Star Trek: They're Giving It All She's Got, Captain!

So how do you make a Star Trek film that both appeals to die-hard Star Trek fans, and to the general public who, by and large, think die-hard Star Trek fans are the biggest losers in the galaxy?

Sounds like an impossible task to me; the motion picture industry's version of the Kobayashi Maru.

JJ Abrams, though, is a director who doesn't believe in a no-win situation. And by tackling this problem head-on with a solid and universally satisfying screenplay, he fed the hungry Trekkies the story they've always wanted to see. But he also managed to inject universal appeal into a series that had become so solid a niche' that you were almost afraid to go see any of these films without dressing like a Klingon anymore.

AND- more importantly, he left the door wide open for endless sequels, without having to comb through the hundreds of books and scripts that preceded him over the past 40 years to make sure it complies with the overly-convoluted storylines.

In other words, JJ Abrams is a frickin' genius. And Star Trek is one of the best pieces of entertaining movie-making made in the last 5 years.

I really have only one complaint. Kirk didn't act like Kirk. I mean, half the fun of this movie for a Star Trek fan is to watch your favorite characters make their debut on screen, and meet each other for the first time. When McCoy comes on screen for the first time, the actor portrayed him so accurately that you knew who it was as soon as you heard his voice, before you even saw him. Same for Scotty, and for Spock, and Sulu-- but Kirk? This guy didn't act one bit like Kirk. In fact, in interviews before the film came out, he said that he used Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones character as his inspiration. Which would have been great if this were a movie about the young Indiana Jones. But it's not. Was it too much to ask for a good Kirk portrayal?

I guess so.

But it doesn't ruin the film. And if you pay close attention to the movie, you can find a logical reason for Kirk to not act like the old Kirk we all knew and loved. But I won't give away any plot elements. Just go see it.

I give this an enthusiastic 8 out of 10 and recommend to everyone out there.

Wolverine: Eh, Good Enough....

As I sat through Wolverine, a line from another movie came to mind. Not a line from "X-Men," though, as you might expect. Not even a line from another Superhero movie, nor even one from a blockbuster summer hit.

No, it was a line from "Sideways," spoken by Paul Giamatti to describe a rather bland wine at an all-too-corporate winery: "Quaffable, but far from transcendant."

Some movies are made because they have a good story to tell, and they want to tell it well.

Others are made because they know they can still milk the public, after having given them a few good offerings in the past.

This movie falls into the latter category.

I mean, it was OKAY, I guess. They blew crap up and they had fist and blade fights, and that's always cool. I like flashes of light and loud noises and wisecracking superheroes, and they sure gave me a lot of that.

I like Marvel, too, and up until now I have always enjoyed their approach to movie making. I mean, this is truly the era for comic book movies, with the advances in CGI animation and special effects. Gone are the hokey man-flying-on-a-fishline special effects of the past. Now you can count on everything looking realistic enough for the movie-goer to almost forget you're even using any special effects.

Which is probably part of the problem. You can't just wow me with cool looking stuff anymore. You have to give me a good story.

This was an adequate story. I mean, it gave me Wolverine's background, which in the end was about all it promised, right? He's apparently like 170 years old or something, and got himself a super-alloy-coated skeleton (complete with Edward Scissorhands) in a fit of revenge. And he got duped by his own brother, and then caused the Three-Mile-Island meltdown in the 70's. Hey, who knew?

But it left me feeling a little duped. As if they figured, "Well, just write something, throw it out there, count the money, and hurry up and cash in on whatever characters worked before people realize we're just cranking out crap."

If you have any doubt about this, just look at the plans Marvel cranked out immediately following "Wolverine's" huge $85 million weekend: another Wolverine sequel, as well as a spin-off featuring Deadpool, known in this film as Weapon 11, and also a Magneto sequel, plus another X-Men featuring younger mutants-- are you feeling a little sick of X-Men already? Yeah, me too- and that's just READING about these films.

