Looking for a great buddy movie? Don't miss this one!

We got word of the "The Hangover" a few months ago and the release date is fast approaching on this one. If you've been looking for a great buddy comedy movie like "Old School" but felt that while "Wedding Crashers" was good, it just wasn't close enough, this may be your movie.

On June 5th you can bet we'll be in the audience for this one. Feel free to join us, just stay away from the dark corner and the guy in the trench coat.

I'm just saying,

Elijah

Whadd'ya know? It's "That" time of year again.

As you well know, May officially starts the “movie viewing season.” As these movies start to arrive in theaters the public begins to look at the openings and gets excited for favorite franchise releases or an adaptation that they’ve been waiting years to see transformed to a movie.

It’s around this time of year that we see our influence wane a bit as you pick the movies you’re going to see. The fact of the matter is, you’ve picked your movies to see back in January or February, and you’ve been gearing up to finally see them for months.

For this reason we’re going to scale back our reviews on the big movies. Last year we disappeared until the season was over. We’re not going full radio silent this year; we’ll just give a few quick paragraphs and our overall ratings. These movies and their subsequent water cooler talk have the potential to get peoples blood to boil, so we are looking forward to commentary.

Our true strength lies in taking a look at films that are just off the radar, or maybe you wouldn’t normally make time to catch that unfamiliar title. We’re going to stick with those movies that interest us but may escape your attention.

Look for smaller posts from us in the next few months before the September/October dramas begin again, but always look here for the sneaker film that you may have missed.

I’m just saying,

Elijah

Star Trek: The New, New Generation

Blockbuster season may have began with "Wolverine" last weekend, but it got off to a roaring start this weekend with the reimagining of Star Trek. I saw this film on opening day, and immediately knew this was a winner, but I had know idea if word of mouth would carry this movie to the success it probably deserved.


Then I came to work on Monday. While waiting for an elevator at about midday, I happened to overhear 4 ladies from one of the law firms in our building having a lively discussion of the film. Now, these women looked like any other women you'd run into in an office building. I didn't notice any of them wearing fake pointy ears or a Klingon headpiece, so I assume that they were dragged to this film by a significant other. Not a one of them said a bad word while I waited and consequently rode the elevator down with them. That's when I realized that this movie may have some serious crossover and even better staying power through this week and into the coming weekend. At least until "Terminator: Salvation" hits on the 21st.

Personally, I found Star Trek to be a fun and exciting Sci-Fi adventure flick. Did it have it's plot holes? Sure, plenty of them, but not enough to distract the viewing at the time. The movie is a mile-a-minute romp and only slows down to throw a little levity at you. I caught so many nods to the past iterations of the series that it blew my mind. I wonder how many I didn't catch as I now know for certain that there was a tribble in there that I didn't see!

As for the new cast members, I loved the fit for many of them. Oddly, the two new actors I didn't immediately warm too were the Kirk and Spock actors, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto respectively. Chris Pine makes a fine, brash, young James T. Kirk with just enough desire to get himself into all kinds of trouble. The thing that creeped up on me about him was this little twang in his voice that reminded me of Christian Slater and kept taking me out of the movie. Side note: Slater is a trek fan and was given a cameo in Star Trek VI. Quinto on the other hand looks so much the part that it's nearly impossible to separate him from the role. For me the only problem was the fact that it wasn't Leonard Nimoy. I think that was compounded by the fact that Nimoy makes an appearance in this film.


The two that stood out the most for me were Dr. McCoy and Scottie. With very little screen time dedicated to those characters, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg made a big impression. Hilarious, and absolutely spot on. I can only hope that future sequels will highlight those two a bit more.


The Star Trek reboot gets 4 Green Chicks in Lingerie out of a possible 5 Green Chicks in Lingerie. For pure fun and adrenaline, this movie should be seen if you like science-fiction at all. Of course, there are some big plot holes, but if you're going to this movie and letting that trouble you, then why bother seeing it at all? But if there is one thing that you shake your head at and it just seems like pandering to "Star Wars" fans, well, I'll let that go. I'm looking at you, giant ice planet creatures.


