Review: The Kids Are All Right

The plot of "The Kids Are All Right" is fresh and a bit controversial, to some. Two teenagers who were raised by a lesbian couple decide to contact their biological father - a sperm donor.

Nic (three-time Oscar nominee Annette Bening; "American Beauty," "Being Julia") and Jules (four-time Oscar nominee Julianne Moore; "Boogie Nights," "Far From Heaven") have a strong marriage and a family built around their two children, Laser (Josh Hutcherson; "Bridge to Terabithia," "Journey to the Center of the Earth") and Joni (Mia Wasikowska; "Defiance," "Alice in Wonderland"). Laser is 15, and getting into some trouble with a leach of a friend. He's curious about their donor father, so he asks Joni, who is 18 and about to leave for college, to contact him. When they do, they meet Paul (Mark Ruffalo; "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Shutter Island"), a free-wheeling restaurant owner and produce grower. As the kids get to know him and then bring him home to meet the moms, Paul begins to influence all of them in ways that expose individual issues they've all been holding back. At first his presence is positive, until the structure of their family begins to crumble.

From the beginning, we see the roles each member of the family plays. Nic is disciplined and structured - the serious one of the couple. She has the career and a strong liking for wine to go with it. Jules is more easygoing and willing to let their kids explore their feelings. She's spent the past few years raising the kids and attempting to start businesses, never finding her true calling. Laser is looking for a more positive male influence and Joni is trying to come to terms with becoming an adult and getting her moms to treat her as such. The family interactions, particularly those in the film before Paul shows up, show an everyday family dealing with typical problems. The only difference is that the parents are a lesbian couple, and it paints a picture of how such couples can raise families in the same way others do, and in some cases can be more successful. The reality that is shown is that no family, and no marriage, is perfect. I think some people have assumptions that homosexual couples are stronger than heterosexual ones, but that is not true. Nic and Jules are going through some hard times, and maybe the issues they're dealing with have always been there. Just like most couples, there is a person who feels unappreciated and put down (Jules), while the other feels they do all the work and that they're always the bad guy (Nic). Paul seems unchanging throughout the film, more like a catalyst that comes along to ignite the less-talked about issues in the family. A wrench in the gears of their seemingly happy situation.

"The Kids Are All Right" might be the most well-acted movie so far this year. The five central characters are all well-established actors, and the dialogue of their interactions is made more hilarious by their facial features and mannerisms. So many subtleties that drive the comedic and extremely tense situations. That's the main tool in this film: tension. It drives the comedy, and even stronger, the drama. When things really get heavy, we see how relationships can withstand so much, and how family situations, like a daughter being dropped off at college, can overshadow the tension.

The controversial issues in "The Kids Are All Right" don't stem from the lesbian relationship, but what some people see as a misconception about homosexuality. Certain aspects of Nic and Jules' relationship seem unrealistic to some, but I feel nothing is intentionally offensive about the situations in the film. It's deeper than that. So much emotional conflict is present, and I feel it's safe to say that's the reasoning for all the actions in the film. Nothing that happens really has to do with Paul, he's just what brings it all out in the open.

Oscar buzz is beginning, and I wouldn't be surprised to see "The Kids Are All Right" on many critics' lists. I must warn you to expect sex scenes that are comical, but sometimes last an awkward amount of time. Then again maybe that's just me. I don't think long or graphic sex scenes are necessary to make a point (and I really didn't need to see Mark Ruffalo's ass so much). Oh, and view the trailer below!

"I need your opinion like I need a dick in my ass!"

-Brendan

Review: Inception

I was delayed in seeing "Inception" because of a week-long trip to the beach, but I assure you, it was worth the wait. As I waited for the film to start, I typically made a comment about each movie trailer that preceded it. I had to explain to my companion that two films, "Tron: Legacy" and "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," were both sequels to movies made in the '80s. Now I have not seen either original installment, therefor I can't say whether or not these sequels should be made. However, I think it's fair to say that most of what we've seen in this busy summer movie season, and what we can see in the near future, are remakes and sequels to movies that either weren't that great in the first place, or were great but shouldn't be remade. The reason behind most of this is money, and that's a fact. Yet I feel confident in saying that there are still actors and filmmakers who care, at least as much as they're able to, about making art. Christopher Nolan's "Inception" is the proof of this.

