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