Well, movie-making is a business, after all, and I guess I can't gripe about that. Like any business venture, they look at what makes them millions and they run with it.

And like I said, it was pretty good. I got a couple of hours off from thinking about unemployment or woman troubles.

I give it a 6 and a half. Good enough.

Observe and Report: again with the naked man.....

I guess I'm just going to have to accept that manjunk is here to stay as a commonplace element in modern moviemaking.

There have been brief flashes of Bruce Willis and Kevin Bacon in decades past, but those were forgettable and forgivable. Now, though, it's right out in your face. I think it was "Sideways" that got this unfortunate ball(no pun intended) rolling. Then along came "Dewey Cox", and then "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," and more recently- and grautuitously- "The Watchmen".

Now this.

Even as I write this, I know what's coming. "Hey Steve, how come you don't complain about naked WOMEN in the movies?" I think the answer to that would be obvious, but since apparently it's not, I'll go ahead and tell you why: I'm a heterosexual man, dumb ass. I mean, I'm fuddy-duddy enough to think that nudity should be scarce in movies to begin with, but if you have to flash me some skin, make it soft and supple and feminine. Not hairy and mottled and dangly.

"Hey Steve, great commentary, but can you review the movie now?" Oh shoot, yeah, sorry, I was momentarily distracted by penis.

In this year's second offering of the mall-security genre, and unfortunately the lesser of the two, Seth Rogen hands us what is sure to become his obligatory "Oh jeez, I wish I never made that movie" movie. Every comedic actor has to make one of these at some point in his life. (Pauly Shores actually made a full career out of it.)

Now that Seth has this out of the way, we can just forget it ever happened and wait for something better to come along from him. But in the meantime, I think it suffices to say, when your movie is worse than "Paul Blart, Mall Cop," your movie sucks.

Here's a rundown of the story: Seth Rogen plays a mall cop whose moment of possible glory comes when a parking-lot flasher exposes his crotch to Rogen's love interest, the little blonde slut who works the make-up counter. It's loaded with predictability, mistimed jokes, and a distracting soundtrack that takes the punch out of what could have otherwise been a couple of good gags. The story line is formulated. The characters are flat. I've seen better comedy on public-access television.

The culmination of this disaster film is the only part of the movie I actually laughed at; Rogen's climatic foot-chase of the perp, dangling and exposed, through the shops and between the kiosks of his former mall-cop beat.

When the penis-scene is what I rate the best scene of all, you know the movie has to blow. (Again, no pun intended.)

I give this movie a 4 out of 10. The 4 is for the effort; I think they honestly tried to make a funny movie here. But they ultimately failed.

I Love You, Man!: I loved it, man.

I friggin loved this movie!

Talk about a slam-dunk. From the premise- a guy who has only girlfriends tries to make one male friend before his wedding day- to the acting, to the pacing, to the directing- all around, this was a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

And let's not forget the writing. This was written (and directed) by John Hamburg, the same creative genius who penned "Meet the Parents" and "Zoolander", and it delivers the laughs even better than either of those two movies did. You'll like the way everything in this film feels so true-to-life. Some of the hardest writing to do is the kind that everyone can universally relate to.

I know this is probably the shortest rave review you'll ever read, but what else can I say beyond what I've already said? I give it an 8 out of 10, and I'll seriously go see it with you if you don't want to go alone. Seriously. Email me if you don't have my number.

Monsters vs. Aliens: Dreamworks vs. Pixar

I know its not right to compare. But I do it. I compare my friends. I compare places I have lived. Hell, I even compare the women I date.

I compare movies.

It's wrong. You should just take every movie for what it is. And if you do that, Monsters vs. Aliens is a very good movie. You'll enjoy it, the kids will love it, and everyone will walk away more than adequately entertained.

But when they have "vs." in the title, it's almost like they're INVITING me to compare. They WANT competition.

Ok, I'll compare. Not just this movie to another movie, but Pixar animated films (like Monsters Inc. or Wall-E) to Dreamworks animated films, as represented by this movie.

