Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker

With fewer games being released on the Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) it’s difficult imagining every new release will become an instant classic. Konami’s long running “Metal Gear Solid” series makes a return to the PSP in the form of “Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker.” Hideo Kojima is behind this latest effort but can the legendary video game producer squeeze the last bit of magic from the PSP?

Naked Snake (David Hayter) returns for “Peace Walker,” another title within the “Metal Gear” universe set in the early 1970s. Snake is recruited by Costa Rican patriots to uncover a plot to deploy a secret weapon developed by the CIA on Central America.

No longer affiliated with any government, Naked Snake’s private military corporation, Militaires Sans Frontières (Soldiers without Borders) is the perfect solution for this covert operation to defend Costa Rica.

However, Snakes interest in the operation is instead based on his personal quest to find the truth behind his deceased mentor, who may have cheated death and might be apart of this new CIA scheme.

“Peace Walker,” like all “Metal Gear Solid” games before it, eschews traditional action with a focus on avoiding confrontation with enemy combatants. Snake has all the tools that an ordinary soldier will have. He has an armory that can be built up through research via in-game menus. The weapons are all there. But “Peace Walker” is about avoiding enemies as much as possible.

Players will crouch, peak and run away from enemy soldiers. The best way to beat “Peace Walker” is to avoid being seen. “Peace Walker” is one of few video game titles in which the main character can go throughout the entire game without having to execute an enemy combatant.

The game feels much more rewarding as Snake goes through the game knocking out enemies with a special tranquilizer gun and by using Close Quarters Combat (CQC) than using direct violence.

By knocking out enemy combatants, Snake can recover them and recruit them to be a part of his private military corporation. It might be unrealistic but it sure is addicting.

Lush jungle scenery presents a mysterious view of Costa Rica. The lighting effects are wonderful, daytime and nighttime are well represented in “Peace Walker.” Snake will expertly traverse a variety of terrains from mud to military installations.

Spectacular boss battles with immense tanks, sometimes hundreds of feet taller than Naked Snake is thrilling on the Sony PSP’s 4.3 inch screen. “Peace Walker” sets a new standard in graphics for the PSP.

Cinematic touches are included in “Peace Walker.” The story is told through dynamic comic book style drawings that are entirely black and white. When characters speak, speech bubbles fill the screen. Close up shots of Snake’s grizzled Che Guevara like face go hand in hand with terrific voice acting.

Several times Snake references his fondness for birds and radio messages from his support staff talk about the meaning of nuclear deterrence and the introduction of computer AI in the field of weaponry.

“Peace Walker” is about the Cold War a period of time filled with fear and tremendous uncertainty. It’s a thoughtful video game focusing on themes, exposition and analysis of our reality told through the fiction of a mercenary for hire.

Although published on Sony’s smallest platform, “Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker” feels like a complete entry to the “Metal Gear Solid” series. Stellar visuals, great voice work and gameplay all make “Peace Walker” fun to play and great to own.

It has a high replay value. Completed missions can be replayed to secure new items or to recruit enemy soldiers for Snake’s private military corporation. Players will be immersed by the quality graphics and atmosphere. It’s a portable adventure that plays out like the bigger ones found on full-featured consoles like the PS3 and the Xbox 360.

Nov. 26-28 Film Previews

Burlesque
(PG-13; 119 min.) Yes, this is a real movie. Small town girl (Christina Aguilera) dreams of belonging to a bigger world, confusingly moves to Los Angeles to have her dreams realized. Instead of quickly filling her inner emptiness, she gets funneled into waiting on tables at a burlesque theater. Then acknowledging her passion for risky business, she attempts to impress the owner Tess (Cher) for a run at a life of lights and jazz as a burlesque dancer.

Faster
(R; 98 min.) Dwayne Johnson plays Driver, a man out to avenge the death of his brother through sheer bicep size alone. Fresh out of jail, he concocts a plan to bring some Charles Bronson-syle vengeance and anger on the bastards responsible for his brother’s murder. Thematically reminiscent of late 1970’s revenge films, Johnson wields firearms of all sizes and drives muscle cars to go for additional cool points.

Love and Other Drugs
(R; 113 min.) Based on the book Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman, the plot follows a young pharmaceutical salesman’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) rise to the top. But when the confident man encounters a damsel with potential wife qualities, he succumbs to true love – and keeps the Viagra pills just in case of an awkward moment.

Tangled
(PG; 100 min.) Beautiful Rapunzel (Many Moore) is locked up in a high tower until a blundering thief helps her escape. With long blonde hair in tow, this computer-animated flick is a light-hearted reimagining of a classic tale.

Your Highness Trailer

Normally I wouldn't post trailers, but this particular comedy seems well worth breaking the rules. Hit play for the red band trailer.

Skyline

--Crew--
Director...Greg and Colin Strause

--Cast--
Eric Balfour as Jarrod
Scottie Thompson as Elaine
Donald Faison as Terry
Brittany Daniel as Candice

--Review--

Someday people will come across the DVD of “Skyline,” chuckle to themselves and think about renting the film they intelligently avoided in theaters. “Skyline” doesn’t do much of anything to warrant a theatrical release, it’s dull, substandard and features laughable dialogue. In the “alien invasion” film genre so highly populated by quality films like “Independence Day,” “Cloverfield” and “District 9” there simply isn’t a reason for “Skyline” to exist.

