sole aspects that keep an audience interested through the film’s short running time. But, in the case of “9,” it almost is.

It goes without saying that most of the characters are one-dimensional. In fact, that’s almost the point. But it comes across as shallow and not at all as the profound plot device the creators intended.

“9” came on the heels of the successful “Coraline,” both produced by Tim Burton and under the oversight of Focus Features, and actually the very beginnings of both movies are exceptionally similar.

But where “Coraline” excelled in ingenuity and the exploration of a dark fantasy, “9” just leaves its audience wanting.

The movie takes place after the destruction of mankind. Before his death, a scientist created nine “stitchpunks” (as director Shane Acker calls them) because, he says, “life must go on.”

Each of the stitchpunks is made from piecing together various bits of fabric and material (zippers, camera lenses, canvas, etc.) and has a numeral hand-painted on its back.

When 9 awakens, he finds himself apparently alone in a desolate and bleak world. After leaving the dead scientist’s room, he soon finds the other stitchpunks, as well as a terrible, metallic dog-like monster.

Each of the stitchpunks has its own unique traits:

1: The oldest and leader of those stitchpunks that have not struck out on their own. His favorite sayings include “We have rules” and “Questions are pointless.” Blames 9 for many of the events that transpire after 9 awakens.

2: An old inventor who is fascinated with creating things.

3 and 4: Shy twins who live by themselves in a library. They soak up all of the knowledge they can and, lacking the ability to speak, are able to use their eyes as projectors.

5: A healer and a mechanic, 5 is also a devoted friend as seen with his attitudes toward 2 and 9.

6: Possibly insane, 6 draws the same forms on paper after paper. Lives with 1 but is mostly in a world of his own.

7: The “female” of the group, 7 is the warrior. She has abandoned 1’s ways of avoiding the metallic monster and instead seems to take it upon herself to try and destroy that which attacks the stitchpunks.

8: 1’s personal bodyguard, 8 is mean and seemingly clueless.

9: 9 is the character who most leans toward having any sort of depth. He is the “seeker of truth” and is very curious and sincere.

Like “District 9,” “9” began as a 10-minute short film created by Acker. This short film can be found on YouTube under the title “9,” but don’t watch it if you intend to watch the feature film. Watch it as a supplement instead. This short film has an astounding similarity to the feature film, but, while it may work as a 10-minute artistic venture, it just doesn’t function as well as a full-length motion picture.

A major problem with this film is the apparent lack of a target audience. I think here they tried to be the next “Finding Nemo” and appeal to people in all age groups, but somehow “9” just didn’t work out that way. Its fantastical elements, animated style and simple script would largely lend itself to younger viewers; however, the PG-13 rating and nigh-terrifying imagery would leave that crowd with nightmares. But the movie just doesn’t push enough boundaries to be that appealing to the older crowd, either.

It’s a wonderfully creative, imaginative idea. Unfortunately, the end product falls far short of the intended target.

Plenty to love about ‘(500) Days’ (4.5/5)

(500) Days of Summer

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel.
Directed by: Marc Webb.
Rating: PG-13 for sexual material and language.
Running time: 1 hour, 35 minutes.

Right at the start, the narrator tells us that “(500) Days of Summer” most definitely is not a love story.

And, though you’re made aware of the fact from the beginning and maybe repeat it to yourself throughout the hour-and-a-half film, it does seem suspiciously like a love story. A romantic comedy, perhaps, or maybe even a nuanced “dromance” (dramatic romance).

But it’s not. Not really.

In the end, in its most basic form, “(500) Days of Summer” is about human relationships. More specifically, of a breakup. It’s about how the relationship of a boy (Tom Hansen — played by the impeccable and suddenly mature Joseph Gordon-Levitt of “3rd Rock from the Sun,” “Angels in the Outfield” and “10 Things I Hate About You” fame) and of a girl (Summer Finn — delightfully portrayed by the fun and quirky Zooey Deschanel whom you may know from “Elf,” “Yes Man” and “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”) begins, builds and gradually falls apart.

Tom is a young greeting card writer with aspirations for architecture and true love. When Summer becomes an assistant at the card company, Tom is immediately smitten. Her charm and winning smile, coupled with her love for the band The Smiths, is more than enough to push Tom over the edge.

