"Friends with Benefits" review

Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake hit all the comedic high notes in this summer's R-rated romantic comedy, Friends with Benefits.

Jamie (Kunis) -- a corporate headhunter -- and Dylan (Timberlake) become fast friends after she convinces him to take the job as artistic director for GQ in New York City. Neither one of them is good in relationships -- she's emotionally damaged, he's emotionally unavailable -- but they both really like sex, so after an alcohol filled night of watching romantic comedies they decide that they're going to be friends who have sex with each other.

Ground rules are firmly established to prevent them from developing feelings for each other -- because that always works so well. Soon, they're shagging morning, noon and night, but things get complicated when Dylan takes Jamie home to L.A. to spend a weekend with his family.

There's a fight, another fight, and -- just when you think they're going to solve things -- another fight. But eventually Dylan makes the grand romantic gesture and the two get together.

Friends with Benefits was a lot of fun to watch for a number of reasons. For starters, I'm a big fan of the R-rated romantic comedy movement happening. It moves the whole genre into a more adult -- and consequently realistic -- zone. It's easier to believe the characters are real people when their conversations are vulgar and unpolished.

FWB's cast does an excellent job of bringing together a hilarious script. Kunis and Timberlake have great chemistry, and it's easy to believe they're really good friends. Woody Harrelson makes a brilliant showing as Tommy, Dylan's gay coworker, and Richard Jenkins is great as Dylan's father who suffers from Alzheimer's Disease. Shaun White even makes an appearance as a bizzaro version of himself.

The movie has a lot of really funny moments. From an R-rated urination sequence -- I know it sounds weird, but trust me -- to something as simple Dylan trying to do math in his head, the laughs keep rolling for the entire movie.

I know a lot of people thought Friends with Benefits was going to be exactly like No Strings Attached -- the January romantic comedy starring Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher. I haven't seen No Strings Attached, but there's no way a d-bag like Ashton Kutcher could make a movie as funny as FWB. Even if you like No Strings Attached, Friends with Benefits is hilarious.

In a summer dominated by brilliant R-rated comedies -- Bridesmaids and Horrible Bosses among them -- Friends with Benefits' holds its own thanks to its hilarious cast and script. This is definitely a romantic comedy worthy of your time and money.

7.5 of 10

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II" review

The question: Is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II a conclusion worthy of the most successful film franchise in movie history? The answer: Hell yeah, it is! 

SPOILER ALERT!

Part II picks up right where Part I leaves off -- Harry, Ron and Hermione, having been rescued from Malfoy Manor by Dobby, continue their quest to discover and destroy all of Voldemort's horcruxes. The search takes the trio to Gringott's Bank -- to Bellatrix Lestrange's vault -- and, eventually, to Hogwarts. This is where the action really picks up.

Shortly after Harry's return to Hogwarts, Voldemort and all of his forces arrive and vow to lay seige to the castle unless Harry is turned over to him. Rather than surrender, the professors and students -- under the leadership of Professor McGonagall -- take up the defense of Hogwarts while Harry searches the castle for the remaining horcruxes.

What happens next is one of the most epic battles in movie history. Thousands of Death Eaters, trolls and werewolves laying seige to Hogwarts is one of the coolest things I've ever seen, but the filmmakers have to be commended for focusing on Harry's quest to stop Voldemort instead of the battle. As much fun as the special-effects orgy was, it was better to maintain the heart of the story.

The whole series boils down to a final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort where *gasp* Harry defeats him once and for all. Big surprise there. But we don't watch Harry Potter to be surprised -- we've always known Harry was going to win. We watch the movies because it's about how he wins. It's always been about the journey, and let's be honest, it's been one helluva ride.

Deathly Hallows: Parts II hits a lot of great highs. Forget about Voldemort dying, Ron and Hermione finally kiss! Not only that, Neville Longbottom finally shows himself as a complete bad-ass; he's been leading the resistance inside Hogwarts since Harry's been away, and he kills Nagini! Plus, few moments were as satisfying as seeing Molly Weasley waste Bellatrix Lestrange.

The movie also provides plenty of emotion, particularly the reveal of Remus, Tonks and Fred's deaths -- though I think they could've spent a little more time with those moments.

The actors -- especially Radcliffe, Watson and Grint -- continue to demonstrate a maturity of talent beyond their years. I've no doubt we'll see bright post-Potter careers for all of them.