Solidifying himself as a filmmaker you can bet on, Nolan has showed his ability to make thought-provoking, well acted and enjoyable films over the years. These include "Memento," "The Prestige," "Batman Begins" and, of course, "The Dark Knight." Now you might have heard about "Inception" and how confusing and strange it is, or how you need to see it a second time. I disagree. Not that I wouldn't see it a second time, because it was a fantastic film, but I don't think it was as confusing as it's being made out to be. I actually kept waiting for what was supposed to be the confusing part. I made sure to pay strong attention, as to not miss anything. In fact, that's the best advice I would give someone. Just pay attention. It's not that hard.

So Leonardo DiCaprio (duh, you know how he is) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("10 Things I Hate About You," "(500) Days of Summer") professionally go into people's dreams and steal information they keep hidden. In this alternate present/near future, people can force a state of dreaming they can stay in as long as they want. It is also possible to link your dreams together with another and exist inside them. If you die in a dream, you simply wake up. Extraction, as it's called, is what Cobb (DiCaprio) and Arthur (Gordon-Levitt) do as a service to high-paying individuals, and they're not the only ones. Those who can afford it even become trained to resist such techniques. The idea is pushed further when people, like these "thieves" are able to create a dream inside of a dream, and so on. These have been referred to as different levels of the dream. A powerful man named Saito (Ken Watanabe; "The Last Samurai," "Batman Begins") employs them to do something a bit different. He challenges them to implant an idea in someone's mind through their dreams, which is referred to as "inception." He offers Cobb the chance to return home to the U.S. to see his children, as he is wanted for criminal charges. Cobb and Arthur assemble a team that offers the same skills they do, and a newcomer to the trade named Ariadne (EllenPage; "Hard Candy," "Juno"), who sees into Cobb's troubles with his dreams, his subconscious and the way he deals with his deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard, "La vie en Rose," "Public Enemies"). As the team enters the mind of business empire heir Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy; "28 Days Later," "Batman Begins"), they plan an elaborate scheme that is complicated by Fischer's traning against the process and Cobb's subconscious struggles that are plagued by his past.
So if you're lost, just take a deep breath. The plot really isn't that hard to follow if you pay attention to how they explain the process, the plan and what is going on. Visually, "Inception" is stunning, and that come as no surprise given Nolan's reputation. The fact that he wrote the script himself probably helped the way it looks and feels, as this journey into the mind came directly from his. You couldn't ask for a better cast, and Nolan knew that, as he is the type of director who likes to work with familiar faces, even though the most familiar were not the stars like DiCaprio, Gordon-Levitt or Page. Several Oscar-nominees (and one winner in Cotillard) were on-board, and although I can't say any performances were necessarily Oscar-quality (not that they were bad, just not what the Academy looks for, and I expected for Michael Caine, but oh well), I could see Nolan earning a second nomination for Best Director (previously nominated for "Memento") and I wouldn't be surprised by a Best Original Screenplay nomination or several for technical achievements like editing and visual effects. The musical score by Oscar-winning composer Hans Zimmer really drives the action of the film and bizarre landscape of the scenes as well.

"Inception" is a refreshing film in what has been a sort of slumping summer. As far as all the connotations it's been gaining about theories, confusion and ambiguity, there really isn't much. Take a moment to wrap your head around the idea of entering dreams and understand the rules to the process that are explained in the film. The ending of the film has been argued a bit, as it is a little ambiguous, but really it's just open to interpretation. Do yourself a favor and enjoy "Inception." Remember, Christopher Nolan isn't trying to confuse you or make you feel stupid, he's just challenging your mind. So take the challenge.

"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange."

-Brendan

Review: Despicable Me

It's nice when an animated film can make both children and adults laugh out loud, while offering a coherent and enjoyable plot that either can age group can enjoy. Correction, it's nice when one finds this in an animated film not made by Disney/Pixar. Now don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the majority of Pixar's offerings over the past few years. In my eyes, they've changed how animated films are made and received. However, it's important to remember they don't own a monopoly over the genre (though they do dominated the Best Animated Feature Oscar category, and probably will for a long time). I don't rush out to see every animated film that hits theaters, though most of them appear enjoyable. When I do take a chance on such a film, it's nice to find something really worth it.