Tom’s architectural tendencies give him the strength to conceptualize, visualize and construct something out of nothing. So when the relationship with the “love of his life” starts crumbling to the ground, Tom is left grasping with little understanding to Summer’s mindset.

Screenplay writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber made a risky but invaluable decision to not tell the story chronologically. Instead, the film skips about to different aspects of the relationship, revealing a bit near the breakup, a bit when they first meet, a bit during the best of times and a bit during the worst of times.

This nonlinear storyline heavily contributes to the film by forcing the audience to become more invested in the emotions of the characters rather than waiting for the “grand ending” just before the credits roll.

It would be very easy to hate Summer. Despite immediately telling Tom that she does not believe in love and is not looking for a serious, committed relationship, it wouldn’t take much to think that Summer was using him. After all, how could she not see how crazy in love with her Tom is?

But Deschanel’s performance leaves you loving Summer almost as much as Tom does.

The complexities of love as shown in Tom and Summer’s relationship are juxtaposed against the greeting cards they work to produce. The cards are flat and superficial. They are someone else’s words, used out of obligation. It’s no wonder Tom and Summer soon have a problem communicating.

An added bonus to this movie is the soundtrack. The light, unconventional sounds of Deschanel-esque Regina Spektor complement the film and Deschanel’s character beautifully. Too, director Marc Webb’s background of music videos lend a fresh feel to the film (and actually, Webb directed two of Spektor’s music videos).

This film was opened in limited theaters in July but was finally released in mainstream cinemas last Wednesday.

Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt also participated in Webb’s promotional “Bank Heist” skit, which can be found on YouTube under the name “(500) Days of Summer [Bank Dance].” It has little (if anything) to do with the actual movie, but will give you a taste of the fun attitude in the film complete with a song that Deschanel herself sings.

4 1/2 of 5 stars

Rachel’s top 10 school flick picks

The alarm goes off at an inhumane 6 a.m.

And that’s just the beginning.

After a hectic day of teachers, peers, coaches, homework, parents and more homework, a couple hours of unwinding is just what you need before starting it all over.

Here’s a list of my 10 favorite school-focused movies. From the guilty pleasures (“Bring it On”) to the sentimental favorites (“The Breakfast Club”), these movies are sure to get you geared up for classes, get your parents nostalgic, and, at the very least, let you forget about that 10-page paper you’ve been putting off.

“10 Things I Hate About You” (PG-13, 1999)
No, I’m not talking about the TV series. I’m talking about the original, creative, modern take on Shakespeare’s never-ending iambic pentameter. In particular, a comedic high school version of “The Taming of the Shrew.”

“Back to the Future” (PG, 1985)
OK, so I’m cheating a bit — this movie doesn’t necessarily focus on school. But, it does center around a high-school-age teen who time travels to when his parents are his age. Besides, there are some school scenes. Anyway, this adventure movie captures a lot of the wonder and creativity associated with youth. It’s a classic for a reason.

“The Breakfast Club” (R, 1985)
Of course. Nothing like a detention movie to get the kids ready for back to school. But really, the film’s dissolving of clique barriers and stereotypes set a precedent for high school movies.

“Bring It On” (PG-13, 2000)
I didn’t lose my mind — yet, anyway. If you see “Bring it On: In it to Win it” on next year’s list, then you should worry. But this movie’s cheesiness and utter superficiality gives those of us who were never cheerleaders a good laugh while hopefully showing the real cheerleaders that they don’t have to fit the stereotype.

“Cheats” (PG-13, 2002)
In my opinion, one of the most underrated movies. “Cheats” has never gotten the recognition it deserves. Based on a true story (which makes the film even better), the story follows a group of boys who cheat their way through school. A hilarious movie and definitely one to watch.

“Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (PG-13, 1986)
Who hasn’t needed a mental health day? Ferris Bueller has been a teen hero for decades with his devil-may-care attitude and general lack of respect for school authority.

