Director: David Yates

Writers: Steve Kloves (screenplay), J.K. Rowling (novel)

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes

Kicking off the 2010 holiday season after a summer of so-so films with big promise is Part 1 in the finale of the Harry Potter franchise: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Ten years later, the world is waiting to see if the film series wraps as satisfyingly as the books they were based on did for fans three years ago. If you haven’t already guessed from that summation of the opinions of Potter fans, you should know that I too am a big Harry Potter fan. I’ve read all the books, as well as seen the films multiple times. While I’m least prone to re-watch the first two of the series, I think every film since David Yates took the helm has been both stylistically and technically awesome. However; due to my familiarity with J.K. Rowling’s books, I’ve always felt like something was missing from each film. With Deathly Hallows, Yates surprisingly bucks this trend. It’s seldom that I walk out of a movie based on a book feeling more impressed with the film than I was with the book. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is not only one of those rare exceptions, but may also be the best film to date in the Potter canon.

Deathly Hallows: Part 1 picks up right where Half Blood Prince left off. Professor Dumbledore has been betrayed and murdered by Snape and Draco, leaving Harry and team reeling from their loss. While the wizarding world is in a state of chaos and fear, Harry is determined to act on the information Dumbledore imparted to him right before his death-that Voldemort has split pieces of his soul into physical objects called horcruxes. Before Voldemort can be defeated, each horcrux must be found and destroyed. Operating simultaneously to Potter’s quest, Lord Voldemort is on a quest of his own. With a revitalized army of followers, he quickly gains control of the ministry of magic and is determined to reinstate his old agenda of doing away with all mudbloods; those wizards/witches of mixed magical and human blood. At the same time, he and his followers are closing in on Harry and the remnants of the Order of the Phoenix.

Quickly realizing that his presence in only bringing danger to the Order, Harry plans to set out on his own in his horcrux-seeking journey. True to form, Hermione and Ron refuse to let Harry take this task on alone, and embark with him. I’ll intentionally leave most plot details outside of this out, but anyone that read the book that Deathly Hallows is based on knows that a huge portion of what has become Part 1, is spent with the Potter team doing nothing in multiple locations as Rowling allows tension and suspense to build. While effective and entertaining in the concept of a book, I had my doubts as to whether or not this could hold my attention over the course of a movie. To my surprise, Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves masterfully wrap huge portions of this pacing into a few scenes. Not only that, but they somehow make the waiting exciting. Connected to this pacing, one of my other big fears around the film version of Deathly Hallows lied in the fact the film was being split into two parts. In reading the book version of Deathly Hallows, I knew there was a lot of ground to cover in the context of one film, but I had a big worry that Hollywood was only bringing in the split as part of a money grab. While this is undoubtedly partially the case, Yates and Kloves again surprised me by using this extra screen time to make up for details and plot elements left out of previous films, all the while making a more cohesive story. Shockingly, this wasn’t just filler, but somehow made both Deathly Hallows, as well as the Potter films that came before it more fun to watch.

If you can’t guess by now, I’ve been excitedly anticipating Deathly Hallows for a LONG time. And not just due to my fandom of the series as a whole. As the film was being developed, talk of people like Guillermo Del Toro possibly being given a shot at the finale let me know that the studio was going to treat this film right. The Potter films have all grown progressively darker as the story has matured. While the books took similar turns, this move seemed much more intentional and needed in the context of the film series. Sitting through Deathly Hallows, it’s hard to imagine that this started as what was supposed to be a “kids series”. These films, their subtleties, and the acting present within have graduated to the big leagues, with the dark tone Yates has introduced only serving to reinforce their strength of delivery. It’s particularly amazing to see how naturally the once-child actors easily fit in this more menacing context that’s been established. Any modicum of their inexperience has vanished, and they (along with the all-star adult cast present) deliver a world class finish to this finale.

Guess what…I like this movie. A lot. I don’t recall the last time I was in a theater for a movie, where I was both completely caught up in the action, while smiling widely the whole time. Believe the hype. Don’t listen to haters (*cough* Don Simpson *cough*). Go see this movie. This is an amazing start to what I know will be an even more amazing finale. Till that film arrives, this one takes the win as the best Potter film to date. A must-see.

Rating: 9/10

Director: Ben Affleck

Writers: Ben Affleck, Peter Craig, Aaron Stockard (screenplay), Chuck Hogan (novel: Prince of Thieves)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Titus Welliver, Pete Postlethwaite, Chris Cooper

Set in Charlestown, Boston, The Town opens by explaining that Charlestown is and always has been a training ground of sorts for bank robbers.  Within its mean streets, thievery is passed down as a family trade (just as cobbling has been for generations in the Campbell household), as young blue collar Bostonians fight to make something of themselves in their violent world.  Immediately after this explanation, we jump to the back of a van as four friends prepare to ambush armored car guards about to make a daily pick-up at a bank.  Donning Halloween masks, they quickly, and with ease disable the guards, lock the doors to the bank, and approach the frightened manager to open the large vault.  The manager, Claire (Rebecca Hall), is nearly paralyzed with fear, but manages to not only open the vault, but  also discreetly trip a silent alarm.  Claire’s actions come too late though, as the team declares the job complete.  Realizing the police are on the way, one of the four thieves decides they must also take Claire with them as insurance in case they are caught in their getaway.  Easily eluding the police, they drop a terrified Claire by the waterfront, blindfolded and handcuffed.  As she is picked up by the FBI to discuss her ordeal, the boys take their haul to the friendly neighborhood florist/money launderer and begin planning the next job.