Animation: Dreamworks wins. This was breathtaking to watch in some segments, and even when it wasn't taking your breath away, it was impressing you mightily.

Story: Pixar wins. This was a good story, don't get me wrong, but it could have had a twist or two. Wall-E, for example, on the other hand- not THAT was a story! But that's like comparing "E.T." to something off of Dale Dorman's "Creature Double Feature." This was supposed to play off like a campy 50's monster movie, and it kinda did. Mission accomplished.

Humor: Pixar wins, hands down. This really wasn't as funny as I had hoped for. If you saw the previews, you saw most of the laughs already. Beyond that, it was mild-chuckle hour. Kind of disappointing, really.

So overall, I'd have to say that Pixar has a better animation department than Dreamworks. But so what? Go see this, you'll like it. I give it a 6 and a half out of 10. Your kids will give it a 10, especially if you see the 3D version. Go!

The Watchmen: Don't Watch, Man...

Ever since I saw the first preview in the theater about three months ago, I have been touting "The Watchmen" as the first must-see film of 2009.

I left out the word "not". As in, "must NOT see."

Why?

You see that blue guy over there to the left?

Well, get ready to see his glowing blue penis, over and over and over throughout the film.

Wait, did you just say--

Yes, get ready to see a Superhero's Super Atomic Johnson dangling in your face for 2 hours and 45 minutes.

I don't care how much time and effort and money went into this film. I don't care one bit how true it stayed to the graphic novel it was based on. I don't care about the carefully choreographed fight scenes and the spectacular visual effects. Seriously; those elements alone usually have me declaring any movie "The Best Movie EVER MADE!"

As soon as you put a glowing blue shlong in my face, your film loses all appeal.

Do it more than once, and all I can think to myself is, "Is this director retarded?"

Call it "art." Call it "important to the plot and storyline." Call ME a "homophobe." As soon as you paint a donk blue and make it glow like a rave toy, you have rendered your film absolutely ridiculous.

Show that glowing blue lightstick more than once, and you have lost every last shred of credibility.

Show it over and over and over for damn near three hours, and you hopefully lose your movie-making license for life.

I give "The Watchmen" a zero on a scale of one to ten. Next time, think of the MOVIE GOER when you spend $125 million dollars of Paramount's hard-earned cash, you idiot, not of your own nuclear-homo-erotic fantasies.

Slumdog Millionaire: Bollywood's First Oscar Contender

Guy meets girl, guy love girl, guy loses girl. Girl turns tramp. Guy still loves girl, guy searches entire world for girl. Love conquers all. Then end.

Pffffft, when does THAT ever happen? Give me a break.

But this is movieland, folks, not the real world. We go to the movies to SEE this happen, because in real life, it always goes to the crapper, right?

So I'm going to highly recommend you see this ridiculous tale of a kid from the Indian slums who wins his way to the very last question on their local version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire." Not to win the money, but to win back his girl.

It's gritty and tough, and it doesn't shy away from showing you the vile, poisonous world of Indian orphans living on the streets. So if you're not into depictions of graphic violence, mistreated children living in squallor, and the thugs who abuse them, maybe this isn't for you.

But if you can stomach all of that, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised in the end.

Plus- and this is the best part- if you stay through the end of the film, you get to see a REAL LIFE BOLLYWOOD DANCE NUMBER! It's absolutely ridiculous and it's the best part of any movie this year.

I give this a 7 out of 10. Enjoy.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: My Oscar Bet for 2008

You've seen this movie before.

Think back, you'll remember. 1994? Box of Chocolates? Those look like comfortable shoes...? Ring a bell?

Yeah, Benjamin Button is basically a Forrest Gump "re-imagining" when you get right down to it, but hey, we can use a new Forrest Gump every 14 years, can't we?

So if it's just a reworking of something that was done before, why do I expect a best Picture Oscar to come of this? A few reasons.