“Mean Girls” (PG-13, 2004)
It’s every girl’s nightmare: To see her friend become one of the “popular kids” and subsequently ignore her existence. But what if you were put in that situation? Would you be able to resist the perks of popularity and disentangle yourself from the web of drama?

“Mr. Holland’s Opus” (PG, 1995)
A bit of a different tone from the others on this list, “Opus” focuses on an aspiring pianist who becomes a music teacher to pay the bills — only to realize that the short-term gig has become a full-time career. Sentimental and inspiring, “Opus” shows the difference a dedicated teacher can make in students’ lives, and also the inspiration the teacher can derive from those same students.

“Remember the Titans” (PG, 2000)
Another sentimental favorite, this true story follows the trials and triumphs of a struggling interracial football team in Virginia in the 1970s. I’m not normally a football fan, but “Titans” transcends the typical sports movie to view the contested school and town through the reflective lens of the team.

“Superbad” (R, 2007)
Parents beware: Vulgarity abounds in this comedy, but it is one of the most hilarious movies I’ve seen, not to mention its place quite near the top of my favorites list. Michael Cera and Jonah Hill capture the awkwardness of high school beautifully. Forget “Napoleon Dynamite”; “Superbad” is relatable and at times painfully honest, but always ceaselessly entertaining.

‘Coraline’ realistic in more ways than one (4/5)

Coraline

Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Keith David.
Directed by: Henry Selick.
Rating: PG for thematic elements, scary images, some language and suggestive humor.
Running time: 1 hours, 40 minutes.


Coraline Jones is a typical “my way or the highway” 11-year-old girl — she whines, she complains, she’s too curious for her own good, she’s quick to make judgments and, frankly, she’s just a little brat.

But it’s refreshing to have a little girl actually behave like a little girl — not like the Pevensie kids from “Chronicles of Narnia,” who were obnoxious, too, but more in the “I’m so wholesome” kind of way.

And maybe her gumption is also why I like her. I was a little girl not too long ago (and, though I just turned 23 on Monday, many would still like to label me as such).

And not that her cheeky nature is all her fault. After all, much of Coraline’s poor attitude stems from her parents’ seeming indifference to her existence.

Coraline (voiced by the talented Dakota Fanning) and her parents moved from Michigan to an old, large, insect-ridden home in Oregon. Here her preoccupied mom and dad (Teri Hatcher and John Hodgman) immediately begin work on their gardening magazine — without ever setting foot outside. Instead, they remain intently glued to their computer screens, barely acknowledging Coraline when she tries her best to disrupt them.

While boredly examining the house, Coraline comes upon a half-sized door in the living room concealed by wallpaper. After much harassment, her mother relents in return for quiet, breaks herself away from her work, and opens the door for Coraline — who only discovers a bricked-up hole.

That night, Coraline is wakened by a mouse in her room. She chases it downstairs and sees it dash into the half-sized door. Expecting to trap the mouse, Coraline pries open the door and finds a long tunnel.

With fear obviously not being one of Coraline’s strong points, she immediately crawls through the tunnel only to end up — back at her house.

But instead of finding her tired, workaholic parents, Coraline discovers her “Other” parents — attentive, loving, button-eyed reflections of her real mom and dad.

Here’s where things really start to get weird. While Coraline’s “new” family, home and neighbors seems like everything she could want, things quickly take a dark turn when her “Other” mother insists on exchanging Coraline’s real eyes for buttons similar to everyone else’s in the “Other” world, and keeping Coraline in the “Other” world forever.

Though technically an “animated” film, “Coraline” plays out as a fairy tale nightmare sending unexpecting adults spiraling back into the bad dreams of childhood.

But, of course, as is the sad tale of many blockbuster hits these days, “Coraline” is not an original concept. In fact, it is a relatively short book written by Neil Gaiman, the oft-fantasy, oft-horroresque author of “Stardust” and “Neverwhere” fame.

It’s no surprise, really, that the unconventional Tim Burton would pick up “Coraline” and find it a good match. He even caught back up with director Henry Selick, whom he had worked with on “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” In fact, the introduction to “Coraline” may remind some of Jack Skeleton’s bony fingers. Tim Burton’s style is difficult to miss, but always a joy to see.