The common thugs turned expert bank robbers are led by Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck), an ex-almost-pro hockey player blessed with good looks and a phenomenal mind for planning elaborate heists.  His friend Jem Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) is the loose cannon that abducted Claire and seems destined for additional  moments of “questionable” judgment.  Finally, Gloansy (Slaine) and Desmond (Owen Burke) make up the remaining members of the team responsible for driving and electronics on the jobs.  Doug seems ready to take a breather as he feels law enforcement will be watching even more closely than normal, but Jem is determined to continue with additional robberies.  In the meantime, he’s kept Claire’s ID from the last job and wants to “take care of her” as she’s the only person that could potentially tie them to the job.  Hoping to prevent his friend from taking drastic measures, Doug volunteers to check her out and see what she knows.  Throughout this process, Doug discovers that not only does Claire have information about the friends, but that she’s also extremely fearful to speak to the FBI further.  Rather than walking away satisfied with the knowledge that they’ll be safe, Doug begins to continue seeing Claire, gradually falling in love with her.

Meanwhile, the FBI is closing in on the friends.  Led by agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm), they are gathering mounting evidence potentially tying the team to multiple jobs.  In their research, they discover that Doug’s father is serving time for a robbery gone wrong in which someone was murdered.  Additionally, it is also revealed that Jem is even more of a loose cannon than previously thought, having served 9 years in prison himself on a manslaughter charge.  Frawley is a determined man though, and looks for weaknesses amongst the friends’ families and social spheres-sure he’ll be able to find the one person weak enough to sell them out as they make the mistake he’s waiting for.  In the midst of this scrutiny, Jem’s brashness is drawing the eye of the law as he pushes Doug to riskier and riskier jobs.  Doug struggles as his love for Claire has left him wanting out, while he simultaneously fights with how to handle the fact that the robbery he is responsible for is the main point of fear and frustration in her life.

I’ll be honest—I’m not the biggest Ben Affleck fan.  In my opinion, he’s made more missteps than not over the course of his career.  His reconnection with the city and people of Boston in recent years is starting to change my mind though. Gone Baby Gone was a huge step in restoring Affleck’s credibility over the long Bennifer years, and now The Town serves to further remind us that this guy is a talented storyteller.  With what I felt was great direction and a fun screenplay, The Town offers a refreshingly different take on the standard heist movie and further asserts that Affleck deserves to be in the director’s chair more.  I’m growing increasingly curious to see where the artistic path leads him.  While the story and direction are great, the true power of The Town lies in its casting.  Virtually every single actor involved delivers an impressively solid performance, with several even catching the viewer off guard with their skill (I’m looking at you drug-addled Blake Lilvely!  Who knew she’d be as good as she is!?).  Jon Hamm is awesome as always in the role of Adam Frawley (although I’ll always love him first and foremost as Don Draper), and Jeremy Renner continues his impressive roll that The Hurt Locker started him in on.  My primary complaint with regards to the The Town is via the character of Doug MacRay.  I had a hard time buying the character of a “handsome boy genius bank robber with a heart of gold” as realistic.  Other than that, the only remaining problem I had was with the occasional leanings on other Bostonian crime dramas such as The Departed (not a bad film to emulate though).

Overall, The Town was a well put together, fun movie that is definitely worth checking out.  Ben Affleck is re-establishing himself as a worthwhile filmmaker, and I’m excited to see what the future holds for him.

Rating: 7/10

Director: J Blakeson

Writers: J Blakeson

Starring: Gemma Arterton, Martin Compston, Eddie Marsan

Now, I’m a pretty big fan of movies out of the UK.  Ask SLSS founder Dave, and he’ll confirm that if the overwhelming majority of cast members have accents, and there is a presence of Brit-pop or British rock in the soundtrack– I’m 90% sold on a movie regardless of what happens therein.  So, I went in to The Disappearance of Alice Creed not quite sure what to expect story-wise, but at least pleased that I’d be able to listen to soothing (or humorous) accents for the next 100 minutes.  In the course of watching the film, I was pleasantly surprised to find one of the more unique kidnapping films I’ve seen in quite some time, with amusing twists and turns of the plot throughout.

The Disappearance of Alice Creed begins with two men quietly preparing what looks to be a construction project of some sorts, albeit in a manner that seems a little too sinister for their own good.  A domineering Vic (played by Eddie Marsan), and a smaller/submissive Danny (played by Martin Compston) quietly steal a van, remove the plates, then bring a number of supplies to an empty flat in an unidentified city of the UK.  Slowly but surely, they transform a once empty bedroom into a sound-proof prison, complete with a perversely constructed custom bed outfitted to lock down its future occupant.  Expertly disposing of evidence tying them to the various crimes leading up to their future action, the duo lie in wait- ultimately kidnapping a young woman as she exits her house.  Crushing any dignity the girl once had, the duo strip the young woman and tie her down to the bed they’ve built; all while taking horrifying pictures of her desperate face.  In the course of Danny and Vic’s conversation, we learn that the two met in prison, and have been planning their elaborate kidnapping for quite some time.  The girl has a rich father, is worth 2 million pounds to them, and is their ticket to a better life.  Surprise upon surprise awaits them as the film continues…