First, it's almost three hours long, and it moves quickly through those three hours. Look back over the last twenty years, and you'll see that the three-hour epics (LOTR, Gladiator, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Schindler's List, Dances With Wolves, etc.) usually win, if they have a little meat to them.

Second, it's about life. And death. Trascendent themes that are easy to play, and difficult to master. In the end, nothing moves a movie-goer- and more importantly, an Oscar voter- like a movie that makes them contemplate their own imminent demise.

And third, it's better than Forrest Gump, and Forrest Gump was pretty damn good! The story was sweet and the production was expertly achieved. The special effects that made Brad Pitt look like an old man/little kid were about the best I have ever seen. (I kept thinking to myself, "How the hell did they do that?") And the love story wasn't some sweet "the-guy-gets-the-girl" love story, it was more of the kind I usually see happening in real life. Some kind of "the-guy-loves-the-girl-and-the-girl-loves-the-guy-but-they're-both-screwed-up-enough-to-ruin-what-could-be-a-good-thing-in-the-end-but-I-guess-that's-okay" kind of love story.

I give Benjamin Button an 8 out of 10, and I see it winning the final slug-out vs. "Slumdog Millionaire" at the Oscars.

Seven Pounds- worth every pound.

I'm going to warn you up front- for about the first thirty minutes of this movie, you're going to be depressed. Maybe near suicidal, so keep all sharp objects locked up in your purse.

You won't really understand exactly WHY you're depressed, either, because while some of the events being portrayed are real downers, it shouldn't be weighing you down THAT bad.

It's Will Smith's acting that does it to you. He expertly portrays a man who has descended into the depths of living hell, and now has to plod through life carrying the burden of his own mistakes, and try to make something better out of the time he has left here.

So, you ask yourself, do I really want to go see a suicidally-depressing movie just 5 days before Christmas?

Yes, you do.

It's not a flawless film. There were more than a few moments when I sat there writing the upcoming dialogue in my head before they actually spoke it, and a few scenes where I said, "Oh, I know what's going to happen." Despite this, the ending did catch me a little off-guard, and had some minor surprises.

But you don't watch this for the SURPRISES- you watch it for that sense that even the worst of us can do something to make the world better. I'm not going to recommend you take the Will Smith character's path to world-bettering, necessarily, but I think it would be nice if more than a few of us could carry away a desire to be a little better after we watch this.

Yeah, I know, I'm expecting too much. So just go watch it and enjoy that "I feel so good but this was such a friggin sad movie" feeling afterwards.

I give it a 7 out of 10, and maybe an Oscar nomination or two.

Australia!- it takes less time to complete a walkabout than it does to watch this movie.

Australia!

The mere mention of the place conjures up images of a savagely beautiful Outback; mystical Aboriginies living a mysterious culture; vast landscapes and enormous, paint-spackled skies.

As far as the imagery goes, this movie does NOT disappoint!

Now if only they had a good story to go along with it, we'd have had a winner.

Actually, let me correct that- they DID have a good story. It was a great hour-and-forty-five-minute story. Stretched out about an hour too long. Or maybe it was three great 55 minute stories, better told as a TV miniseries than as a supposedly-epic film.

Can I say something about epic films here? It's not the LENGTH ALONE that makes a movie an epic. It's the substance you fill that length with. Gladiator, Braveheart, the Lord of the Rings series- these worked, because they had a lot to tell us.

Baz Luhrman obviously missed that lesson in Epic Filmmaking 101.

But he got the cinematography down pat.

On top of a dragging storyline, this movie is also afflicted with terminal cartoonishness. Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman don't play actual characters here; they play grossly exaggerated charicatures of stereotypical character types. Kidman is the Annoyingly Prim and Proper Woman From an Elite Upbringing. Jackman plays the Ruggedly Handsome Man From The Outback.

I smell a clash of cultures coming, don't you? Or course, it's part of the predictable formula in films like these.