The amazing stop-motion in Coraline and the optional 3-D viewing show that animation has come a long way since Disney’s 1950 “Cinderella” and may be steps away from breaking into the realm of “serious” movies for real.

A note of caution for parents of young children: This is not a Disney movie. The aesthetic and imaginative story line could easily lend themselves to a kid-friendly movie; however, with Selick’s dark undertone and the generally nightmarish storyline, this is a film that could haunt kids long after bedtime. Heck, it even unnerved me a little, but, maybe I’m still just an 11-year-old girl at heart.

4 of 5 stars

‘D9’ fresh, innovative (4.5/5)

District 9

Starring: Sharlto Copley, William Allen Young, Robert Hobbs.
Directed by: Neill Blomkamp.
Rating: R for bloody violence and pervasive language.
Running time: 1 hours, 52 minutes.

Whatever you think “District 9” is — it’s not.

In an industry consumed by sequels, book adaptations and rehashed plotlines, director Neill  Blomkamp blows away the Hollywood norm in an explosion of innovation, blood and CGI splendor.

“District 9” is considered a remake of  Blomkamp’s 2005 six-minute effort “Alive in Joburg” (which you can find in its entirety on YouTube). But, having seen both, I’d rather classify “District 9” as an extension of the shorter movie. If you haven’t seen “District 9” yet, watching “Alive in Joburg” shouldn’t ruin any of the main feature; however, I would recommend watching “Joburg” after “District 9,” if only to have a completely fresh experience.

One of the coolest things about this movie is that it was never supposed to be made. Peter Jackson (esteemed director of “Lord of the Rings” and the “King Kong” remake) was set to produce a movie with Blomkamp at the helm based on the popular video game franchise “Halo.” When that project fell through, Jackson is rumored to have offered  Blomkamp $30 million to make whatever he wanted (a sum the movie made back in just its first weekend).

With “District 9,” Blomkamp proved that a movie doesn’t  need an excessive budget to be a good film. Take “Spiderman 3” for example — even a $258 million budget couldn’t save that poor excuse for a superhero movie — which is saying a lot because I really hate the “Fantastic 4” series (Jessica Alba can not act, I don’t care how pretty she is).

Too, I may have seen only two or three previews for this movie before I saw it (as opposed to other films where you see a preview a day for six months), but the oft-forgotten power of word-of-mouth really gave me high hopes for “District 9” — which  Blomkamp exceeded in every way possible.

The basic premise of the movie is that a group of aliens somehow became stranded in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1980. The majority of the movie takes place in 2010, with the aliens segregated into the Johannesburg slum known as “District 9.” The South Africans are not happy with the aliens living in such close proximity — and so MNU (Multi-National United — a fictional technology innovation organization) charges field operative Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) with the task of evicting and moving all of the aliens to a remote location.

And that’s as much as I’m going to tell you. A big contributing factor to making this movie extraordinary was not having a clue as to how it would unfold.

Copley, who never intended on becoming an actor, truly inhabits the character of Wikus. His performance is so convincing that the fact that he’s playing counter CGI aliens seems perfectly normal. Too, it’s refreshing to see new actors take on large roles (something Peter Jackson himself insisted on with “The Lord of the Rings”). Copley is able to draw an audience into the plot without being distracted by a celebrity status in a way that Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks wouldn’t, or couldn’t.

“District 9” is an amazing ride, from the mockumentary style to the mind-blowing (pun assuredly intended) alien weaponry. My boyfriend maintains that I hate action movies simply because I think that Bruce Willis acts exactly the same in every one, but let me assure you that I can appreciate well-crafted gore as much as the next person — something that “District 9” definitely cashed in on.


Blomkamp does not skimp on the blood, at times making you cringe away in horror while at other times leaving you slack jawed in amazement. My sole request with this movie is that they don’t ruin it with a sequel.

I greatly look forward to  Blomkamp’s next effort, and whether it be “Halo” or “The Wiggles,” “District 9” has unleashed a fresh, powerful directorial force.

4.5 of 5

‘Dan’ comfortably realistic (3.5/5)

Dan In Real Life

Starring: Steve Carell, Juliette Binoche, Dane Cook
Directed By: Peter Hedges
Rating: PG-13 for some innuendo
Running time: 1 hour, 38 minutes

What happens when everyone loves your girlfriend — including your brother?