The Disappearance of Alice Creed probably caught me more off guard than any other movie I’ve seen in quite some time.   I’ve seen quite a few kidnapping movies, and frankly expected this one to be a generic torture film (a la Captivity or Hostel), due largely to the presence of current “it” girl, Gemma Arterton (especially after her inclusion in Prince of Persia this summer).  However; I was pleasantly surprised to walk out of the film feeling like I’d seen a unique story, carried by three unsuspectingly competent actors.  Nothing against Gemma Arterton, but thus far I’ve definitely seen her as more of a pretty face than anything else.  In Disappearance, she not only holds her own, but turns in what I felt was an impressively believable performance.   Previously a bit player in such films as Sherlock Holmes and The Illusionist, Eddie Marsan turns out the standout performance of Disappearance though.  Completely absorbing himself in the character of “Vic”, Marsan caught me off guard and will more than likely be a strong presence in both American and UK cinema moving forward.  While still turning in a decent performance, the one shortcoming of the cast was probably Martin Compston, who—while still turning in a good performance—didn’t stand out quite as much as his two cast mates.

I’m going to purposely limit much more information about the film, as surprising plot twists are one of the best parts of Disappearance. As the movie progresses, J Blakeson’s witty story isn’t the cinematic achievement of our generation, but is definitely fun to watch.  That being said, The Disappearance of Alice Creed is a film that is unfortunately sure to be missed by the majority of the American population.  Its tenuous subject matter and scant production will result in it flying under the radar of most film-goers stateside.  However; this is a truly unique and enjoyable film that I would definitely recommend as one indie that is worth seeking out.  Writer/Director J Blakeson has turned out a surprisingly strong first effort, that is a fun ride-start to finish.

Rating: 7/10

Director: Jon Turteltaub

Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer

Writers: Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, Matt Lopez, Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (poem)

Starring: Nicolas Cage, Jay Baruchel, Alfred Molina, Monica Bellucci

I should have known I was in for an “adventurous” film-going experience based on the audience present at the screening for Disney’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.  When the first 5 rows consist of babies and the row behind me is made up of toddlers that talk endlessly about popcorn and peeing; I should have realized that I wasn’t going to be a member of this film’s “target market”.  Nevertheless, Disney has been faithful to provide adults with enjoyable nuggets in a number of their previous kids’ movies…so I held out hope.  Connected to all of this, I’m not ashamed to admit that I have something of a soft spot for Nicolas Cage (one that grows softer and softer as his hairline recedes more and more).  However, even my steadfast love for the Cage-ster couldn’t overcome the fact that The Sorcerer’s Apprenctice is probably one of the poorest excuses for a “summer blockbuster” that I’ve ever seen.  Filled with predictable writing, laughable acting, and terrible dialogue — this was no “magical” experience.

I can’t really go into a recap of the storyline of Sorcerer’s Apprentice without first drawing attention to the two primary sorcerer’s names: Balthazar Black (Nicolas Cage) and Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina) *Deep breath* wow! The film begins with a back-story montage that shows Balthazar, Maxim, and Balthazar’s true love Veronica (Monica Bellucci) working hand in hand in the middle ages as the one and only Merlin’s apprentices.  However; their team-work is cut short via a betrayal by Maxim as he joins forces with Morgana (Alice Krige): the most evil and powerful witch in the world.  Merlin is killed by the evil duo, but Morgana is stopped as Veronica joins their spirits and allows Balthazar to lock both her and Morgana away in one of those stupid Russian doll within doll things with creepy paintings on it (aka nesting dolls).  Balthazar swears vengeance and what-not, but not before Merlin can give him his awesome dragon ring.  Merlin tells Nicolas Cage that he is now supposed to go and show the ring to little boys around the world, and that “he’ll know” when his journey is over (kind of creepy in a Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC way).  Balthazar fights the most evil sorcerer’s in the world and locks them all in his creepy little Russian doll, which is gradually covered in worse and worse creepy drawings.

Hundreds of years pass, until one day an awkward little Jewish boy from New York stumbles into Balthazar’s exciting, but devoid of customers, antique store.  Balthazar, like every good creepy sorcerer that likes to befriend little boys, swishes his cape and offers to give the boy his dragon ring “if it likes him”.  Surprisingly enough, the ring does “like” the boy, who is revealed to be Dave Stutler (later played by Jay Baruchel).  For some reason, Balthazar sees this as a good time to leave little Dave alone, and shuffles off to look at his 500 year old keepsakes.  Meanwhile, Dave manages to find the creepy Russian doll and releases Maxim from his slumber.  Balthazar runs back in surprised that you can’t trust little boys in 1990’s New York and fights Maxim into a poorly painted vase that locks both he and Maxim within it for 10 years (complete with horrendously painted Nicolas Cage/Alfred Molina pictures on the outside).  Meanwhile, little Dave pees his pants and starts crying like all the babies in the theatre I was in.  10 years later the two are freed and race to find pee-pants Davy and his creepy Russian doll.  After a close call with Maxim, Balthazar saves Dave and informs him that he is the prime-Merlinian-Merlin’s heir apparent and the most powerful sorcerer in the world.  Dave must be trained by Balthazar to fight and destroy Morgana once she is freed by Maxim.  Thus, Jay Baruchel becomes…The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (the end).