When going to see "Despicable Me" I didn't know what to expect, as is often the case with animated features as of late. Their trailers contain an extremely basic plot summary, colorful characters and a few funny one-liners. This is enough to attract the attention of young children and their parents, but someone in between those two groups needs better incentive to shell out the $10 for a movie these days. I even remember seeing a teaser trailer for it last summer sometime, but had no idea what the movie was about and was not very interested. I must say that I have no regrets with my decision. Gru, voiced by Steve Carell ("The Office," "The 40-Year-Old Virgin") is a villain. A basic description, yes, but it's enough. He has an old scientist who helps him develop high-tech weapons and vehicles, an army of minions and he routinely makes large-scale thefts in order to make a big splash in the news. The funny thing about this is that Gru lives in a very suspicious house in the middle of the suburbs. It's suggested that Gru's neighbors know exactly what he does, and that he can't be very hard to find, if the authorities wanted. Also, his minions are a strange yet comical creature, more like little alien workers who are upbeat and dedicated to his work. When a young up-and-coming villain named Vector steals an Egyptian pyramid, Gru feels threatened and begins to plan his dream caper: stealing the moon. In order to get the right device from Vector, Gru decides to adopt three young orphan girls so they may infiltrate Vector's fortress. Gru, who never apologizes for his mean and surly demeanor, begins to see a soft spot he never knew he had as he gets closer with the girls who see a him as a fatherly figure, despite it being extremely uncharacteristic of him. His plans to uphold his reputation and his work conflict with the new family he has created.

Right, so the plot is fresh and funny in itself. The young girls are very lovable to the audience, and and who doesn't like seeing a mean character turn good? It's a child movie staple. Adult jokes are thrown in enough, but not too much, which I think really makes a good animated film. Being able to appeal to all demographics is important when ticket prices and bad movies keep infecting the industry. "Despicable Me" opened last Friday and earned the number one spot in the box office this past weekend, beating out the likes of "Toy Story 3" (which has been out for a few weeks already) and "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse." Numbers like that aren't the easiest to achieve, especially when it's summer and families have better things to do than go to the movies. And, although you can't tell, there are voices provided by Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Will Arnet, Kristen Wiig and, believe it or not, Julie Andrews.

You can also see "Despicable Me" in 3D. Although I continue to speak out against the over-use of 3D technology in films these days, animated films are really where it fits the best. There are a few extra scenes during the credits featuring Gru's minions having some fun with the 3D audience. I can tell this would be an enjoyable 3D experience, as it is used at the right times. A sequel is already being planned, which sits just fine with me. Gru's new family is really established in this film and all you would have to do is throw in a new competing villain to make a sequel work. Honestly, I don't think I got enough from the minions and I'd like to see more.

"It's so fluffy I'm gonna DIE!"

-Brendan

Review: Toy Story 3

No matter what you're age, you probably enjoy Disney/Pixar films. The best part is, you never have to be embarrassed for saying that, because everyone enjoys them. I get the feeling that previous generations weren't so into animated films when they were in their 20s, but our generation grew up with these films. It's hard to deny that there is something else going on there. Some factor that goes beyond cute childish characters or simply story lines. These films have the ability to make adults cry and children flush with laughter and excitement. However, in years past, we've never seen a successful animated franchise. But "Toy Story" has become a trilogy that defines our generation.

The original film came out in 1995, when those of us in our 20s were children. Also being the first major motion picture by Pixar Animation Studios, it changed how animated films were made, and along with the technology came stories that viewers of all ages could enjoy. 1999 was the year of "Toy Story 2," which was a great addition to the story of Woody, Buzz and all the rest. Part of the plot of that movie was asking the question, "what will Andy do with his toys when he goes off to college?" Well, "Toy Story 3" came along to answer that question, and just in time for many of us who saw the original to either be entering, still in, or just leaving college.