My only real question is: Will Part I and Part II work together as a single movie? Considering they took one story and turned it into two movies, it'll be interesting to see if the two movies will flow together as one story.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II is a fitting conclusion to the decade-long film franchise that has enchanted audiences around the world and changed movie history forever. Well done, Harry Potter. Well done.

9 of 10

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" Review

The Transformers franchise looks for redemption with Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and actually finds it.

The movie picks up three and a half years after Transformers 2 and Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is having a hard time finding his first post-college job. To make matters worse, he's living off of his girlfriend, Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely), who works as a personal assistant for the more-than-sketchy d-bag Dylan (Patrick Dempsey).

Meanwhile, the Autobots are still working with the NEST team and Lennox (Josh Duhamel) to protect the world from the Decepticons. A Russian informant leads the team to Chernobyl where they find a fuel cell from an Autobot ship that crashed on the moon in the 1950s.

Sam discovers the real purpose of the Apollo missions were to beat the Soviets to the moon to examine and recover technology from the crashed alien ship. After uncovering the conspiracy, he once again finds himself thrust into the middle of the war between the Autobots and Decepticons. 

The real question is: Did the world really need another Transformers movie?   

After the abomination that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I lost all interest in Transformers -- Shia LeBeouf dying and going to Autobot heaven was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Honestly, how can you come back from something that stupid?

Well, a lot of things happen in Transformers 3 to make it better than Transformers 2. For starters, even though Transformers is about giant alien robots, Dark of the Moon is the most human of the franchise. I give a lot of credit to writer Ehren Kruger for using the extreme circumstances of the movie as a way to explore human emotions and relationships. 

Another improvement is the transition into much darker subject material. There's a particularly poignant scene depicting the aftermath of a full-scale Decepticon attack on Chicago. 

And, possibly the biggest bonus, Megan Fox is gone -- fired by Steven Spielberg after she said director Michael Bay was like Hitler. 

Of course, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is still victim of the same pitfalls of the other movies. Michael Bay tries too hard to infuse the movie with humor that feels completely forced -- especially given the more serious subject matter. Shia LeBeouf seems incapable of playing a single scene without sounding like a complete smart-ass. At least there aren't any giant Decepticon balls in this one.

And, as always, the movie is like watching one really long special-effects orgy. Not that the effects aren't good -- it honestly looks like there were real giant robots on the set. The problem is that there is so much going on visually that you can't even begin to process everything on the screen. It is sensory overload, especially in 3D. 

All in all, Transformers: Dark of the Moon manages to not only bring the franchise back from the Vortex of Suck that was Transformers: Rise of the Fallen, but it is the best movie in the series.

6.5 of 10   

"Bad Teacher" Review

Bad Teacher brings together a funny and talented cast—including Cameron Diaz, Jason Segel, and Justin Timberlake—for a fresh take on a familiar character.

Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) teaches middle school and is quite possibly the worst teacher in the history of bad teachers. The tagline for the movie reads: “She doesn’t give an ‘F’,” which is pretty much the case.

Instead of teaching, she shows a myriad of movies— Dangerous Minds and Scream among them. While her class watches movies, she either sleeps or sneaks shots from the secret stash of alcohol in her desk.

The only thing Elizabeth does care about is trying to find a sugar-daddy husband so she never has to work again. She thinks she finds her mark when substitute teacher Scott Delacorte (Timberlake) starts at her school. The only problem is that Scott starts dating super teacher Amy Squirrel, the very epitome of an excellent teacher, and everything Elizabeth hates.

When Elizabeth learns that the teacher whose class performs the best on the state standardized test gets a $5700 bonus—and that Amy wins every year—she resorts to any means necessary to win that money, even going so far as to teach. GASP!

The reason I say Bad Teacher is a fresh twist on a familiar character is because we’ve all seen the I-don’t-care-about-kids teacher character a hundred times, but this is the first time we’ve seen a woman in the role. And Cameron Diaz shines.

This character is a huge departure from the bubbly characters Diaz usually plays that it’s a blast to watch her here, even if she is completely despicable. I have to say, this movie did make me wonder if this is what all teachers would be like if they removed their filters for a day…

I’m also excited about Bad Teacher because it follows along the same lines as Bridesmaids, showing women as much more complex characters than they’ve been portrayed in Hollywood comedies. Women are usually the voice of reason, and it’s a lot of fun to watch them when they’re not.