When I first saw the previews for Sorcerer’s Apprentice, I had some hope.  Despite the ridicule I suffer from the rest of the SLSS staff, I’m a big fan of the National Treasure franchise and had high hopes that Nicolas Cage would be infusing some of the fun energy of those films into a new franchise.  I even got excited that Jay Baruchel was going to be in this with him. Somehow in the midst of my excitement, I missed the commercials with mops coming alive and dancing a la Fantasia though.  Had I seen them, I think I would have been a little more prepared for what faced me in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.  As I mentioned in the intro to this review, this is a mess of a movie.  The acting is terrible, the plot-line is laughable, and the dialogue is horrendous.  I understand Jay Baruchel wanting to take a higher profile role, but cash has to be the only reason any other member of this cast took this film on (especially Nicolas Cage in light of his recent tax battles).  Not only is this a played out story, but it’s also one that is executed much more poorly than any of its predecessors. Were I a kid, I may be able to have some fun with this movie—but even the toddlers behind me seemed more excited about popcorn and peeing than they were with most of the action on-screen.  Jerry Bruckheimer should know better, but sadly The Sorcerer’s Apprentice leaves you with the same impression that a made for Disney Channel movie does.  It’s a shallow imitation of other wizarding movies on the market (*cough* Harry Potter), and with little to no heart behind it.  Take your kids to see Toy Story 3 instead.  This is not Nicolas Cage’s finest hour.

Rating: *2/10

*2 points for my hero’s awesome hair in this movie.

Director: Nicholas Stoller

Writer: Nicholas Stoller (characters: Jason Segel)

Starring: Jonah Hill, Russell Brand, Elisabeth Moss, Rose Byrne, Sean “Diddy” Combs, Miles O’Brien

America….welcome Aldous Snow to your stages and hearts.  Reprising his role of debauchery infused British rock star Aldous Snow (is there any other kind?), Russell Brand is in full effect in new film Get Him to the Greek .  The larger question of this film though isn’t whether or not Aldous will make it to the Greek theatre, but if America will embrace Brand as the celebrity/star that he already is in England.  Known primarily in America for his role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, as well as his turn at Jonas brother bashing during a stint hosting the VMA’s, Russell Brand has been on the verge, but not quite breaking through for quite some time.  Meanwhile, his off-beat comedy has found him in the same crowd as Britain’s biggest stars back home….the Gallagher brothers of Oasis.   Brand’s erratic behavior (coming to work at MTV studios dressed as Osama Bin Laden on Sep. 12, 2001) as well as his seemingly constant brushes with addiction,  seems to be setting him up for either mega-stardom, or a quick plunge into obscurity.  If Get Him to the Greek offers any indication of which direction he may be headed, it looks to be for mega-stardom.  Is that a good thing though?

Get Him to the Greek follows the story of Infant Sorrow front man Aldous Snow as he spirals into addiction and despair following the release of a disastrously offensive single: “African Child (Trapped In Me)”.  Widely lambasted as the worst sentiment towards Africa since apartheid, Snow’s career and credibility crumble around him after a lengthy and successful career fronting a great British rock band.  Meanwhile, Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) is working as a young A&R representative for one of the last standing major labels in LA.  In a brainstorming session with label boss Sergio (played by Sean “Diddy” Combs), Green brings up the idea of celebrating the anniversary of Infant Sorrow (his favorite band of all time) with a reunion performance at Los Angeles’s Greek Theatre.  After first turning the idea down as stupid, Sergio runs the numbers and decides that this will not only be an uber-profitable venture, but will also be a great chance for Aaron to prove himself in handling a difficult artist.  He tasks Aaron with going to London to pick Snow up and getting him back to the Greek in time for the show.  Along the way, Aldous’s partying pulls the duo to London, New York, and even Las Vegas.  It’s a coin-toss whether or not Snow’s destructive nature will allow him to re-ignite his career, or will sabotage it even more with him missing his big comeback performance at the Greek.

The actual similarities between Get Him to the Greek and its predecessor, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, are really quite small.  Outside of the character of Aldous Snow, director Nicholas Stoller is the only bridge to the past that remains between the films.  Even Jonah Hill takes on a new character from the one portrayed in Sarah Marshall.  For the first 20 min. or so of Get Him to the Greek, this really bothered me.  However; the Apatowian man-child angst of Hill along with Brand’s charisma did manage to win me over as the film progressed. My one standing issue with this film is that with Segel (who wrote Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and Apatow as only background producers, things start to move towards the terrain of standard comedy.  In many ways, Greek is really the commercialization of the Apatow school of comedies, heads more towards the ground covered in Apatow’s colleague and friend, Adam Sandler’s films.  Is this a terrible thing? No.  I enjoy the occasional Adam Sandler film and enjoy mindless comedy as much as the next guy.  In fact, this is the primary driver that will likely push Russell Brand to levels of success that thus far he’s only achieved in England.  My only disappointment is in the fear that we’re starting to lose the shine that adorns Apatow’s unique brand of comedy.  In conjunction with this, I see Brand being quickly stereotyped into the rock-star persona for every film after this- again much like Sandler’s baby-talking characters.  Like I said, this will probably make Brand and the studios enormous amounts of money, and America will eat it up.  I’m just a little disappointed as I think he’s capable of more.  Let’s hope my vision of the future doesn’t come to pass…

This being said, performance-wise, both Hill and Brand do an awesome job of carrying the film.  Particularly, Brand—who shows real talent and I really do think will only become a bigger and bigger star (regardless of future type-casting).  Even Diddy’s performance provided some of the best laughs of the film.  Stoller did his best job to keep the spirit of Sarah Marshall alive in this film, but ultimately wasn’t able to capture much of the innocence and that intangible “Apatow” quality that I mentioned previously.  This being said, he did make an amusing and enjoyable film.  Finally, Brand’s musical performances were surprisingly not bad!  Listen to the previews of the “Infant Sorrow” cd on ITunes now—I was quite impressed/surprised with how legitimate it sounds (outside of the ridiculous lyrics).