So here's what happens. Andy's mom tells him to separate his room into what's going with him to college, what's going in the attic and what's getting thrown away. We find that Andy hasn't played with his beloved toys in years, but they still keep trying to be there for him. The saddest moment is when you realize that only the core characters in previous films are still there, because Andy has already gotten rid of his other toys. All that's left is Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Bullseye, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, Slinky and the little alien dudes from the claw machine. It's clear Andy is a very different kind of teenager, and he's always kept a place in his heart for these toys. However, through a mix-up they get grouped together with toys that Molly gave their mom to donate to Sunnyside Day-Care. At first, the toys are relieved to be in a place where they'll always be wanted by children who will play with them. An older toy, Lotso (the lots o' hugging bear) assures them that they'll never get thrown out or ignored, and they can't get their hearts broken if they don't have an owner. Most are ready to move on, but Woody refuses to give up on Andy and manages escape. But the toys soon learn that Sunnyside is not the paradise they were told, and find themselves missing Andy more than ever and in need of rescue. But what will become of them as Andy is ready to move on?

The movie is an adventure, but what Toy Story film hasn't been? I always find myself shaking my head and saying, "Wow, these toys have the absolute worst luck. Everything is always so difficult for them." And that's always been the heart of these films. These toys refuse to give up on their owner or let him down. Woody has been a hero to every child who sees these movies, and every adult that grew up with him. He is the friend that will never ever let you down. As with any animated film of the past few years, there are enough jokes aimed at older audiences to keep everyone laughing. The dramatic situations in "Toy Story 3" rival that of any other dramatic film, particularly in scenes where you feel it could be the end for this bunch of play-things. It's heart-warming how much they go through to get back to Andy, even though it's likely he'll never play with them again. The greatest thing is that they chose to end this film in a logical and plausible way (as plausible as talking and feeling toys could be) and when looking at the entire trilogy, the story comes completely full circle. There's no need for specifics in this review, because if you're a fan of "Toy Story" or any Pixar film, you already know you're going to enjoy this.

"Let's go see how much we're going for on eBay."

-Brendan

Review: Iron Man 2

I might have gotten ahead of myself with my excitement for "Iron Man 2" and the list of Marvel Studios movies coming out in the next few years. Part of the problem is that every superhero movie since "The Dark Knight" has had to suffer being compared to a landmark film that set the bar way too high for movies in general. After seeing how dark, dramatic and somewhat realistic superhero movies can be, it's hard to believe in things like superpowers and the idea that these guys don't die from all the things they put themselves through. Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Iron Man come dangerously close to playing themselves off as a joke.

The first few scenes of a movie can tell you a lot. "Iron Man 2" leads off with Tony Stark's public announcement that he is Iron Man from the end of the first film. However, we're seeing it from a small t.v. screen somewhere in Russia. Enter Mickey Rourke ("Sin City," "The Wrestler") as Ivan Vanko, a Russian physicist who looks more like a biker turned convicted felon who screams with anger in possibly the worst acting I've seen in a long time. Vanko has reasons for revenge against Tony Stark, or more so, the Stark family. We jump six months to the Stark Expo, an on-going conference of technological inventions and presentations, where Iron Man makes an appearance complete with dancers. Downey Jr.'s Iron Man is cocky, comical and a bit obnoxious. Part of the plot centers around the governments desire to seize Stark's Iron Man suit and the technology around it saying a civilian should not possess such weaponry, and that they are concerned enemies of the U.S. have begun to attempt to replicate the technology. Stark Industries' rival weapons maker Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell ("Choke," "Moon"), who serves as a great counterpart to Stark, is trying to convince the government to take Stark's suit while slowly developing the technology himself. After Vanko attacks Stark, Hammer recruits him to build suits similar to that of Iron Man's to sell to the government. Vanko's plans of revenge, however, outweigh his agreement with Hammer.

Meanwhile, Stark is trying to deal with the way the suit is affecting his health and the pressure being put on him by Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D., who we met in the teaser scene at the end of "Iron Man." Fury is trying to help Stark get control of his suit while evaluating whether or not he is what they're looking for to be a part of the Avenger Initiative. On top of all of this, Stark's relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is strained, and his friendship with Rhodey escalates over Rhodey's allegiance to the military.