If you want a movie with a solid moral and life lesson, Bad Teacher isn’t for you. But as something hilariously unapologetic, with a brilliantly funny cast, Bad Teacher gets definitely gets an “A.”

7.5 of 10

"X-Men: First Class" Review

After the abomination that was X-Men: The Last Stand, and the underwhelming X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you may be asking yourselves: do we really need another X-Men movie? After seeing X-Men: First Class, I can tell you the answer is a resounding yes.

Rather than continuing the story of the first film trilogy, X-Men: First Class takes us back to 1962 and the origins of the first group of X-Men. Charles Xavier—Professor X—is a new doctoral graduate of Oxford; Eric Lenssher—Magneto—is a globe-trotting Nazi hunter, determined to track down the man who murdered his mother in a concentration camp.

The film is set against the backdrop of the Cold War as mutant Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) orchestrates a plot to begin a nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. His goal is that the radiation from the nuclear fallout to create a new race of mutants, with him as their ruler. The CIA recruits Charles (James McAvoy, Wanted) and Eric (Michael Fassbender, Inglorious Basterds and Jane Eyre) to form a team of mutant operatives to stop Shaw.

The climax of the film takes place during the Cuban Missile Crisis as Charles and the X-Men face off against Shaw’s mutants with the entire world at stake.

The best thing about X-Men: First Class is that, despite the dramatic setting, it’s a story about the characters and their struggles to find a place in a fearful and suspicious world. The movie spends a lot of time building the relationships between the characters—especially Charles and Eric. Their friendship is both fun and painful to watch because they build a strong bond, but we know it’s doomed from the start.

It’s a lot of fun to see these familiar characters as young men—instead of the incredibly serious Professor X, for example, Charles is a fun-loving, hard-drinking womanizer when we first meet him. There’s also a great scene where the younger mutant recruits spend a drunken night showing off their abilities.

The most refreshing part of X-Men: First Class is that it doesn’t rely on special effects or spectacle to try to drive the story, which was the major pitfall of the other X-Men films. Instead, it’s the humanity of the characters, their personal struggles, and their relationships that drive the plot and make the audience invest in the journey.

It’s this approach to storytelling that makes X-Men: First Class a first-class film, and the best in the franchise.

8.5 of 10

"Jane Eyre" Review

It’s a daunting task to adapt one of the greatest literary works of the nineteenth century into a two-hour film; and while the cast brilliantly brings these classic characters to life, the overall execution of the story left me underwhelmed.

To be fair, my background is in English literature and I’ve recently participated in a discussion of Jane Eyre, so the novel is pretty fresh in my mind and I’m probably being overly critical because of that. A friend of mine, for example, saw the film and thoroughly enjoyed himself.

For those of you who haven’t read the novel, Jane Eyre—set in 1820s England—is about a young woman who is hired as a governess for the ward of a temperamental master named Mr. Rochester. Jane hears rumors from the other servants that the manor—Thornfield—is haunted by the ghost of a woman. During her time at Thornfield, she and Rochester fall in love and decide to marry.

The novel does a really good job of balancing gothic—a haunted house, dangerous secrets, etc.—with romantic elements. The film, however, flip-flops between the two parts of the story without ever finding the appropriate balance, and in fact winds up abandoning the gothic components altogether—much to my dismay.

Before I get too down on the film, I want to mention how fantastic the performances were. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) captures the humble, confident, quick-witted Jane from the novel; Michael Fassbender’s (Inglorious Basterds) Rochester is dark, ill-humored, but romantic; and the brilliant Dame Judy Dench lights up the screen in her portrayal of Mrs. Fairfax, the housekeeper. Without this cast, sitting through Jane Eyre would’ve been a chore.

Unfortunately, the rest of the adaptation leaves much to be desired. There were several details from the novel that were either changed or omitted, and my favorite scene—where Jane sees the ghost for the first time—was entirely absent from the film. Also, the decision to abandon the gothic elements once the romantic plot took off destroyed the tone that had been created from the beginning and gave me the sense that I was watching two different movies.

Again, I understand that omissions have to be made when a 400-plus page novel becomes a two-hour movie, and for what it was, the film wasn’t bad. But, it could’ve been so much better.