All in all, Get Him to the Greek is a fun, if by the numbers comedy.  It will probably make Russell Brand a big star, and will get him even bigger roles in other films.  There’s nothing ground-breaking here, but I walked out of the film happy for the most part.  So, I would say this one is worth checking out.

Rating: 6.5/10

Director: Michael Patrick King

Writer: Michael Patrick King

Starring: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon, Chris Noth, John Corbett, David Eigenberg, Evan Handler, Jason Lewis, Lynn Cohen, Raza Jaffrey, Penelope Cruz, Liza Minnelli, Miley Cyrus

*Disclaimer: now with updates!

It’s appropriate that the writer/producer of Sex and the City 2 “The Temple of Doom” went with a title that draws parallels between his film and those of the Indiana Jones saga.  At this point in both franchises, the differences between the two are quickly thinning out.  For starters, both films contain what appear to be 75+yr old lead characters navigating adventure/intrigue in exotic locales.  Both films put a strong emphasis on the importance of handbags, or man-purses.   And more importantly than any other similarity, both enormously successful film franchises culminate in the biggest cash grabs taking advantage of their loyal fans that I’ve seen in a looong time.  The worst thing about this reality lies with a central fear: that unlike the jaded fans of Indy that walked out of Crystal Skull cursing the name Lucas, the fans of Sex and the City will eat this film up with enormous grins, all the while going back for more.

Sex and the City 2: The Temple of Doom starts back up where Sex and the City: Raiders of the HBO TV Series left off.  Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Mr. Big (Chris Noth) have settled into domestic bliss in a new apartment as Carrie’s new book about marriage is about to be released.  Despite enjoying what appears to be an affluent dream life, Carrie is restless.  Her best friends Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) are busy with children and home life, while 80 year old Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is busy fighting off menopause with a $100,000+/day addiction to lotions, moisturizers and supplements.  Things get ugly from a film-making standpoint almost from the get-go.  A painful montage that has all 4 friends flashing back to their 80’s looks just struck me as uncomfortable.  While these women have aged extremely well, they have really aged.  And maybe women love this, but I find it very weird to see older women (and we’re talking wayyy past ‘cougar-old’) parading around in flashy outfits made for 19 yr olds.  The movie does poke some fun at this notion as well, but it’s essentially the essence of Sex and City in many respects.   So…they had to do something with it.  Awkwardness continues as the wedding of Stanford (Willie Garson) and Anthony (Mario Cantone) yields some of the worst/most predictable dialogue I’ve seen since When In Rome.   Possibly even worse than this bad dialogue though is a looming fear that begins to hit around this point: that writer Michael Patrick King has chosen not to deliver an interesting, well-written script.  Rather, it would seem that he has taken the strategy of giving the fans exactly what they want, regardless of the consequences.  Unfortunately, more often than not, fans don’t know what they want; and a sad, tired mess will be the onscreen result (and I’m referring to the movie, not Kim Cattrall).

Plot-wise, after the wedding, Samantha gets invited to Abu Dhabi via her PR firm to potentially help promote an Arab sheik’s new luxurious hotel.  Carrie’s restlessness has morphed into “vacation” days of sorts away from marriage, and traveling sounds like the perfect idea to her.  The same goes for Miranda and Charlotte who are struggling with maintaining sanity while still taking care of their kids.  From this point on out, luxury is flaunted in full force.  Ridiculous cars, first class airfare on a plane with private suites, and an insane hotel are all part of the story.  However; the values and sensibilities of the New York girls don’t exactly clash with those of the conservative middle east and comedy ensues (wokka wokka!!).  Seriously?  This plot line?  Really?  This verged on racism for me….Anyways, Carrie tries to reassess what she really wants out of love/life after years of chasing after Mr. Big and finally getting what she thought she wanted.

Let’s get this straight.  If you haven’t already figured it out, I’m not Sex and the City’s target market.  However, I’m not too masculine to admit that the TV series was yet another well-written, enjoyable show in a long line of great shows that HBO has put out. Sex and the City 1 was even a valiant effort to transition this to the big screen.  While many of the “cash grab” tendencies alluded to in part deux were present, they weren’t overwhelming.  More importantly, the film actually advanced and added to who the characters were.  The biggest disappointment in Sex and the City 2, is that it doesn’t even try this time around.  This is a group of actresses and a writer that know their fan base to a fault.  They can put as little effort as possible into story, acting, dialogue, etc. as long as they throw enough of the budget at crazy designer clothes and cameos of various celebrities and characters from the TV series.  And the formula works.  Fans of the series will watch this, and they will probably love it.  And that my friends, is depressing…

Is this movie good?  No.  Will it make loads of money?  Yes.  Will they make another film? Probably. Sex and the City 2 is all Hollywood, and sadly for its fans has gone the route of just being another multi-million dollar paycheck to cash for its stars.