“Dan in Real Life” is a welcome blend of laughter and familial warmth, directed and written by Peter Hedges (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” “Pieces of April”).

Although the plot is nothing extraordinarily fresh or new, the cast plays it out so organically that it seems downright believable. This while having the notorious grandstander Dane Cook in one of the lead roles.

The story follows a family weekend at the parents’ cabin in Rhode Island through the perspective of New Jersey newspaper advice columnist Dan Burns (Steve Carell). After losing his wife four years prior, Dan’s life has become a shallow reflection of his family-focused column. Since his wife’s death, he has found himself alone and not knowing how to raise his three daughters, each of whom is at a pivotal stage in their life: Jane, eager to begin driving and exercise her newfound independence; Cara, a typical teenage angster who is positive she is madly “in love” with a boy after three days; and Lilly, who is just passing through the final stages of childhood.

Dan’s relationships with his daughters are very realistic, being a single dad with no clue as to the inner workings of a teenage girl’s mind. As Lilly, tells him: “You’re a great dad, but sometimes you’re a bad father.” Despite his career success, Dan finds himself lacking when it comes to being in charge of an actual family.

When he arrives at the cabin, Dan’s parents (wonderfully played by Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney) encourage him to go to the town by himself and allow his daughters to be without him for a time.

While at a local bookstore, Dan runs into the smart, charming Marie (Juliette Binoche). For the first time, Dan seems truly comfortable and finds himself telling Marie everything about his past, including his late wife. The conversation is cut short when Marie gets a phone call and tells him that she has to go. Dan realizes that he doesn’t know a thing about her but that he already feels a connection. When she tells him that she has a boyfriend, they agree to meet to finish their talk one day, something they both tell each other (and themselves) would simply be between friends.

When he returns to the cabin, he tells his brothers, including Mitch (Dane Cook), that he met a woman at the bookstore. Being family, Dan is quickly grilled about her, an event that ultimately involves the entire family and their relieved happiness for him until Mitch’s girlfriend arrives:

Marie.

What follows is a hilariously awkward weekend as Dan fights with his obvious attraction to Marie and his brotherly obligations toward Mitch. Too, Marie finds herself growing closer and closer to Dan while weighing her feelings toward Mitch, who is falling head over heels for Marie.

Dan is everything an uncomfortable person in love should be. He’s awkward, fidgety, irrationally angry and absolutely relatable. Dane Cook is amazingly reserved in his role as Mitch — something both welcome and unexpected. Also, while many may consider the role of middle-child Cara to be overplayed (screaming at her father that he is a “murderer of love,” for instance), she is in fact painfully reminiscent of high school melodrama.

Also, while the movie can at points be considered predictable, it actually unfolds in a realistic way that makes it believable rather than a pure work of entertaining fiction.

Dan in real life? Dan IS real life.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘War’ food for thought (3.5/5)

Charlie Wilson's War

Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Directed By: Mike Nichols.
Rating: R for strong language, nudity/sexual content and some drug use.
Running time: 1 hours, 42 minutes.

“Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007) tells the remarkably true story of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson who, with the aid of rich Texas socialite Joanne Herring and CIA case officer Gust Avrakotos, managed to seemingly undermine the entire Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 1980s.

The film itself, directed by Mike Nichols (“Closer”), is engaging and witty, full of political insights and sarcasm. Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman fill their roles immaculately. The moderately short running time also keeps things crisp and at a nice pace, but may lose someone not fully paying attention.

While a blind eye is turned to the tribulations facing Afghanistan by the United States government, Herring (Roberts) refuses to sit idly by. Instead, she throws fundraiser after fundraiser in order to “educate” the people and inform them as to the true events, especially those that occur in the refugee camps.

Herring invites the womanizing, party-loving member of the House Appropriations Committee Congressman Wilson (Hanks) to a fundraiser, and through her womanly charms convinces him to visit the Afghan camps themselves. Faced with the horrors of senseless death and mutilated children, Wilson returns with a new desire to aid in any way possible.