6 of 10

"Scream 4"

Just so you know, the original Scream trilogy are some of my favorite movies, so my review is probably not going to be the most objective thing in the world, but I’ll do my best.

Scream 4 takes place 10 years after the events of Scream 3. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to her hometown of Woodsboro on the anniversary of the Woodsboro Murders—the events of Scream—as the last stop on her book tour. Naturally, her arrival is the catalyst for a new series of murders that rock the small town.

The Scream movies take place in an interesting universe because the “real” murders are the inspiration for a slasher-movie franchise called Stab. By the time Scream 4 takes place, Stab 7 has been made, and the entire world knows about Ghostface and his modus operandi of calling his victims before murdering them. There’s even a Ghostface smartphone app that transforms the caller’s voice into the voice of the killer.

The reason I like Scream is that it’s post-modern, self-deprecating brilliance. The movie is aware of itself as a horror film, makes fun of the standard horror movie devices, then either uses or subverts those same devices. That’s what made the originals so much fun, and that’s what keeps audiences coming back over and over again.

Scream 4 follows the franchise’s successful formula, but this time the target is reboot/remakes. It mocks the recent trends in horror films—torture porn, for example—while also making fun of its own existence as a reboot. The fun is that, while Scream 4 is a reboot of the Scream franchise, the new murders in Woodsboro are a remake of Stab, the original movie based on the Woodsboro Murders. (It all gets awfully meta in a really fun way.)

I feel like I’m rambling a little, but I get really excited about Scream.

Here’s the skinny on Scream 4: the movie does its best to stay funny and relevant—sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The kills are original; the social commentary is scathing—particularly the bits about America’s current obsession with internet fame—; and the Who-Dunnit? aspect keeps you guessing until the very end.

Not that there aren’t problems—the ending is pretty silly, for example, but it’s hard to be upset because even the characters in the movie comment on the ridiculousness of the situation.

Scream 4 can’t hold a candle to the original—as Sidney makes abundantly clear in the movie. Its faults aside, however, it has enough scares—and laughs—to keep you entertained and make it well worth the trip to theater.

7 of 10

"Source Code" Review

What would you do if you only had eight minutes to live?

When an Air Force captain wakes up in a stranger’s body aboard a commuter train outside Chicago, figuring out how he got there is only one piece of the larger puzzle that is the Source Code.

The last thing Capt. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) remembers before waking up on a train bound for Chicago is flying a helicopter in Afghanistan. Beyond not remembering how he got there, he is shocked to find himself trapped in someone else’s body. His disorientation is short-lived, though, because the train explodes eight minutes after he wakes up.

His world becomes even stranger when he wakes up in a steel hatch to find out that he is part of a top-secret government operation called the Source Code that sends him back in time to the eight minutes before the train explodes. His operations contact in the real world, Goodwin (Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air) , explains that the train was only the first target and the same bomber plans to detonate a dirty bomb in downtown Chicago. Stevens’ mission is to find the bomber so they can prevent the second attack.

Naturally, things become a little complicated along the way when Stevens begins to have feelings for Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), a girl on the train. Twists and turns abound as he races to find the bomber and save the girl, all in eight minutes or less.

Source Code has a lot of things working for it—The mystery of who the bomber is plays itself out at a nice pace, and does a good job of misleading the audience with every mistake Stevens makes; the eight minute deadline adds nicely to the already-tense situation; and Gyllenhaal provides both gravity and levity to the film, making it easy to empathize with the characters on screen.

Really, the biggest problem with Source Code is its premise. Don’t get me wrong, the idea that someone can be sent back in time to stop a crime is intriguing—though it does feel a lot like Déjà vu. I don’t mean the feeling of déjà vu, I mean the 2006 thriller starring Denzel Washington.

The problem is that Stevens is sent back for eight minutes, then he dies. Then he’s sent back for the same eight minutes, then he dies. Then he’s sent back for the same eight minutes, then he dies. Do you see the pattern? Honestly, the movie started to feel like one of those video games where you have unlimited lives. It was hard to worry about whether or not he’d succeed because he has as many tries as he needs to get it right.

That hiccup aside, Source Code definitely delivers.

7 of 10

"Limitless" Review

What could you do if you could use 100% of your brain? According to Limitless, anything you want.