It's almost too much to keep straight. In addition to all of Stark's growing problems, he continues to out-do technology (or even realistic ideas or what's possible, like creating new undiscovered elements) and keep throwing one-liners at the other characters, who can't seem to find it funny anymore. Rhodey has been re-cast in this sequel by Don Cheadle ("Crash," the "Ocean's" films), and he serves as a good compliment to Downey Jr.'s Stark. Scarlett Johansson ("The Other Boleyn Girl," "Vicki Christina Barcelona") is intriguing as Stark's new assistant, and a character the comics would know as Black Widow, though this name is never mentioned in the film. Black Widow will reportedly be appearing is several other upcoming Marvel Studios movies. Interviews with Rourke revealed that he didn't even read the entire script, but just his parts. Not surprising, as his acting reflected a lack of interest in the entire film. In the few instances when his character speaks, he barely speaks any lines of English.

Here's how this film fits into the Marvel Universe of upcoming and past superhero films. At the end of 2008's "The Incredible Hulk," which was released just weeks after "Iron Man," we see Tony Stark in a teaser scene where he confronts General Ross on his "problem" with the Hulk. He then mentions that "we" are getting a special team together. "We" implies that after meeting with Nick Fury at the end of "Iron Man" that Tony Stark is part of the Avenger Initiative Fury mentioned. In "Iron Man 2," he's being evaluated on whether or not he could be a part of this initiative. Also, at a point when Stark meets with Fury, you can see in the background that the college campus scene from "The Incredible Hulk" is being reported on the news (I didn't notice that myself, I read it online). So perhaps the events of "The Incredible Hulk" were actually happening after the events of "Iron Man 2." Also, several references were made to Captain America, who has his own film planned for next summer. Also, the teaser trailer at the end. I'll tell you right now it's not worth waiting past all of the credits for, but in case you want to be surprised, skip the next paragraph.

*SPOILER, TEASER SCENE*
The scene at the end of "Iron Man 2" shows Agent Coulson arriving in New Mexico, which he mentions several times throughout the film. There, we see a giant crater in the ground, and at the very last second we see what is supposed to be Thor's hammer in the crater. That's it. There is no surprise here. "Thor" is being released next summer and he will eventually be in "The Avengers," set for summer 2012 with Iron Man, War Machine, Captain America, Black Widow, Nick Fury and most likely The Hulk. There is no shock here. All we see is a hole in the ground and a glimpse of a hammer. Filming for "Thor" has already begun, so couldn't they have thrown a glimpse of him in there? I think that would have been very doable. It's not the worst teaser, just not worth waiting around for. I already knew all of that.

So "Iron Man 2" doesn't really live up to its predecessor, and hopefully it isn't a strong indication of upcoming Marvel movies. It's still a fun and enjoyable film, but you'll probably enjoy it more if you're a superhero fan and especially if you're trying to follow this massive Marvel plan to bring all these movies together. If you're not particularly in to this stuff, then you can probably skip it, or wait until it's out on video.

"I'd love to leave my door unlocked at night, but this ain't Canada."

-Brendan

Review: Crazy Heart

Aged country legend Bad Blake has a rocky career, an unhealthy lifestyle and a seemingly lonely life. The question the film asks is, "Is it ever too late to change?" Jeff Bridges stars in an Oscar winning role as Blake: a fictitious character that could represent any number of former country music stars. We meet Blake on one of his tour stops, which just so happens to be a bowling alley. He reveals his lifestyle pretty quickly with excessive smoking and drinking (mostly whiskey), one-night stands with star-struck fans and late nights on the stage. When he meets a local reporter in Santa Fe named Jane, played by Oscar nominee Maggie Gyllenhaal ("Stranger Than Fiction," "The Dark Knight"), he begins to think a bit differently. Blake sees a way to better himself in Jane and her four-year-old son Buddy. Young country star Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell, "Phone Booth," "In Bruges") is also a thorn in Blake's side, though one with good intentions. Once somewhat of a student to Blake, Sweet has learned everything he knows from the former star and has gotten famous from Blake's previous support and songs Blake has written for him to perform. As he becomes closer with Jane, Bad Blake finds reason to change his ways, and a few career opportunities open up to him as he begins to write new songs, which is something he hasn't done in years.