I'm just saying,


Elijah

X-men Origins: Wolverine. A Wolverine for a kinder, more emotional generation.

Why, you ask, do we head the post with a picture not of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine character? Rather, we are showing you someone who the comic book geeks (I include myself) will instantly recognize, but a person whom the public in general would scratch their collective heads at? Even after watching, they're still saying, "Who?"

The point is to illustrate the reason why this film is going to be watched despite the horrible reviews it received from the critics. There are two reasons, really. One, it's the first real "blockbuster" film to be released of the season. Secondly and more importantly, this film has the promise of showing a huge amount of never-before-seen reader favorites. That's right. The people who are going to put this film into the right money range are the people who have every hope that their favorite mutant from their childhood will make an appearance. Maybe not even childhood, maybe they are in their 30's and they have the coveted "disposable income." Geeks. God love us.

X-men Origins is the film version of the popular Marvel comic book that does just what the title suggests: it fills in the background we and indeed, he, himself never knew before Wolverine sauntered on to the screen 9 years ago, chomping a cigar with amnesia fully intact.

Hugh Jackman hits the sound stage for his 4th turn as the antihero Logan, codename: Wolverine. At this point is there a person alive who thinks anybody else could do a better job than Hugh Jackman in this role? It's gotten to the point for this reviewer, that when I see any other film starring Mr. Jackman, I can't help but think, "Hey, Wolverine is a magician too!" or "Hey, Wolverine kills vampires too!" In my opinion, Jackman is infallible in this role/film as an actor. He inhabits the role and we have no idea what else could be done because he has convinced us that this is Wolverine, take or leave it. Much like the people who refuse to acknowledge anyone other than Sean Connery as "Bond," no one could come in and change Wolverine. The public wouldn't allow it.

On the other hand, Liev Schreiber comes in and takes over the role of Victor Creed, a.k.a. Sabretooth. The original X-Men movie provided our first glimpse of the hulking Sabretooth, though that was a much more beastly, growling version played by wrestler turned actor Tyler Mane. Here we have a much more fleshed out Victor. In discovering the background of the most popular mutant, we also learn the influences and history of his arch nemesis. The reason for the differences in their personalities and what ultimately drives them. Schreiber is wonderful here and makes this character his own as well. His Sabretooth is much more evil and malevolent in intent; you feel that he could really be the death threat that you never saw in the hulked up, dumbed down version we saw previously. Liev Schrieber is a wonderfully capable actor and was the perfect choice to help hold this film together along side Jackman.

Like all summer popcorn films, there are problems with a couple plot holes and dialog for the sake of trying to be funny or witty. I always used to turn a blind eye to these moments in films; now that I write about them I find myself wincing when it occurs. I know I'm going to have to allude to them at some point. The fact of the matter is, these movies try to be fun and exciting. In doing so, sometimes the cheap lines are the easiest to go with, I acknowledge that. I don't always like it, but I understand. What really gets me though, is action for no conceivable reason. There is an action taken by one of the most anticipated characters that just begs for an explanation. We don't and won't get one. It is now three days later and it's still driving me insane. One inserted line of dialog could have changed my feelings, but they let it go. I know the real reason (the writers had painted themselves in a corner during a fight scene and needed a way out), but it is so suddenly inexplicable that I honestly dropped my popcorn on the floor when it happened.