The movie follows Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper, The Hangover), a down-and-out writer with one of the most epic cases of writer’s block in history. He’s behind schedule on his publication date—in fact, he hasn’t written a single word. That’s when he meets his ex-brother-in-law who gives him a new, experimental drug—NZT—that activates the parts of the brain we can’t use.

Suddenly, Eddie’s capable of miraculous things. He writes an entire novel in four days; he makes $2 million in 10 days; and, he gets a haircut (okay, so that’s not quite so miraculous). His meteoric rise catches the attention of energy tycoon Carl Van Loon, played by the legendary Robert De Niro.

Unfortunately, every addiction has its side effects, and as Eddie relies more and more heavily on NZT to function on a daily basis, the more things spiral out of control. From killer side effects to a killer Russian crime boss, Eddie soon finds himself going to extreme measures to save his sanity and his life.

The best part of the movie is the cast—Cooper’s character has a great sense of humor, and  De Niro electrifies every scene. Director Neil Burger uses a variety of filters and camera effects to give the movie an artsy, independent feel that’s missing from most new theatrical releases.  

That being said, Limitless definitely has its faults—mainly, it feels unbalanced. Even if you suspend your disbelief and accept that Eddie is using 100% of his brain, it still seems that the conflicts that should be the easiest to solve take up most of the film, while the biggest conflicts are explained away by a couple of lines of dialogue, or a glib voiceover from our protagonist.

And, maybe that’s the problem with the premise in the first place—how can there be any real conflict or tension when the protagonist is the smartest person in the world?\

5 of 10 

"Gnomeo & Juliet" Review

Shakespeare’s sure come a lawn way.

Take Romeo & Juliet, exchange all the characters for garden gnomes, move it to the present day, infuse it with some of Elton John’s best songs, and you’ve got the surprisingly delightful animated film, Gnomeo & Juliet.

I’ll admit—having an English degree and being a fan of Shakespeare—the very premise of this movie made me groan. Those groans quickly turned to laughter once the film began.

Like the original, Gnomeo & Juliet takes place in Verona—Verona drive, that is. The feuding families are the Reds and the Blues—the gnomes living in Mr. Capulet’s and Ms. Montague’s gardens, respectively. Capulet and Montague hate each other so their gnomes hate each other, too.

What makes this movie so much fun is its own self-awareness of itself as a retelling of Shakespeare… Does that make sense?

The film begins with a gnome reading the prologue from Romeo & Juliet before being tossed off stage in a vaudevillian manner. From then on the movie is one Shakespeare reference after another. Besides its obvious relationship with Romeo & Juliet, there are references to As You Like It, Macbeth, Hamlet, and The Taming of the Shrew. And, those are the ones I caught without really paying attention. I’m sure there are more if you look for them.

Another great part of this fun, post-modern Shakespeare adaptation is the cameo appearance of William Shakespeare himself—Well, his statue, anyway. During Gnomeo’s exile from

Verona Drive

, he winds up at Shakespeare’s statue in a park. He recounts the details of his and Juliet’s forbidden love, and Shakespeare tells him that their story sounds awfully familiar. *wink*

There is also a brilliant reference to the popular Powerthirst commercials. If you don’t know what Powerthirst is, do yourself a favor and YouTube it.

Of course, anyone expecting a completely faithful presentation of “Romeo & Juliet” is going to be disappointed—although, if you’re surprised that a movie about garden gnomes doesn’t follow the original 100 percent, you should probably go take a few tests.

My only real complaint with this movie is that it was too short--a total runtime of only 84 minutes. I would've gladly sat through another 30 minutes if it were as cleverly crafted and enjoyable as the rest of it.

8 of 10

"Hall Pass" Review

In the latest comedic outing from the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary), two men are given a week off from marriage to live out their sexual fantasies with other women, consequence free. Unfortunately, Hall Pass winds up being even dumber than it sounds.

Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Saturday Night Live's Jason Sudeikis) are both 40-something married men who have delusions that—were it not for their wives—they’d be able to sleep with all of the beautiful women they see around them. Sick and tired of their husbands’ ridiculous behavior, their wives (Jenna Fischer and Christina Applegate) give them a week off from marriage to do whatever they want.

The boys quickly learn that they are not quite the charismatic pick-up artists they had thought, and they spend most of the week having misguided misadventures in their quest for tail. Their wives—Maggie (Fischer) and Grace (Applegate)—however, have a considerably more successful week off.