You know what's going to happen. At some point, Kidman is going to show how rough-and-tumble she really can be, and Jackman is going to show up somewhere clean-shaven and wearing a tux. And then Tragedy-Will-Strike and they will have a Joyful Reunion. Baz even throws a kid in the mix to tug at those heartstrings, too.

Feh.

I mean, I liked it, sure, but I was disappointed. I expected an Oscar frontrunner. Instead I got a sub-par Titanic on Dry Land.

Oh well, they can't all be winners. I give this a 6, and I recommend you sneak in a Red Bull and start sipping it about 45 minutes in.

Twilight: I'm a guy. Ignore this review.

Look.

I like women. No- I LOVE women.

They look good. They smell wonderful. They're all soft and voluptuous and feminine and they have those sweet-as-honey soothing voices that just make you want to fall alseep all cuddled up crook of their shoulder.

Ahhh, women are wonderful creatures.

They love horrible movies.

Atrocious films, at times.

We men condescendingly called these "chick flicks" for years, until women caught wind of it and hijacked that terminology and wore it like a badge of honor.

A wise man will pretend to love a horrible chick flick. There is nothing to be attained by criticizing one. Nothing whatsoever.

This was a horrible film. The acting was painful to watch. What was probably a fairly compelling novel was spun into a motion picture that's as interesting to watch as an SAT test is to take. This start-up studio took on the challenge of creating a film for tweens and teens and chicks that has no major stars, no sex whatsoever, and very minimal, cartoonish violence, as well as a generous sprinkling of not-so-subtle Mormon ethics lessons- and botched it.

I'm still reeling from it.

I give it a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. There's one for the ladies.

(p.s.- my date hated this movie even more than I did. Please.... marry me!)

Bolt!... from the theater after the first two minutes. And get your money back.

This started off really well.

Seriously, I could have sat through the first couple of minutes of "Bolt" on a continuous loop for 2 full hours. It was a breathtaking action sequence, spiced up with a little humor and a small dose of human warmth.

If they could have taken that and expanded it out for the entire length of the film, Bolt would have been a winner.

Instead, they wasted their 3-D technology and their A-List cast of voices on what could have easily been a Cartoon Network special event, aired on a Thursday afternoon right after the kids get home from school.

This isn't a horrible film, of course. It's got some funny moments, and it's got a reasonably well-paced plot, and some fun-to-watch CGI scattered throughout it. The kids will like it, although it won't make any of their lists of favorites.

So I guess it's not a TOTAL waste of time.

But let's just say, if you wait for it to come out on DVD, even without the 3-D effects, you can pop some popcorn and read the latest issue of People while the kids fall asleep on the floor watching it. It'd be time and money far better spent.

I give this movie a 6. In a couple of months, you can rent it and watch it and you'll probably agree.

Wall-E: The Genius of Simplicity

There's a reason Kid's movies regularly rake in hundreds of millions of dollars, while more "sophisticated" adult fare often falls flat on it's high-falutin' face. It's in their simplicity, and this is illustrated by Wall-E, one of the best computer animated films I have ever seen.

The story is superbly original, and yet devoid of all that cluttering complexity. Wall-E is the last of a production line of trash-compacting robots, left behind on a polluted, abandoned earth to spend eternity crushing our waste into neat little cubes. So far as his programming goes, that's his entire purpose- but left alone to his own resources and reasoning, Wall-E developed a personality, and in so doing, developed a range of very human emotions.

Most powerful among those is a longing for companionship. Quite a bummer of an emotion to have when you're the last robot on earth!

Now what kind of movie would allow a situation like that to continue? Not a very good one, and THIS, my friends, is a very good movie.

One day a space ship lands on earth, carrying a beautiful, and decidedly feminine, probe named Eve. She finds the first plant to sprout on earth in 700 years and carries it back to her spaceship. And Wall-E, having fallen in love with her, stows away on the return trip.

What follows is a story that says as much about all of us as it does about Wall-E and Eve, and it's all symbolized in the simplicity of the act of holding hands.