As I said in my opening points, the factor that is going to bring the fans back to the theater for a second showing is the possibility of seeing their favorite mutant. This movie is just as full of them as the last entry in the franchise. Click on the links to see who played each. For me personally, seeing Emma Frost on the screen was enough to bring me to the theater. But how about some of the others that you readers may remember from your childhood? Silverfox? Yeah. Kestrel? Oh yeah. True fan favorites, Deadpool and Gambit? You better believe it! What about Bolt, The Blob, Zero, Cyclops? All there! Even Weapon XI, though with a different twist then in the books, but still fairly cool.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine garners 3.5 diamond hardened bodies out of a possible 5 diamond hardened bodies from me. Sure it's got it's weak points, but that's no reason to miss a fun, adventurous popcorn flick that just might take you back to your childhood again. Besides, did I mention Emma Frost?

I'm just saying,

Elijah

Monsters vs. Aliens. I have a feeling this was a really fun movie...

Yep, you read that correctly. I honestly believe that had I been able to see the complete movie, I would have loved it.

Here is the synopsis for "Monsters vs. Aliens," provided by IMDB.com: When a meteorite from outer space hits a young lady and turns her into a giant monster, she is taken to a secret government compound where she meets a ragtag group of monsters also rounded up over the years.

First, I'm a sucker for animated movies. I love them. My oldest daughter and I go to every one. More on that later. Throw in the 3-d and we are excited to get there. This also happens to be one of the few times that I head straight for the concessions, you can't not get the popcorn for the kiddies, right?

This flick starts off with the classic "Attack of the 50 ft. woman" premise. You've got to love the classic references! At this point I started to see the signs that this might not be going well for the 6 year old though. Something about a meteorite landing on a girl might have put a little tremor in the kid.

Next we get the inevitable military interference. Capture the 50 ft. woman and secure her back to the secret military installation! Now my darling child is sitting on my lap holding MY arms around her, but I'm definitely digging this flick as we get the comedy sequences that introduce us to the supporting cast of monsters. She buries her face in my chest.

Third we have the introduction of the Alien antagonists who launch a giant robot probe to track down the landing of the meteorite and acquire the precious mineral inside. Off come the 3-d glasses; she's now staring at a blurry screen. Honestly, I'm kind of digging the design and intro to our space enemies.

Finally, we have what I "assume" is the first battle of "Monsters vs. Aliens." This was filled with great comedy pieces, spectacular graphics and wondrous 3-d effects. The monsters are getting their asses handed to them, but we're starting to see a turn-around in the battle...and we're leaving. My daughter is seconds away from crying, I'm out $60 total. Screw those recycling boxes for the glasses; I'm getting something out of this. Even if I can't use them anywhere else.

Based on what I saw of "Monsters vs. Aliens," I'm giving this film 4.5 emotionally scarred little girls out of a possible 5 emotionally scarred little girls. So, when the dvd comes out in 6 months, I'll finally get to see the film and hope that I don't have to eat my words.

For those of you wondering how the kid made out, I leave you with this: after leaving the theater we promptly went across the street to the bookstore to pick out somethings to calm the nerves and return to a happy place. We enter the kids' section and the first thing my child sees is the book version of "Monsters vs. Aliens." At least I have that book to read to my child before bedtime for the next six months while I wait for the dvd.

I'm just saying,

Elijah

Sunshine Cleaning. I think you missed a spot.

Remember "Little Miss Sunshine?" It was the little independent comedy that carried Alan Arkin to the promised land of Oscar winners. The people responsible for that surprise hit are back with another serving and they've brought Mr. Arkin with them.

As not to spoil the overall story, here is a brief synopsis from IMDB.com: In order to raise the tuition to send her young son to private school, a mom starts an unusual business -- a bio hazard removal/crime scene clean-up service -- with her unreliable sister.

The potential in this movie for hilarity is off the charts...but if you've seen the previously referenced "Little Miss Sunshine," then you know that the humor will be inferred or the predicament itself will be inherently funny. In fact, this film plumbs the same depths and emotions but fails to deliver where the little differences occur.

I may be the worst person to review "Sunshine Cleaning" for the simple fact that the two movies are so alike in structure and circumstance, I can't separate one from the other.