While this film has a couple of good moments—and it’s nice to see Owen Wilson playing a normal guy for a change—it never figures out if it’s a raunchy buddy comedy or a romantic comedy with heart. Instead of committing to one or the other, it tries—miserably—to juggle the two.

The most disappointing part about Hall Pass is that, by all right, it could’ve been really funny. Like, The Hangover funny. In fact, it’s the perfect premise for a Hangover-esque buddy movie. Instead, it’s nothing more than a string of adolescent sex jokes made by 40-something year old boys who just never seem to have grown up.

There is an emotional undercurrent to the movie but it seems completely out of place, which also makes the film’s resolution borderline unbelievable.

In the end, Hall Pass feels a lot more like detention.

3 of 10

"The Green Hornet" Review

The Green Hornet hits all the right marks to make it the first fun buddy-cop – well, sort of – movie of 2011.

The long-gestating remake of the 1960s TV show stars Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, Pineapple Express) as Britt Reid, the irresponsible, hard-partying son of newspaper editor James Reid (Tom Wilkinson). He is joined by Taiwanese pop sensation Jay Chou as Kato and Cameron Diaz as Lenore Chase.

As the movie opens, we learn very quickly that Britt’s relationship with his father is strained because he buries himself in his work as editor of The Daily Sentinel, L.A.’s largest family-owned newspaper. Flash forward twenty years and Britt spends his nights partying and making tabloid headlines.

Everything changes when James Reid dies from an allergic reaction to a bee sting. Britt meets Kato, his father’s mechanic, who also happens to be an inventor, weapons expert, martial-arts extraordinaire, all-around genius and cappuccino guru. Together they devise a plan to wage a war on L.A.’s criminal underworld by dressing like masked superheroes.

The interesting thing about the Green Hornet is that instead of clearly being a hero, they pose as criminals who want to take over L.A.’s gangs. This attracts the attention of L.A.’s criminal mastermind, Chudnofsky, played by Academy-Award winner Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds), and eventually things escalate into a full-blown gang war.

Full disclosure: I’ve never seen the original The Green Hornet TV show, nor listened to the radio drama so I went into this movie with absolutely no preconceived notions of who the characters were supposed to be, or how the story should’ve been executed. That being said, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

I certainly had my doubts about Seth Rogen playing anything close to a super hero, but in the movie they make it clear that Kato is really the talent. In that context, Rogen makes a lot more sense because Britt spends most of the movie fumbling around trying to be relevant. It isn’t until the very end that he starts to carry his own weight.

The on-screen chemistry between Rogen and Chou adds a great levity to the movie, and the scenes with the two of them are definitely the most fun to watch. They banter and bicker like a married couple, continuing the bromantic trend we’ve seen develop in recent years.

The best thing about The Green Hornet is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously – a running gag is whether or not Chudnofsky is scary enough as a villain. He decides it isn’t and changes his name to Bloodnofsky. In the end, it’s that sense of humor that makes the movie a pleasure to watch.

7.5 of 10

"The Rite" Review

An atheist and an exorcist joining together to fight the forces of evil sounds like a bad sit-com. In fact, it would've been better that way. Instead, it’s the premise behind the supernatural thriller – if you can call it that – The Rite.

The movie, suggested by Matt Baglio's book The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist, is about a would-be atheist who becomes an exorcist after witnessing the effects of demoic possession first-hand.

Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donoghue) is an atheist who joins the seminary so he can get away from the family-owned and operated funeral home. After receiving his undergraduate degree, he tries to resign by claiming to have a crisis of faith, though that was actually his plan all along.

Rather than accept his resignation, the priest in charge of the seminary sends Michael to Rome for two months to take a new course about exorcism being offered by the Vatican; part of a new Vatican initiative to meet the increasing reports of demonic possessions. Note: The Vatican really does have courses to train priests in the ancient rite of exorcism.

After openly denying the existence of the devil in a class, Michael is sent to meet Father Lucas (Anthony Hopkins), a Welsh priest who regularly conducts exorcisms. On his first visit, Michael witnesses an exorcism involving a pregnant 16-year-old girl who was raped by her father. Despite experiencing first-hand the unusual behavior attributed to demonic possession, Michael refuses to believe anything supernatural is happening and instead insists that the girl is internalizing the trauma caused by her father.

Father Lucas warns Michael, “refusing to believe in the Devil will not protect you from him.”