Avrakotos (Hoffman), tired of the government’s indifferent attitude and eager to prevent a potential catastrophic situation in Afghanistan, also turns to Wilson in the hopes of raising more appropriated funds for the torn area.

In the midst of this, Wilson is also put under investigation for recreational drug use by none other than Rudy Giuliani. While to many congressmen this would be a devastating political career blow, as Avrakotos tells Wilson: “As long as the press sees sex and drugs behind the left hand, you can park a battle carrier behind the right hand and no one’s gonna ... notice.”

The pair continue to secretly rally a host of Middle Eastern countries while buddying up to American congressmen in order to raise more and more money, eventually supplying the Afghans with enough weaponry to defend their border.

Hoffman’s portrayal of Gust absolutely makes this movie. His brilliant comedic timing coupled with his ability to make you believe that he truly cares about each turn of events makes him the character to watch. Too, Hanks succeeds as the unlikely hero Charlie Wilson.

The film drives home many thought-provoking points:

• Politics as usual — Would Wilson have been able to accomplish what he did if he were from another district, and therefore unsure about re-election? Elected officials face a difficult choice: Toeing the line in an effort to keep as many constituents pleased as possible, or completely crossing the line in an effort to do what may be best but what may also ultimately cost them their career.

• The ethics code — Was this underhanded, covert operation ethical? Should we have given these arms to the Afghans, knowing that if the Soviets found out it could have sparked an immense war? Could these billions of dollars have been better spent elsewhere?

• The role of the press — Is the media truly more concerned about juicy gossip than what’s actually going on in the world? And if so, how do we change this?

“Charlie Wilson’s War” is not only a film to entertain and illuminate one man’s unique life’s path, but is also one that resonates with current events. Watch it, enjoy it and think about it.

3.5 of 5 stars

‘Watchmen’: Watch it twice (4/5)

Watchmen

Starring: Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Malin Akerman.
Directed By: Zack Snyder.
Rating: R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.
Running time: 2 hours, 40 minutes.

I’m your average “Watchmen” watcher — never read the graphic novel. In fact, had never even heard about the graphic novel. And so director Zach Snyder would have a difficult time turning what is rumored to be one of the longest, most complex and “unfilmmable” specimens of the genre into a movie adaptation that would keep me from becoming lost.

But he did it, and with style.

“Watchmen” is not just a great movie with a cool and interesting plot, but its cinematography and excellent cast all culminate into an amazing experience — even at two and a half hours of screen time.
The graphic novel, published by DC Comics, was written by Alan Moore (“V for Vendetta,” “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”) and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. “300” director Snyder was aided by screenplay writer David Hayter (“X-Men”).

It’s 1985. Richard Nixon has been elected to a third presidential term. The U.S.S.R. is encroaching upon Afghanistan’s borders. A superhero has just been murdered.

When fellow superhero Rorschach attempts to uncover the secret behind the murder, he stumbles onto a plot that not only threatens the superheroes but the entire world as well. With this knowledge, he attempts to warn and rally the “Watchmen:”

• The Comedian — Eddie Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan): The superhero with questionable morals. Although he is killed in the opening sequence, his “resurrections” in flashbacks make him a fascinating character who steals every scene he’s in. Unfathomably violent and crass, the Comedian is a parody of humanity, truly believing he is doing mankind a favor by killing people off.

• Rorschach — Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley): Another scene-stealer and quite possibly the main protagonist of the movie (certainly the main plot advancer). Haley is riveting as the unyielding vigilante who believes in absolute justice, no matter the consequence (“Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon”).

• Doctor Manhattan — Jon Osterman (Billy Crudup): Dr. Manhattan is America’s sole hope against a Soviet Union nuclear attack. After a freak lab accident, physicist Jon Osterman is turned into the “demigod” Dr. Manhattan, who is able to maneuver matter with his mind. Crudup may have had the most difficult character to embody, as Manhattan is often devoid of emotion and above the triviality of this world.

• Nite Owl II — Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson): The aging bachelor who seems lost in his life of post-heroism. The second Nite Owl is one of Rorschach’s most trusted friends and is the first one he warns about a potential superhero killer.