I will say that the acting in this film is very good! The main cast all shine in their respective roles. Amy Adams continues her successful string of good roles here as the main character, "Rose." You can sense her desperately searching for a foothold throughout the film; a way to regain past glory, to be the good parent, to keep the family afloat. All the while, life gets in the way. What can happen, does happen. Unfortunately, everything is so telegraphed that you know it's inevitable and there is no way for the audience to jump into the screen and stop just one little event from befalling our champion. The spectacular thing about Amy Adams is the way her acting helps you to feel every emotion her characters encounter. Whether it's glee, embarrassment, jealousy, disgust or just plain sadness, you absolutely know and feel what the character is feeling. That's a direct credit to the actress.

Emily Blunt turns in the equally fun and self-destructive little sister, Norah. We learn so much as her story unfolds throughout the film. We learn not just about why this woman is the way she is, but why the family in it's entirety is in fervent need of a caretaker. Older siblings everywhere will quickly identify the slightly off younger sibling, that can't seem to get it together as a lack of common sense and perpetual bad luck go hand-in-hand. Her journey seems so disjointed, until we see the answers slowly unfold in a series of flashbacks as the movie progresses. It's through these interludes that we begin to see insight into everything that this family does; a brief glimpse into the missing heart, if you will. Emily Blunt's turn here is so far from her role in "The Devil wore Prada," that I had a hard time seeing the actress at all. That is an accomplishment.

Alan Arkin virtually reprises the role that won him an Oscar just two years ago. He's good. I won't say he's not. This time the quirks are taken up a notch, but this is where the film loses it's appeal. He isn't given a cute little girl as his "straight man." The entire reason the last film held together so well, was the connection between Arkin and Abigail Breslin. This time around, the child in the film is his grandson, Oscar. Jason Spevack steps in to fill the role as Amy Adams son here, but the character is written as a equally quirky boy, perhaps too smart for everyone around him, but unrecognized for a dolt. Frankly, where the story of a little girl's adorable relationship with her grandfather and pursuit of a dream carried the last movie, the loss of that connection hurts here. We are left with only despair, loss and craziness. There's no occasional respite; the actual laughs are few and far between.

The one shining knight in the film comes from an unlikely source in the form of a store owner. Clifton Collins, Jr. plays Winston, the one person who goes out of his way to offer assistance to our heroines, whether he likes it or not. Steve Zahn makes an appearance in the film and turns in another solid performance. That is what Mr. Zahn does; shows up and does the work.

To sum up: "Sunshine Cleaning" had the potential to match the success of "Little Miss Sunshine." In order to do that it had to replicate the lovable draw between Grandfather and Grandson, but that attempt ended up in a disjointed mish-mash. Further, had that succeeded then it would have just been a remake of the previous film (and let's face it, it pretty much is anyway).

I'm giving "Sunshine Cleaning" 2 Trunks full of Bay Shrimp out of a possible 5 Trunks full of Bay Shrimp. Despite the desperate attempt at the end of the movie to pull me out of the depression it had actually inflicted on me, I just couldn't walk away from this film without wishing that I had just rewatched "Little Miss Sunshine."

I'm just saying,

Elijah

In search of companionship, Jake takes on "I Love You Man."

It’s Friday night and I am single. Both of my roommates, one male (my best friend), and one female, have to work in the morning and are refusing the mighty sword of peer pressure to drink. My other good friend is about to be a baby daddy, which has changed his social drinking habits considerably. Sometimes I wish that I knew how to push through the wall of embarrassment and drink alone, but I can’t. I have too much self-respect. Though, I hear Elijah has no self-respect and consequently, no problem drinking alone.

(Editor’s note: This is true; no problem, but I prefer to think of it as being self-assured.)

I need a new wingman, a drinking buddy, someone to shoot the sh*t with, to check out and hit on women with reckless abandon, a friend. This is a massive dilemma for any straight man: How to find and audition a new friend without coming across as gay. My solution was to ditch the idea of drinks at the door, skip the concessions and find out how Peter Klaven, the main character in "I Love You Man," found his best man.