Naturally, things begin to escalate after that first exorcism. Michael is tormented by a demon who seems intent on destroying him, and when Father Lucas becomes possessed he is forced to confront the same evil he has denied even exists.

Really, this movie has very little going for it. The story is predictable; the execution is … well, cheesy. I’m sorry, but what part of a red-eyed horse demon that just stares at you is scary?

The protagonist’s stubbornness is aggravating. His skepticism is understandable at first, but after seeing the girl vomit nails, and hear her tell him unknown details of his childhood, even the most stalwart skeptic would say, "Holy sh*t! Maybe I'm wrong." But, not Michael. His die-hard skepticism makes his epiphany at the end of the film hard to swallow.

Another shortcoming is the movie's abuse of special effects. For about the first hour, the film is very atmospheric -- using a nice balance of shadows and light to create tension. Unfortunately, as the possessions get worse, special effects bombard the screen and the creepy atmosphere is destroyed and replaced by a movie that feels more like a slasher flick than a supernatural thriller.

The movie’s ultimate failure, though, is not having faith in its villain. The devil should be scary enough considering his sole purpose is to torment mankind and destroy our souls. Instead of relying on that mythology, the filmmakers turned the devil into a villain who uses cheap parlor tricks and clichéd horror movie devices to scare the audience.

The only glimmer of light in this otherwise dismal film is Anthony Hopkins. He truly is a master of his craft. There are few actors alive who can convey an entire range of emotions with just a twitch of his eye. His understate subtlety is the only thing that makes the movie watchable.

Unfortunately, not even Anthony Hopkins can save The Rite from itself. The devil couldn't've made it any worse.

4 of 10 - Bad

How I Met Your Mother - "Last Words" Review

SPOILER ALERT: If you haven't seen the previous episode, "Bad News," don't read this review. Unless someone's already told you about the huge plot event that happened at the end of the episode.

"Last Words" continues HIMYM's sidestep into serious territory as the gang travel to St. Cloud to help Marshall deal with his father's death. Everyone comes up with a job: Lily decides to help Marshall's mom, Judy, any way possible; Robin is "Vice Girl" -- basically, she has anything Marshall might need to help him grieve, including alcohol, cigarettes, and "Crocodile Dundee 3" --; and Ted and Barney decide to make Marshall laugh by showing him YouTube videos of guys getting hit in the nuts.

I had some high hopes for this episode because HIMYM has never delved into such a dramatic subject before -- even Ted getting left at the altar pales in comparison to a death in the family -- and I thought it was a bold move for the series. I have to say, I was a little disappointed. It was still a good episode, but it could've been better.

The main story revolved around the decision for everyone in the Eriksen family to share the last words Marvin said to them before he died. Marshall is disappointed because everyone else had ideal last words, but he got, "Rent 'Crocodile Dundee 3.'" He spends the episode trying to remember something better and ultimately finds a butt-dial voicemail from his father the day he died. After five minutes of pocket rubbing, Marvin realizes he called Marshall, picks up the phone, and tells Marshall he loves him.

It's a nice, emotional ending, but the rest of the episode is just kind of ... eh.

Aside from Robin, the rest of the gang didn't have much to do beside stand around and look dumb. Ted and Barney were ridiculously juvenile whenever they showed one of the videos they found -- Marshall even yells at them at one point --, and Lily's way of helping Marshall's mom was making her freak out because that made her eat and sleep, which she hadn't done since Marvin's death. .

A side-plot that sprang up and disappeared involved an old bully, Trey Platt, from Marshall's high school days. Trey is the son of the reverend who is supposed to perform Marvin's funeral but has to leave because his daughter goes into labor in Chicago. Marshall is upset that Trey is performing the funeral, and Trey is a downright douchebag to everyone in the family, but then walks out of the shot and isn't seen again.

It really felt like the writers were trying to get a lot accomplished in this episode, but 22 minutes just wasn't enough time.

Despite its shortcomings, this episode had a lot of good moments. When Marshall hears his dad's voice at the end of the voicemail and it was hard to fight that urge while watching it. And, Robin was hilarious as "Vice Girl" who kept hooking up the other funeral attendees with booze, etc.

"Last Words" did an excellent job of setting up some major story arcs for the rest of the season. Naturally, Marshall is going to take some time to grieve and I think the show can benefit from the seriousness. And, after the funeral, Barney calls his mom and tells her that he's ready to meet his dad.