It's a beautiful story, told quickly and efficiently, and it holds your attention throughout with dazzling graphics and fun-to-watch characters. Take the kids, take a date, or pop it in alone on a Saturday night. Anyway you do it, you can't lose. Wall-E is a winner.

I give it an 8 out of 10.

Burn After Reading: Laugh After Watching

The Coen Brothers.

They have been entertaining us for years with some of the oddest films ever made. Gems such as "Raising Arizona," "Fargo," "The Big Lebowski," "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" and of course, last year's Oscar Winner for Best Picture, "No Country For Old Men."

No Country For Old Men's problem was that it was a great film with a horrible ending. So for their follow-up presentation, they decided to reverse that problem. This time around, they give us a mediocre movie that gets increasingly funnier and funnier until the very last scene, which wraps it up nicely and leaves you laughing long after the credits roll.

The Coens do a great job at giving us odd characters creating bizarre situations for themselves, but this time around the characters fall flat. I felt like they wanted to give us something odd and quirky, but had run out of ways to present that to us. So you get George Clooney commenting repeatedly on peoples' flooring, and Brad Pitt dancing to his ipod on treadmills. Ha ha ha. Very friggin' funny.

But the story was tight. The characters, who were so uninteresting to watch at first, become more entertaining as they dig themselves deeper and deeper holes to climb out of. The final scene, which is really a wrap-up of the entire unfortunate affair, really made the whole film worth it to me.

So how do I rate this? It started out as a 4, and increased to about an 8 by the end, so I guess to be fair I ought to split the difference and give it a 6. Nicely done.

Righteous Kill: Unholy Device.

Pacino-DeNiro, DeNiro-Pacino.
The Ultimate Paring, you know what I mean-o?
But sadly their day in the sun has now passed.
And movies like this come across as half-assed.

Okay, enough poetry, let's get into it. This wasn't a bad story but it was a horrible presentation, thanks to a poorly-thought-out cinematic device that really shouldn't have been used.

DeNiro and Pacino are cops, and partners, in this film that finally-FINALLY!- has them sharing not just top billing, but substantial screen time. The movie starts out with DeNiro's character, on tape, confessing to a bunch of murders.

STOP!

IMMEDIATELY, we know he didn't do it, right? Otherwise, why watch any further? This film is a cops-and-robbers drama. Cops-and-robbers dramas are essentially games: you, the movie-goer, have to figure out whodunnit before they tELL you whodunnit at the end! So when they start off with a confession, we KNOW that guy didn't do it!

You see the problem here?

If they had ommitted that device, or even if they had introduced it halfway into it instead of as the opening credits rolled, they'd have really had a winner here.

I mean, I'll be honest, seeing DeNiro and Pacino onscreen together at this stage in their careers is a little anti-climatic. It would have been so much more fun to see them co-starring in a Scorcese film ten years ago! (And hey, Scorcese, it'd still be fun... just in case you're reading this...) But this is what we get, too little too late.

But their performances are pretty good, to tell the truth. DeNiro is DeNiro, and Pacino didn't do that weird screaming thing he does in a lot of his films, so hey, I was happy. Don Wahlberg and John Leguizamo are also good in their roles. Carla Gugino plays an adequate dirty-girl love interest, 50 Cent plays 50 Cent with another name- nothing here to complain about in casting or acting.

The story is a solid story, nothing groundbreaking, but a decent gritty-city catch-the-serial-killer suspense story.

But that DEVICE- it took away all the suspense. You had two choices here for the "who" in "whodunnit" and right off the bat, we know who DIDN'T dunnit. Way to ruin it for me.

I give this a 6, for good acting, a decent cast, and a noble effort. They got a 6 and my $9. They ought to be happy.

Bangkok Dangerous: Just like you, I didn't even bother to see it.

I have done a lot for you people.

I watched "Indiana Jones." TWICE. Just to make sure it was as god-awful as I thought it was.

I stayed awake through most of "The Golden Compass," fighting back violent urges to regurgitate my lunch throughout those painful waking moments.