Rating: 3/10

*Update (post reflection)

This review contains two seldom used concepts in America: “comedy” and “hyperbole”.  The writer is well aware that Kim Cattrall is not 80 yrs old.   He also knows that the ladies of Sex and the City look far better than he ever has/will (except for Kim Cattrall–he is way hotter than her).  Finally, he is also aware that they are not “way past ‘cougar old”.  Again…..comedy and hyperbole.

The fact of the matter is that this film was teased (as were it’s stars) because it should be an embarrassment to the cast/crew involved.  The film is an insult to women in general, and is a step back for the cause of feminism.  These are not empowered, happy women.  These are miserable, spoiled, horrible people.  I don’t understand how anyone could view this movie and not be disgusted by women complaining about how hard life is with a nanny, no job, and a multi-million dollar home/lifestyle while sipping cosmos in the first class lounge of a luxury jet.  The rating of 3/10 is hereby lowered to 1/10.  There is virtually nothing redeemable about this movie, and it only serves to harm women.

In regards to the racism mentioned, this movie is not borderline racist.  It is blatantly racist and disrespectful of the middle eastern cultures represented.  The mere scene of Samantha throwing her condoms in the face of conservative, religious men was terrible; not to mention the many other references demeaning the people groups represented.

In short, the jokes about ‘cougar-ness’, etc. are just that—jokes.  This film is a slap in the face to its fan-base and womankind in general.

Rating: 1/10

Director: Derrick Borte

Writer: Derrick Borte

Starring: Demi Moore, David Duchovny, Amber Heard, Ben Hollingsworth, Gary Cole, Lauren Hutton

The Joneses follows the lives of a seemingly perfect American family in their affluent suburban paradise.  Luxury cars, an enormous house, all the latest electronics….life seems too good to be true as their fellow rich neighbors look on in envy.  Unbeknownst to the neighbors….they’re right; life is too good to be true.  The Joneses, made up of father Steve (David Duchovny), mother Kate (Demi Moore), daughter Jenn (Amber Heard), and son Mick (Ben Hollingsworth) aren’t a family at all.  Rather, they’re a guerilla marketing ploy from a nameless corporation that embeds what on the surface are attractive, rich families throughout America to drive up demand for all the amazing possessions they’re outfitted with.  Be it jewelry, video games, beauty products, or sports cars-the Joneses have it, and are encouraged to share and flaunt it all with their new friends and neighbors.

While this may seem to be an ideal situation (no living expenses, free everything, a big salary, etc), it is quickly revealed that the perfect on-the-surface family unit is wrought with numerous problems.  “Father” Steve is in reality a more or less nice guy who is having difficulty coming to grasp with both his role in the “family unit”, as well as how to sell.  “Mother” Kate has been in the pseudo-family business for years, and is free of attachment to people or things, but has no authentic relationships to hold onto in life.  Meanwhile; “daughter” Jenn is trying to bed any and every man she can find (including Steve).  Despite these familial issues, neighbors buy into what the Joneses are selling, and quickly begin to acquire things and rack up debt in an attempt to capture the “happiness” the Joneses have.  As time goes by, Steve blossoms as a “salesman”.  However; he begins to struggle with the idea that he may be doing more harm than good to his neighbors/”friends” by encouraging them to spend and spend…..

Just like the fictional family it portrays The Joneses looks good on the surface.  However, as the layers are peeled back, a predictable story with so-so plot turns and dialogue prevent the film from becoming something truly great.  First time writer/director Derrick Borte does his best to bring a unique idea to the screen, but in the process of doing so leans far too heavily on standard plot ideas and methods of film-making.  Much like The Blind Side (which I know everyone seems to love now), this isn’t a bad story.  In fact, it’s an interesting premise.  However; Borte’s “Hollywood-ization” of the film, adds that predictable “I’ve seen this before” feeling to a movie that should really stand out as something original and interesting.  Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a horrible movie, and in many ways is still relatively fun to watch.  Moore and Duchovny in particular push the script to actually pull off relatively interesting characters that I would have normally been willing to invest in (particularly Duchovny).  All in all, there were really no “bad” performances.  It’s just that The Joneses seems to spend far too much of its time on the new/exciting/gimmicky idea of its premise, and not nearly enough on better script writing or character development.

As I said before, The Joneses is not a bad movie by any means.  However; it is middle of the road/predictable entertainment, like oh so many other things the entertainment industry feeds us.  I actually find it fairly ironic that the very consumerism The Joneses spends most of its time mocking is what brings it down as a film in the end.

Rating: 5/10

Directors: Greg Olliver & Wes Orshoski

Featuring: Lemmy Kilmister, Motörhead, Ozzy Osbourne, Dave Grohl, Slash, Duff McKagan, Metallica, Stray Cats, Mick Jones, Alice Cooper, Steve Vai, Billy Bob Thornton, Triple H, The Damned, Henry Rollins, Nikki Sixx

One of the top 3 films of my SxSw experience (the others being Kick-Ass and Cyrus), Lemmy may even stand out as my favorite film of the festival.  Any film that features Motörhead’s Lemmy in full WWII regalia driving and firing off the gun of a tank is a sure-fire bet to be worth watching; and as rock documentaries go, Lemmy is one that can not be missed.