• Silk Spectre II — Laurie Juspeczyk (Malin Akerman): The daughter of the original Silk Spectre, Laurie feels compelled to follow her mother’s footsteps. Along the way she falls in love with Doctor Manhattan, but his lack of emotion eventually drives her to Nite Owl II.

• Ozymandias — Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode): The “smartest man in the world,” Veidt feels that his only true connection with humanity was with Alexander the Great and his concept of a united world. Veidt came out to the public with his superhero identity, making a business of it and earning substantial sums of money.

The movie offers a fairly unique version of a superhero film, with obvious flaws attached to each character. The heroes are made out to seem like humans in costumes rather than superheroes masquerading as people (with the obvious exception of Dr. Manhattan).

Rorschach and the Comedian alone are reason enough to watch “Watchmen.” Both characters can be perceived as deranged psychopaths, yet fight for the side of “good.”

Yet, for all that Rorschach and the Comedian bring to the film, Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II are certainly a heavy anchor to all of the characters. Nite Owl just never seems to reach his peak as a character, always falling subpar, and Silk Spectre is, frankly, a little obnoxious at times. I’ll be honest, I really dislike many of the women in superhero movies, and Silk Spectre II was a far cry from the elite list of those I can actually tolerate.

Also, the soundtrack just doesn’t quite fit. Two very prominent examples are the Vietnam War scene and an exceptionally graphic sex scene set to Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah.”

Speaking of exceptionally graphic, the squeamish out there may want to take a pass at “Watchmen” as there are some highly detailed and bloody sequences.

Despite a few spots that missed the mark, “Watchmen” is a bold and innovative movie that deserves not just one viewing, but two (if only just to fully understand all of what’s going on!).

4 of 5 stars

‘Half-Blood Prince’ not perfect, but close (4.5/5)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint.
Directed By: David Yates.
Rating: PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality.
Running time: 2 hours, 33 minutes.

I’ll admit my bias: I’ve been a Harry Potter fan for fully half my life. I was actually the same age as Harry for the first three books, until series author J.K. Rowling iced her speedy hand and took longer than a year to write and publish each novel.

The movies have always been subpar to the series. It’s to be expected, as Rowling has delivered arguably the most rich, complex and loved young adult series of all time. Having said that, “Half-Blood Prince” strikes as close to perfect as any of the films have thus far. There are notable and at times shocking variations from the book, and while these will no doubt sting like a sectumsempra charm to the 2005 novel lovers, they can almost be forgiven by the fantastic acting by ALL of the actors and the acute melancholy Rowling increasingly infuses each year at Hogwarts caught by returning director David Yates (“Order of the Phoenix”).

I was a little nervous upon hearing that screenwriter Steve Kloves was returning. His adaptations of “Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets” worked well under director Chris Columbus, as both kept to the lighthearted atmosphere omnipresent in the first two works. “Prisoner of Azkaban,” my favorite of the books, suffered through his script (mostly thanks to director Alfonso Cuarón), but “Goblet of Fire” hit such a bipolar note in terms of ranging from dark to just plain corny that Kloves’ absence in “Order of the Phoenix” was notable and needed.

But, maybe a little refresher was all he needed. Kloves and Yates created a fantastic film in “Half-Blood Prince,” with good dialogue and excellent pacing, and I cannot wait to watch it again.

A major addition to the behind-the-camera crew, though, was cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel. If you have seen “Across the Universe,” then you are already familiar with his work. Delbonnel keeps the audience visually involved through dark hallway conversations and firey encounters to the highly anticipated Quidditch match.

The stars of the film, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron), have finally grown into their roles. It’s almost painful to go back and watch the first few movies (the term “flat acting” is almost a compliment). “Half-Blood Prince” shows the trio at last appearing truly natural in their roles, making me even more excited for “The Deathly Hallows.”

Tom Felton does an excellent job as the tortured Draco Malfoy, and it was great to finally have Draco’s screen time nearly match his book appearances.

Other notable actors were Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley, Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Jim Broadbent as Professor Slughorn, and, of course, Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore. Too, the portrayal of 11-year-old Tom Riddle by Hero Fiennes-Tiffin (nephew to Voldemort actor Ralph Fiennes) will leave many with chills up their spine.