I watched BEOWULF for you people! BEOWULF! All of it!

So never let it be said that I don't love you.

I thought that love was limitless.

I was wrong.

I'm not going to see Bangkok Dangerous for you.

Don't act all butt-hurt by it, ok? You weren't planning on seeing it either. Let's just pretend this weekend never happened, regroup, and try to pump ourselves up for Oscar Season. All is not lost. Iron Man and the Dark Knight are only a few months behind us; Hollywood isn't dead.

Vicky Christina Barcelona: Well, at least it LOOKED pretty....

Two girlfriends go to Barcelona for the summer. They meet an exotic, hot-blooded artist. He has a violent history with an exotic, hot-blooded ex-wife. Everyone meets everyone and everyone sleeps with everyone, and then the movie ends pretty much the same way it began.

No character development.

No storyline or satisfying conclusion.

But Spain sure looked pretty.

3 out of 10. Half a point for Javier Bardem looking cool. Another half point for Penelope Cruz so authentically portraying a crazy latina. And ten full points for my date. But then I have to subtract 8 points for Woody Allen's inability to focus the camera half the time. It was distracting. I thought I needed glasses.

Tropic Thunder: It's a Hollywood Thing. You Wouldn't Understand.

There is a lot in Tropic Thunder that any movie-goer can appreciate.

We're given a plethora of Hollywood stereotypes to mock and laugh at. Action Heroes, Serious Method Actors, Drug-addled Comic Actors, Scumbag Producers, Desperate Agents... expensive movie sets, clashing egoes, overdone movie premises... Budget overruns, delays in production... they even go into the Actors-Portraying-Mentally-Retarded-and/or- Gay-People territory.

The idea of a movie about a movie, involving all of these elements, is, in and of itself, funny enough.

And the movie is funny enough, too. Don't misunderstand me.

But throughout it, I got the sense that I wasn't really privy to the REAL joke here. It felt like Hollywood wasn't mocking "stereotypes" so much as they were mocking actual, specific people who FIT those stereotypes. And I don't know those people. So I can't laugh at those people like the insiders in Hollywood can laugh at those people.

This movie wasn't made for me, or for you, or for the common, everyday movie fan. It was made for the guys who work in the backlots making sets. The Gaffers and Lead Grips. The ladies who work the Kraft Food Service. The Sound Technicians and Make-Up Girls and the guys who have to squeeze Eddie Murphy into those stupid Fat-Guy suits in nearly every movie he makes these days. And yes, it was even made for the actors, actresses, producers, directors, and agents, who have to kiss each other's asses from day to day to make a living, but who really, secretly despise certain individuals in the business.

This is a movie tribute to the people who have to deal, from day to day, with the Big Egoes. And I think that's pretty cool.

Not necessarily really FUNNY, but hey, way to throw them a bone, Ben Stiller.

The humor was good enough to keep me laughing about half the time. It was a little too graphically violent, and frankly, gross, in some parts for me to laugh with the reckless abandon that a comedy movies should allow me. When Ben Stiller is licking the blood off the bloody entrails hanging off a decapitated head, pardon me for holding back a little. And everyone else in the theater seemed to feel the same way. You heard a lot more muffled, ashamed, nervous tittering than full-on belly-laughing.

I give it a 6 out of 10, and I recommend that anyone who didn't like Pulp Fiction stay home.

Stepbrothers: Step out the door and down the hall to The Dark Knight.

We all knew this day would come. We didn't want it to come, but it was inevitable.

The day when Will Ferrell comedies become stale. When you watch one of his movies, and say to yourself, "Oh, this again."

I'm not celebrating this moment. This is a tragedy. Truly, it is. This guy has been a consistent homerun since headlining Elf 5 years ago, and that's quite an accomplishment for an SNL alumni. To churn out 5 years' worth of movies and hit the mark nearly every single time? Come on!

But this time around, you get the heavy-hearted feeling early into the film that you're going to see the same jokes all over again, but this time in [insert funny setting here]. Whatever stereotypical situation any of you could imagine two fully-grown stepbrothers getting into, you'll see it here. You can almost write the jokes yourself.