Following the long, and meandering career of Lemmy Kilmister, Lemmy takes the viewer on an awesomely detailed and interesting private tour of the rock star’s current eccentric life, both at home in his Los Angeles apartment (or his second home, the Rainbow) and on the road with Motörhead. Lemmy also has the truly unique distinction of being made by first time directors (Wes Orshoski and Greg Olliver) and superfans of the band they’re featuring, while simultaneously being extremely well put together and entertaining to watch.

Growing up in England from the birth of rock and roll on, Lemmy seems to have been present at nearly every important stage in the genre’s development.  From catching the Beatles play the Cavern Club, to working as a roadie for Jimi Hendrix, to practically inventing speed metal/thrash, Lemmy is a true Rock God.  Fueled by amphetamines and jack & cokes, Lemmy tours endlessly, collects nazi artifacts from WWII, and has supposedly bedded somewhere north of 1,200 women.  Needless to say, he is the archetype for what modern Americans see as a rock star, and as the film Lemmy shows via testimonials from countless rock stars, he is what many of them have always aspired to be.  Oddly, and unfortunately though, fame and fortune (at least at the level of many of his admirers) has always seemed to be just out of the reach of Lemmy.  In spite of what many could potentially view as being shortchanged, Lemmy holds an enormous amount of respect from his peers in the musical community and is universally known as one of the nicest guys in rock and roll.  In addition to this Lemmy serves to show the viewer what a true fan of rock Lemmy is.  From buying the new Beatles box set (mono of course) on release day at Amoeba Records in LA, to playing in a 50’s cover band, Lemmy truly loves what makes up a classic pop rock tune, and is both a student and master of its art.

Seen in close succession with Don Letts’s Strummerville, Lemmy managed to pull the bitter taste out of my mouth left by Strummerville, and did everything a rock doc should.  From the private tour of Lemmy’s LA apartment, offering a bizarrely awesome peek at his vast knife collection, to the mounds of garbage and toys in his home, the film delivers scene after scene of what you would hope a guy like Lemmy is like.  Yes, he is a wild rock star with addiction issues and loads of other problems….but he is also seemingly one of the coolest working musicians you can run into.  From being willing to talk with fans daily at the Rainbow, to simply going on the road constantly, Lemmy truly lives for his fans and band.  I can’t wait to see what Orshoski and Olliver come up with next—hopefully they will team again, as it seems as though they have a truly unique and hard to capture chemistry (especially seeing as this is their first film).

The screening of Lemmy at SXSW culminated in Lemmy coming onstage with the directors for Q&A, and in an awesome scene managed to cement both his bad-assery and niceness at the same time by looking cool/giving the audience a hard time, but also by endlessly cracking jokes and pulling up his fellow Motörhead band mates to the stage and paying tribute to them. Lemmy is a truly special film, and is not only one of the best documentaries I’ve seen in a long time, but is also one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time.

Rating: 9/10

Director: Will Canon

Writers: Will Canon, Douglas Simon

Starring: Jon Foster, Trevor Morgan, Arlen Escaparta, Lou Taylor Pucci

Fellow SLSS writer Don Simpson probably overheard it best from a fellow passenger on one of his many SXSW bus rides in regards to Will Canon’s Brotherhood.  Brotherhood carried with it the unique distinction of being both one of the festival’s most talked about indie films, and also being “that one” film that felt like it was trying extra hard to be a big budget/mainstream endeavor.  In a film festival like SXSW this is often a two-edged sword, robbing a film of some its street cred, but also allowing the viewer to feel like you might be getting a first look at something that a lot of people will be talking about down the road.  While I don’t think Brotherhood is poised to be any sort of Hollywood blockbuster, it definitely gave notice to Will Cannon as a director to watch, and stood out as one of the more fun “rides” of the festival.

Filmed in Arlington, TX, Brotherhood follows a group of young men as they traverse the pledge process to a local fraternity.  However; this is no basic binge-drinking session to prove manhood and dedication.  Rather, we jump straight to the back of a van as a gun and ski mask are passed out to the pledges.  It is quickly revealed that in this final phase of their initiation process, the pledges first have to prove themselves by heading into a convenience store and demanding an absurdly small amount of money.  In a state of panic, the pledges look to each other for reassurance, but quickly cave to peer pressure.  Following the young would-be robbers as they begin to enter the store, it is revealed that there is another fraternity brother waiting around a corner to stop them and send them back to the remaining pledges in the van and safety (without revealing that they didn’t have to actually rob the store).  All goes according to plan, and the group moves on from one convenience store to another, allowing each pledge to have a shot at proving their worth.  As the final pledge heads in to the final convenience store, things start to go terribly wrong though.  After too much time passes, the brother leading the initiation realizes that the brother that should have been in place to stop the final pledge has gone to the wrong convenience store.  He rushes in to stop the pledge from getting himself entangled in an actual crime, but by that time it is too late.  From there, things grow worse and worse and worse.  As the tension in the convenience store escalates, the young pledge is shot in the shoulder, and the other brothers manage to in turn wrestle a previously hidden weapon from the clerk and knock him out.  From here on out, Brotherhood follows the pledges and brothers as they fight amongst each other to somehow get out of this situation without getting the law involved.  This involves not taking their shot pledge to the hospital, kidnapping the convenience store clerk, and many other increasingly worse events.