Like I said, I thought this episode could've been better. But, I'm really excited to see where things go from here.

Rating
8 (of 10): Excellent - A great episode with some minor flaws.

"Dinner for Schmucks" Review

Despite an all-star cast led by Steve Carrell, Paul Rudd and Zach Galifianakis, and direction by Jay Roach (“Meet the Parents”), “Dinner for Schmucks” fails to provide more than a handful of laughs.

As the movie opens, Tim (Rudd) is vying for a promotion at Fender Financial. After impressing his boss during a meeting Tim is invited to a “dinner for winners”—an annual contest during which each employee brings an “extraordinary individual” (a.k.a. idiot), and the person who brings the biggest idiot wins.

Things start to pick up when Tim hits Barry (Carrell) with his car. As it turns out, Barry uses dead mice to recreate artistic masterpieces (mousterpieces), and Tim immediately recognizes Barry’s winning potential and invites him to the dinner. What follows is a predictable series of misadventures that begin when Barry shows up a night early for the dinner.

First, Barry invites Tim’s stalker over to the apartment, then tells his girlfriend, Jill, that Tim is having an affair. Barry and Tim spend the rest of the night and next morning trying unsuccessfully to fix Tim’s relationship and secure his promotion. Unfortunately, we spend almost an hour and a half waiting for the dinner to begin. Until then, we’re reminded time and again that Barry is an idiot and Tim is a jerk.

After Barry wins the competition, Tim finally realizes that people shouldn’t make fun of each other for being eccentric and reveals the contest to the other “extraordinary individuals.” Though the dinner sequence is hilarious, it utilizes the same kind of over-the-top ridiculousness Roach used in "Meet the Parents" and leaves me wondering if Roach has anything new to offer.

Even the performances are completely one-dimensional. Carrell’s Barry is just an exaggerated version of Carrell’s Michael Scott from “The Office.” Rudd’s Tim is an unsympathetic jerk who is nearly impossible to care about as a protagonist.

The only redeeming quality of the entire movie is Jemaine Clement (“Flight of the Conchords”), who plays Kieran, an eccentric artist with an obsession for goats and his own likeness.

On the surface this movie has all the components of a comedic gem, but it doesn’t live up to its potential. The truth is that last year’s break-out hit “The Hangover” raised the bar for summer comedies. Instead of clearing it, Schmucks runs head-first into that bar. Over and over and over.

Rating
2 (of 10): Painful - This is giving me a migraine. 

Golden Globes 2011

The 68th annual Golden Globe Awards were last night, and the Hollywood Foreign Press awarded prizes to the best in motion pictures and television from 2010. Well, sort of.

Let me say this: I pretty much lost all respect for the Golden Globes last year when "Avatar" won for Best Picture and James Cameron for Best Director. Are you kidding me? Since when does box-office take determine what constitutes a good movie? Apparently, the HFP are easily swayed by dollar signs.

Last night, however, they seemed to be in line with the rest of the critics. "The Social Network" took home prizes in three of the five big categories: Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. Colin Firth took home the globe for "The King's Speech," and Natalie Portman was honored for her brilliant performance in "The Black Swan" -- no surprises there.

Whereas last year I actually threw things at the TV when "Avatar" won, there weren't too many big upsets, just a few mild annoyances:

1) What is with people complaining that Ricky Gervais was too cruel with his jokes? I know, I know, celebrities are people too, but since when does that mean that they aren't allowed to be made fun of? I thought Ricky was hilarious -- and honest -- as he roasted the celebrities in the room. I'm sorry, Tim Allen, but what have you done? Robert Downey Jr. talks openly about his past addictions, but it's not okay for someone else to do it? Lighten up, Hollywood. Lighten up.

2) "Toy Story 3" is the Best Animated Film? I'm going to go ahead and assume that the HFP members didn't actually see the other movies nominated in that category -- otherwise, I have absolutely no explanation for how it beat "How to Train Your Dragon" or "The Illusionist." Both of them were heads-and-shoulders above "Toy Story 3."

3) I'm sorry, "Glee," but no. You are not the best comedy on television. Period.

It'll be exciting to see how things play out at the SAG and Academy Awards now that the Golden Globes have spoken. With any luck the right films will win -- and I'll be able to convince someone to bet some money against me. Wish me luck.