The problem here is not so much the story. It's a familiar story with heart, and the cast is easy to fall in love with. What lacks is the dramatic event the film builds up to, but doesn't exactly deliver. There are several dramatic moments that create tension and help push the story. It just feels like something bigger is coming, and the ending itself, although it wraps up nicely, feels anti-climactic. The best part of the ending is hearing the song that Blake has been working on in pieces throughout the film.

While watching "Crazy Heart," it's hard not to compare the story and the character of Bad Blake to 2008's "The Wrestler," starring Oscar nominee Mickey Rourke in what is argued to be the comeback performance of his career. Jeff Bridges wasn't exactly in need of a comeback, so his performance doesn't seem to carry the weight that Rourke's did, despite his Oscar win. Personally I don't feel Rourke is that strong of an actor, but he was fantastic in "The Wrestler." That film, although not as visually pleasing, had a story with even more heart and emotion, and felt so real and personal. The dramatic moments were even more dramatic, the main character, similar in career and personal situations, fell harder and further with each misstep. Above all, it builds to a dramatic moment and ends in such a beautiful way that I can't say I've seen before. The stories, actors and films as a whole are much different, but so similar at the same time. The 2009 Academy Awards saw the much-deserving Sean Penn beat out Rourke for the Best Actor Oscar, but I think if you put Bridges' Bad Blake up against Rourke's Randy "The Ram" Robinson...ya know, that would be a pretty good fight.

Jane: Where did all those songs come from?
Bad Blake: Life, unfortunately.

-Brendan

Review: Pirate Radio

Set in 1966, "Pirate Radio" chronicles a time when rock n' roll music wasn't allowed to be played on mainstream British radio stations. What the great rebels of society decided to do at the time, was to anchor large ships out in the middle of the ocean and broadcast the defiant sounds of rock music 24 hours a day. Angering the British government, it became the mission of several sticklers to shut down such groups. The film focuses on a fictional ship with several characters based on known radio DJs of the time, and a colorful crew of rock enthusiasts. Young Carl is sent to the ship by his mother so he may spend time with his God-father Quentin, played by the ever-impressive Bill Nighy ("Love Actually," and Davey Jones in the "Pirates" films, though you can't always tell). When the government makes several frivolous attempts to outlaw the pirate broadcasts, but eventually puts some pressure on the crew, who must find new ways to reach their fans. Ultimately, the foreground of the story seems to center at times on Carl's attempt to lose his virginity to a girl who really likes him among a sea of sex, drugs and rock n' roll, in which everyone else seems to be more smooth and charismatic, though equally as unattractive.


Phillip Seymour Hoffman ("Capote," "Doubt") plays The Count, the lone American DJ (for a while) and is clearly one of the more rebellious members of the crew. His character seems part Howard Stern (without being horribly sexist and overly offensive), and bares a very strong resemblance to his portrayal of famous rock journalist Lester Bangs in "Almost Famous." Nick Frost ("Shaun of the Dead," "Hot Fuzz") is for once not the bumbling idiot of the group, though his character is at times a bit unlikable as he tries to help Carl out, but is just as quick to help himself out first. A rivalry arises between The Count and Gavin, an even smoother and more desired American DJ who once left the ship, but is now back to support them in their battle against the establishment. Gavin, played by Rhys Ifans ("The Replacements," "Little Nicky") could easily be confused with other characters in the film, as he doesn't speak enough dialogue or stand out in appearance. Maybe that's just me, but he's a memorable actor in a mysterious role amongst mysterious roles.

There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh out loud, by myself, and it's a funny enough movie overall, but the story itself is just alright. Having nearly all of it set on an anchored ship provides great visuals, and also a fantastically shot scene where records spill out of their covers through a room filled with water. It's no surprise this film had an extremely limited release. In fact, I knew it was coming out, but it was so quickly released on DVD that I think so few had the chance to see it in theaters. Either way, it's funny enough to watch if you're out of ideas, but I'm sure you could find something better to spend your money on.

"Here's a rather long record. I hope I'm here at the end of it."