Without a doubt, Brotherhood was a fun film to watch.  Carrying with it the roller-coaster experience present in many suspense films, you find yourself waiting for the next terrible thing to happen in voyeuristic anticipation.  The problem with this roller-coaster experience, is that it gives the film a “seen it before” feeling.  Director Will Canon definitely knows how to command a film set and do a lot with not a lot of money, but this already ridden “roller-coaster” ride is where the aforementioned negative aspects of an indie film that feels like a big budget movie come into play.  While there is some interesting interplay between characters, all too many of them feel one-dimensional and like “token” college movie stereotypes.  I can’t fault Canon too much though, because I don’t think he was going for any psychological masterpiece/experience.  Rather, I think he was trying to make a fun, suspenseful film that led you to wonder how far its characters would actually take things.  And that is precisely what Brotherhood is.  While it’s not the greatest artistic achievement of SXSW, it’s absolutely a fun movie-watching experience.  Was this worthy of being one of the most talked about films of SXSW?  I don’t really think so.  However; it stands as a film that makes me hope that Will Canon is given a shot at something bigger in the near future, as I think we’ve only just seen the tip of the iceberg in regards to what he’s capable of.

Rating: 6.5/10

Director: Jorma Taccone

Writers: Jorma Taccone, Will Forte, John Solomon

Starring: Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, Ryan Phillippe, Val Kilmer, Maya Rudolph

Rounding out the premieres at this year’s SXSW film festival was MacGruber, the film adaptation of Will Forte’s popular SNL sketch of the same name.  With the entire cast in attendance (including an awesomely obese Val Kilmer wearing Native American jewelry), this first look at the film was one of the most highly anticipated events of the festival.  Did it deliver?  Yes and no.  If you’ve seen any of the multiple SNL sketches turned movies, you know that they’re a hit or miss affair—with the gross majority falling into the “miss” category.  While MacGruber wasn’t a homerun per se, it was better than most of the standard fair that comes out of Lorne Michaels’s cinematic gates.  More than anything, the film affirms Will Forte as an underappreciated member of the comedic community that deserves to helm more movies.

If you’ve seen the sketch version of MacGruber, you’re probably wondering how in the world they managed to turn one of the shorter skits on SNL into a full length feature film.  With a plot that typically follows Kristen Wiig’s character yelling at Forte’s MacGruber (an awesome parody of Richard Dean Anderson’s MacGyver-complete with trademark vest, flannel, and hair) to quickly defuse a bomb, it always ends the same way-with MacGruber failing and the bomb blowing up in his face.  The film version of MacGruber takes a slightly more sophisticated (I feel wrong using that word to describe anything about this movie) turn.  Val Kilmer plays Dieter von Cunth, MacGruber’s sworn enemy, as he steals a nuclear warhead and launches a plan of revenge and world domination.  Discovering what von Cunth is up to, the US government decides there’s only one person that can help them…MacGruber.  The only challenge is that he has retired to a life of peace due to the weight of grief upon him following the death of his fiancée at the hands of von Cunth.  Out of respect for his country, and with the hope of avenging his fiancée, MacGruber is persuaded to come out of retirement and reform a team to work with him.  Following a semi-disastrous first attempt, MacGruber seeks out his former partner, Vicki St. Elmo (as played by Kristen Wiig).  And despite his best attempts to leave him out, is persuaded to add Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillipe) to the team as well.  Together, they will wear disguises, stick celery in their asses, and attempt to save the world…

It’s probably best to start talking about this film, with discussing director/co-writer Jorma Taccone.  A writer on SNL and member of comedy group the Lonely Island (which also features SNL cast member Andy Samberg), Jorma has developed a reputation for the off-kilter/gross-out humor often found in the Digital Shorts of SNL.  While he’s done some smaller films (Extreme Movie & Hot Rod), this is Jorma’s first chance to get some money and a bigger cast behind him, and wow….does he take his gross-out humor to the next level.  Filled with awesomely awkward moments, disgusting sexual references, and just plain weirdness, MacGruber verges on something special more often than not.  While some of the writing holds the film back from being a stand-out SNL comedy (along with the performance of Ryan Phillipe, who just annoyed me for some reason), the majority of it manages to give the characters portrayed by Forte and Wiig exactly what they need to stand out.  Wiig’s been an on the verge star for quite some time now, but as I alluded to earlier in the review, more than anything else, MacGruber serves to prove out Will Forte’s worth as a comedian.  This man needs more work!  I personally think he’s one of the more talented of SNL’s current cast members, and this film only served to reaffirm that for me.  A seriously awesome job by him.

Part Austin Powers and part MacGyver (with a lot of grossness mixed in), MacGruber succeeds at what it attempts to be.  While not amongst the best SNL films, it is also not one of the worst.  (I know that doesn’t sound that committal or great, but to me it equals a “not bad” SNL film.)  All in all, I can say it’s amongst the better of the middle of the road SNL films, and is a fun watch—if nothing more than for the awesome performance of Will Forte.

Rating: 7/10

*An interesting side-note: I learned that MacGyver creator Lee David Zlotoff attempted to issue a cease and desist due to film rights he retains to the original MacGyver series.  No lawsuit was filed though, and the film is still coming out.