Don't get me wrong; this was still entertaining. If you rate a comedy on how many minutes you spent laughing vs. how many minutes were in the total movie, then this gets about a 50% rating. But I was never surprised. The laughs trickled out of me, they didn't burst forth with Diet Coke spraying out of my nose and chewed-up popcorn sprayed all over the two rows in front of me.

And as a frequent curser myself, I was still a little dismayed at the language. Comedians need to master the art of the F-bomb. The F word can be funny, but only when you make full use of it shock value. When it's said over and over and over and over, it's not funny anymore. It's offensive, and needless, and detracts from the film rather than adds to it. I don't remember hearing it so much in a Will Ferrell movie ever before. I hope to never hear it this much again.

I have to give this mildly entertaining poop pattie a disappointed 5 out of 10. This could have been so much better. Will, say it's just one bad apple in a wonderful basket of entertainment. Say it's not the beginning of the end.

The Dark Knight: Two of the Best Movies EVER MADE!

Where do I begin here? With the heaps of praise, or with my disgruntled grousing? I guess I'll get the negatives out of the way, since that's a much smaller pile to disperse.

First off, I know Batman's trying to mask his voice with that gruff, guttural half-whisper of his, but it's getting old. Can't we have Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) whip him up a voice modifier or something?

Second, a word to screenwriters Christopher and Jonathan Nolan: It's ok to kill bad guys in Movieland. And when the good guys are getting mown down like bunnies on a country higway, it's a little empty feeling when every bad guy mastermind lives to see another day. Or sequel.

Which feeds into my third- and last- complaint. This movie went on forever. And when you have THREE super-villains to contend with, it HAS to go on forever. I shudder to think of what Batman 4 or 5 will clock in at. They'll have to have an HBO mini-series and an old-school "cast of thousands" to cover all the still-breathing bad guys in those sequels.

Seriously- we can handle one bad guy per film, folks! (That goes for you Spiderman writers, too!)

Ok, gripefest over, let's get to the meat of it:

This movie is absolutely unbelievable. Believe the hype. And ignore the legions of Batfans who laugh too loud and too obviously at ever word out of the Joker's mouth, same as they did twenty years ago when Jack Nicholson had his go-round in the clown make-up.

Believe it when people tell you that Heath Ledger is Oscar-bound with this performance, because he is. It's probably unfair to compare the apples-and-oranges performances of him and Jack Nicholson, but come on, you HAVE to. Jack Nicholson was a great Joker, but he was basically Jack Nicholson in clownface. Heath Ledger, on the other hand, created something completely unique with this guy. If you didn't know it was him, you'd have never, ever figured it out, I guarantee you. And not to go all homophobe on you here, but it's nice to see him hitting on MAGGIE Gyllenhaal this time around, instead of Jake.

And thank you, Christopher Nolan, for replacing Kate Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal for this sequel. She's a MUCH better Rachel Dawes.

In fact, every performance here is noteworthy. From Batman himself (Christian Bale) right down to Alfred the butler (played by the other actor-who-has-kissed-other-men-on-film in this movie, Michael Caine, who made out with Superman Christopher Reeve in 1982's Deathtrap... what's with the superhoeroes-in-tights films loaded up with actors who play gay men? I see a trend... but I digress.)

The Dark Knight really is a completely different breed of Superhero/Comic Book movie. Not quite "true" to any of its predecessors- be it the comic books, TV show, or other movies- this series is panning out to be a gritty, this-is-how-it-would-really-be kind of superhero movie. No silly antics and fun gag-punches here. When you get hit, you get hurt. When you die, it's brutal and violent. When the world turns on you, they don't magically relearn how to love you before the closing credits roll. No, in these movies, when you're the Dark Knight of Gotham, you're alone and unloved and that's exactly the way you made it for yourself.

I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10. It's about as good as it possible could have been, all things considered.