-Brendan

Review: Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

The original "Boondock Saints," which was released in 1999 to an extremely limited amount of theaters due to the then recent Columbine shootings, can be argued as a cult classic. The film spread through word of mouth, which is how I and many others first discovered it. Becoming immensely popular, the sequel was in the works for years, delayed mainly to legal difficulties since writer/director Troy Duffy did not own the rights to the first film. Now, ten years later, fans were given...well...not exactly what they had hoped for.

"Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" begins eight years after the events of the first installment. The MacManus brothers (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) are hiding out with their father (Billy Connolly) on a sheep farm in Ireland. When news reaches them that a priest in their old stomping grounds has been murdered, and that the crime was set up to look like they had done the job, they come out of retirement to get to the bottom of such an act. Back in Boston, the detectives who aided them in the past film are hoping they won't be discovered by the new FBI agent on the case, Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz, "Dexter"), who is also the protege of the late Agent Paul Smecker (Willem Defoe, the only well-known actor in the first film). We find that the Yakavetta crime family has continued thanks to Concezio (Judd Nelson...yeah...he was John Bender in "The Breakfast Club"), who's father was murdered by The Saints at the end of the first film. On their trip back to the States, the brothers meet Romeo, who is the comic relief sidekick, much like Rocco in the first film. The boys go back after the mob, with help from their old friends, and even some support from Agent Bloom, but they find that orders are coming down from a much higher, more ominous source, which turns out to be a demon from their father's past.

Okay, this film had several problems, and any fans who've been anxious to see how the story continues need to know up front that they can't expect the same quality of film they had last time around. In fact, the original "Boondock Saints" almost seems like a freak occurrence when a movie should have been bad but turned out good. "All Saints Day" holds some inside jokes from the first film, but at this point it seems to make fun of itself. The characters appear to aware of who they are and what they are to the audience, and they play off of it too much. The three detectives who aid the brothers are not regular full time actors, and that shows a lot here. It's like they know how anticipated this movie was and how many people would see it, so they decided to over act like nobody's business and come off trying way too hard to be interesting or funny. Julie Benz, I must add, is at points just awful. Her character has moments that mirror her predecessor as the weird FBI agent to the point where it's like watching the same movie again, but it's not really that interesting anymore. Hell, Rocco is in a dream sequence and his acting is better than hers (though that sequence was not necessary and kind of confused me). Clifton Collins Jr., who plays Romeo, is someone you haven't heard of but have probably seen in strong supporting roles, most notably Oscar-winning film "Capote." His character though was never necessary. Did they have to replace Rocco for comic relief? That's the movies biggest problem. It insists on adding funny moments for the sake of comic relief, when the comedy in the first film was so simple it seemed accidental and enjoyable. "All Saints Day" has moments when it can't decide if it wants to be a comedy or an action film.

The film leads well into what will be a third installment, and my hopes are that it fixes the mistakes they made with this one. There were some clever surprises, as well as predictable plot points, that make "Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" enjoyable if you don't expect a lot out of it. Don't view it as the highly anticipated sequel, but rather pretend it was made all along and you just didn't get around to seeing it. As soon as you finish it though, put on the original and remember why you love these characters. Who knows, maybe the original "Boondock Saints" was just the luck of the Irish, and that luck has run out. Let's hope that's not the case for the next try.

"There's two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers."

-Brendan

Review: Up in the Air

Note: I know I've begun to review movies that aren't that new, but they're ones recently released on DVD so you can buy or rent or check out online or whatever. Money and time keep me from seeing every movie I'd like to in theaters.

Adapted from the novel of the same name by Walter Kirn, "Up in the Air" is a story of Ryan Bingham, whose job is to fly around the country firing people. To be more clear, when a company is conducting a large amount of layoffs, they bring in Ryan, or someone from his company, to do the dirty work. This could be because it is too hard of a process for some managers to deal with, or because Ryan Bingham (played by Oscar-winner George Clooney) and others like him are just so damn good at it. Ryan, much like the character of Will in "About a Boy" (played by Hugh Grant), is an island. He lives on the road, and as such is a solitary man - and he likes it this way. His business, however, is being changed by technology and new faces, when Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick, who can mostly be seen in the "Twilight" series), an up-and-coming at his company, develops a way to fire people over video conference. This new method is more efficient, but Ryan feels it is very impersonal. He is instructed to take Natalie out on the road and show her what it is really like to fire someone.