Despite the brilliant acting, it did seem that budding relationships and raging hormones overshadowed some of the key plot points — for example, I think many would have been happier with more Tom Riddle and less Lavender Brown.

The film has its fair share of memorable scenes — from Katie Bell’s curse, to felix felicus, to the Burrow and the Dumbledore/Harry scene near the finale — but in the end, the movie is a true compilation of talents from every angle. It is apparent that everyone involved gave their all to bring Rowling’s sixth installment to the big screen.

There will be a lot of fans disappointed by the changed scenes — and, while there were a few very important bits left out that maybe shouldn’t have been left out, it’s also important to realize that the film is an adaptation and cannot mimic the novel precisely. In the end, it must be viewed as a movie and as a supplement to the books. In fact, I hope now, as I have always hoped with this film series, that the movies will only encourage people to read what is perhaps one of the most significant literary achievements in the past several decades.

4 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Inkheart’ may lead to books (3.5/5)

Inkheart

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Eliza Bennett, Paul Bettany.
Directed By: Iain Softley.
Rating: PG for fantasy/adventure action, some scary moments and brief language.
Running time: 1 hour, 46 minutes.

Let’s see: Read a 500-odd page book, or watch an hour-and-a-half long movie?

Much to my chagrin as a graduate of both English and professional writing, many people would prefer to watch a film adaptation of a story than read the work itself.

That’s all fine and dandy — I mean, I’m a big movie buff myself. But when it comes to transferring someone’s creative written work onto the big screen, a simple rule should be followed: Do it right, or don’t even bother.

I always approach such a film with a little bit of trepidation. The title “Inkheart” appealed to me, however, because not only was it based off of a book, it was also about books.

Not only that, but the film also starred two of my favorite actors: Paul Bettany (“A Knight’s Tale,” “The DaVinci Code”) and Andy Serkis (formerly Gollum of “Lord of the Rings” fame).

Written by Cornelia Funke as the first of a trilogy, screenwriter David Lindsay-Abaire and director Iain Softley provide a good, fun film, though many fans decry its variations.

 “Inkheart” falls into the fantasy-fiction/adventure genre with force, allowing a narrator to divulge before the title screen the mystical power of “silvertongues” and their ability to, quite literally, bring life to books that they read.

Mo Folchart (Brendan Fraser) is one such man, as he found out quite accidentally one evening while reading the book “Inkheart” aloud to his wife, Resa (Sienna Guillory), and daughter, Meggie (Eliza Bennett).

Not only does Mo’s reading call to being the fire juggler Dustfinger (Bettany), but it also brings forth the villain Capricorn (Serkis) and several of his henchman — at a drastic price.

Nine years after bringing these elements of the novel to the world, Dustfinger gives Mo an ultimatum — send Dustfinger back home, or be given over to Capricorn and be forced to read into being things of Capricorn’s desire. Mo refuses Dustfinger’s request, stating that he has no control or knowledge of his “gift,” and escapes with Meggie to Italy and the home of Elinor Loredan (Helen Mirren), Resa’s aunt.

Dustfinger tracks Mo to Italy and brings Capricorn’s henchmen to capture him, Meggie and Elinor, with the understanding that Mo would be forced to read him back into his home — an agreement which, of course, the dubious Capricorn rescinds.

It is quickly discovered that Capricorn fully intends to never return anyone to the novel, but to have Mo read out the fiercest villain of all known only as the Shadow.

Though Fraser is touted as the lead of the film, Bettany far outshines him in terms of acting and even plain characterization. Other highly notable mentions are Mirren as the book-loving, sharp-tongued, my-way-or-the-highway Elinor and Jim Broadbent as Inkheart’s author Fenoglio.

The brief interactions between Fenoglio and Dustfinger are spectacular as creator meets creation. While Fenoglio describes the sensation as the equivalent to giving birth, Dustfinger views the author in disdain and tells him, “You’re not my God.”

Perhaps the best thing of the movie is that it will hopefully inspire young adults to pick up this and other novels and discover the true magic of literature.

3 1/2 of 5 stars