To be honest, I was a little skeptical when I first started entertaining the notion of meeting up with Peter and "I Love You Man." The cast of characters that he rolled with were primarily part of Judd Apatow’s crew, whom I have a deep comedic respect for, but his name was no where to be found. Comedy is a strange beast. Either you have the ability to write it or you don’t. Before I dropped my $10.50 for a first-runner, I needed to know what kind of relationship I was getting myself into. Three or four clicks later, I was staring at John Hamburg’s IMDB page. I knew at that moment that for this night and the next two hours, I was going to be in good hands. Back in 2001, Hamburg had written one of my favorite movies of all time. Based on my previous posts, you will never guess, so, I’ll just tell you. It was "Zoolander." I’ve watched it at least a half dozen times. It’s one of those once-a-year flicks that won’t get old.

Peter Klaven, embodied by Paul Rudd, is a real-estate developer in L.A. who has just proposed to his girlfriend Zooey, played by Rashida Jones. Zooey has a wide circle of friends (including Jaime Pressly and Sarah Burns) who she hangs out with and over-shares relationship details on a regular basis. Peter has a circle of none. After overhearing a conversation between Zooey and her friends about how men with few friends can become clingy, Peter embarks on a journey to find a best friend. He enlists the help of his younger, gay brother Robbie, played by SNL’s Andy Sandberg, to set up man-dates with straight men. After going through a series of comedic failures, Pistol-Pete stumbles upon Sydney Fife, played by Apatow stalwart Jason Segel, at an open-house for Lou Ferrigno. The two have an instant chemistry and the rest of the movie becomes a delightful balancing act between maintaining his relationship with his fiancée and building a man bond with Syd.

While Apatow and Hamburg both write in the same vein of comedy, Apatow’s aorta is intelligent d*ck-and-fart jokes and Hamburg’s is quirky character work. Peter is well written and well acted. Rudd is in his zone playing the challenged lover and Segel is solid. I felt that Sydney, as a character, had a lot more to offer than what was given in the editing room or from a directorial standpoint. He had a lot of baggage that was only hinted at during the film. Yet, this is a light-hearted comedy and Syd’s darkness would not have had the mass appeal. I am just a sadist and like the deep end of the pool.

Outside of Rudd, Segel and Jones, all of the characters in this film were well written character archetypes; nothing serious, just funny interludes to move the plot along and add depth to the film. There were one or two of Peter’s man-dates that I thought were caricatures but they didn’t bother me.

When you have a good script and good actors, your job as a director is to not f*ck it up by pulling it with a heavy hand. It doesn’t need to be stylized. It doesn’t need to be overly dramatic. It doesn’t need anything accept to flow its natural course. As the writer and director, Hamburg knew what he had and checked all of those boxes, nurtured what was already there and brought to life a very entertaining film.

The heart of this movie is in Peter’s journey. Awkwardness around new people, love and relationships and the desire to be successful are universal themes that one can easily relate to. The real genius behind good comedy is the ability to write outlandish characters and ground them in real human emotion. "I Love You Man" was a resounding success in my mind. I am actually surprised that this movie hasn’t had more pre-open promotion. I am guessing that the studio thought that the list of stars gracing the silver-screen would be able to attract the masses in short order. I was at a 10:20pm showing and the theater was packed. I guess that means they succeeded too.

My rating for this movie is 4 man-dates out of 5 man-dates. It was no "Zoolander," but it was right on par with "Knocked Up," "Super Bad," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "40-year Old Virgin." It was worth every bit of the $10.50 for the ticket and the $3.50 for the Reece’s Pieces. So I lied earlier about the concessions. So what? But, I still didn’t find a new friend. In the words of Fred Rogers, “Won’t you be mine?”

Jake