The other part of Ryan's story revolves around Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent flyer (quite the understatement for both of them). The two are impressed with each others' travel stats and realize quickly that they are more or less the same person. Ryan meets up with Alex here and there on his trips and for the first time in his life, he begins to see himself wanting more - perhaps a serious relationship or a family of his own. As he begins to see more to life, Natalie learns the real difficulty of their business and tries to feel comfortable with the decisions she's made. What she really tries to figure out is how Ryan can live the life he does, and she questions his entire philosophy. Ryan states in the film that in the past year he had been on the road over 300 days, telling the audience, though not realizing himself, just what kind of life he lives - a lonely one.

Nominated for six Oscars, including a Best Actor nod for Clooney, and Best Supporting Actress ones for Kendrick and Farmiga (who played the love interest of both Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon in 2007 Best Picture winning "The Departed"), the film hits at a time when much of America is experiencing economic issues. Director Jason Reitman ("Thank You For Smoking," and "Juno," not to mention son of famous director Ivan Reitman) says he planned to do this film adaptation as his first major release, but held off. Lucky for him, it fits in perfectly with today's America. The scenes of people being let go and speaking their minds to the camera were regular people recently let go from their jobs, given the opportunity to say what they wanted to say. I feel this movie deserved its Best Picture nomination, but rightfully so it did not win. It ends in a way that can be seen as realistic, while also feels a bit upsetting for the audience. You want Ryan Bingham to be a changed man and for everything to work out, but much like the so many let go from their jobs, not everything works out the way you think it will. There's a hopefulness to it all, however, and the idea of new beginnings is present. Like I said, not the greatest movie of the year, but definitely something to consider.

"If you think about it, your favorite memories, the most important moments in your life... were you alone?"

-Brendan

Review: Taking Woodstock

Director Ang Lee, who brought us 2005's "Brokeback Mountain," nominated for eight Oscars and winner of three (including Best Director), crafts this behind-the-scenes story of the largest music festival in history. Adapted from the book by Elliot Tiber, "Taking Woodstock" follows Tiber himself, the son of motel owners in the New York state farmlands, who helped find a home for Woodstock in the summer of 1969.

Elliot Tiber, portrayed by comedian Demetri Martin, was looking for ways to keep his parents motel afloat for yet another summer season when he read about Woodstock ventures and their inability to secure a location with enough space for the event with tickets already sold and the date quickly approaching. Elliot, a painter as well as a homosexual, was ready to join the hippie ways of the 1960s, but couldn't let go of his immigrant parents failing business and their strong need for his support. When the opportunity arose to help them out and save this monumental concert at the same time, he got in touch with the right people and used his power of President of the town's Chamber of Commerce and the permit already approved for his family's annual summer music festival (usually much smaller in size) to find Woodstock a location. Although, even with a huge field provided by local dairy farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), an unimaginable amount of work and trouble went into the execution of the great festival.

Demetri Martin, who has done little film acting in the past, surprises in his first leading role as the often conflicted and confused Elliott Tiber who sometimes looks lost in the middle of everything swirling around him in the wake of Woodstock. Quirky supporting roles include Eugene Levy (who's work in the American Pie films have earned him his own spot in our generation), Paul Dano ("Little Miss Sunshine," "There Will Be Blood"), Emile Hirsch ("Into the Wild," "Milk") and Liev Shreiber ("Defiance," "X-Men Origins: Wolverine") as a cross-dressing security force.

Ang Lee used no archive footage of the actual Woodstock festival, but rather found tens of thousands of extras to film the audience scenes. You never see any performers of the festival, which goes along with the story, and all the focus is on the months leading up to Woodstock, including the locals' reactions, national coverage and how the impossible was made possible. The film, which feels a bit lengthy, is slightly less comedic than it claims to be, depending on your sense of humor, but there's a certain level of interest raised on a subject I'm sure few from any generation have questioned. It may be something our parents appreciate, since it all occurred during their time, but with themes surrounding the character of Elliott Tiber that I think twenty-something viewers can identify with.

"Perspective shuts out the universe, it keeps the love out."
-Brendan