A group of four friends living in Los Angeles awake to discover beams of light pulling humans toward it. As they plot to escape they discover that aliens have invaded planet earth and the beams of light act as a tractor pull toward alien space crafts. The plot sounds interesting but the execution is where the film falters. Nearly the entire length of the film is spent having the characters discuss about the next course of action and then failing to accomplish anything.

The special effects for the aliens are well executed, as they should be; directors Greg and Colin Strause own a special effects production company.

Everything else is done horribly wrong.

Most of the film’s budget was spent on the special effects and every computer-generated creature appears highly detailed and looks near photo-realistic. There’s terrific design in the creatures, or rather alien vehicles, since we never get to see what the aliens really look like. But for all the victories of the CGI, everything else is just below the standards of general filmmaking.

With only four actors to attend to, this is a film highly dependent on the abilities of the actor and script. Both continually amaze audiences with an inability to understand the fundamentals of good writing and delivery. Some of the dialogue is downright laughable, as one character argues back and forth with another one, it simply seems like everyone lacks some true motivation. One character is angry and then attacks another character. Yet, it’s difficult to care who comes out on top of the fighting because we never got an opportunity to really know the characters.

Surprisingly, Donald Faison who played Scrubs’ Christopher Turk has a supporting role as a character with an undetermined occupation. We are led to believe he is some type of musician, perhaps, a rapper or even a successful music producer. But no one knows, because the script doesn’t make it clear what he does for work. All we can go on is that he has an assistant and a blonde trophy wife living in an apartment complex in LA. What’s his personality like? What’s his motivation for existence? Where did he get all of his money?

From one scene to the next, audiences are fed the dull appearance of an apartment complex. Over half of the film takes place in a 20 by 20 foot room in which characters uninterestingly converse about their next course of action. That’s it. Other major set pieces take place on the rooftop and some action occurs in a car garage. For a film set in a vast city like LA, it’s difficult to swallow the filmmakers approach to only shoot inside a room and not the larger city.

“Skyline” looks like it’s been shot using a bad digital camera. The image is often full of visual noise, muted colors and is poorly lit. Bad filmmakers.

Because of the limited number of locations in which “things can happen” the movie revels in having nothing happen. What we are observing is simply ordinary people doing absolutely nothing against the alien invasion on a large scale.

Maybe it’s because of the script that nothing happens, maybe it’s the budget. But the JJ Abrams’ produced “Cloverfield” adeptly shows how to shoot a film in a large city with a monster menace and features ordinary characters with motivation while creating a story worth getting into. “Cloverfield” feels like characters surviving a large-scale catastrophe while “Skyline” feels like a claustrophobic event happening to only four people.

The best parts of “Skyline” are when none of the actors are present on screen. When several fighter jets strike against the alien menace we start to get an interesting sense of action, but that, too, is limited. We never learn how the attacks against the alien invasions are being coordinated. We’re simply witnessing it, just as if we were to look up and watch an air show. We learn nothing about what’s going on or get an explanation of it. The action just happens with no consequence or reason.

For a film to be moving emotionally and thematically, there has to be something more than just visual effects, there has to be purpose, progression and above all, a point. “Skyline” has nothing going for it despite pretty pixels, because that, too, is sub par compared to “Transformers” and the other impending LA alien invasion film “Battle: Los Angeles.” “Skyline” looks like a straight to DVD release with a plot lifted from an unimaginative TV show. It isn’t quality filmmaking, it’s trash.

Nov. 19-20: Previews

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
(PG-13; 146 min.) Harry Potter gets into some deep shit.


The Next Three Days
(PG-13; 133 min.) Written and directed by Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace screenwriter Paul Haggis, this Russell Crowe thriller isn’t what it appears – it’s a remake of the French film Pour Elle (Anything for Her). An ordinary man with the perfect life has perfection ripped away when his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is arrested and sentenced for murder. But is Lara capable of committing such a crime? Lara says she didn’t do it and John (Crowe) believes her, overcome by a massive desire to have the perfect life restored –and post-prison coitus- he plots to free her from jail.

Nora's Will

--Crew--
Mariana Chenillo...Director

--Cast--
Fernando Luján as Jose
Enrique Arreola as Moises
Ari Brickman as Ruben
Juan Carlos Colombo as Dr. Nurko

--Review--

Jose sits alone in front of his computer playing solitaire in his carefully decorated apartment. His slicked-back hair matches his trimmed beard, both completely white. His dull expression gives nothing away about his character, and yet the stillness in his apartment declares much about his life without Nora.

Nora's Will, director and writer Mariana Chenillo's first full-length feature effort, is a story about loving and learning, and the void left by Nora (Silvia Mariscal), a woman who took her own life just days before Passover. For 20 years she had been married to Jose (Fernando Luján) and raised a child with him. The two eventually divorced, but Jose remained close to her, moving across the street so that he would always be involved in his son's life and possibly in Nora's.

Chenillo creates scenes featuring wide emotional ranges thanks to her preference for long takes. There's something powerful about the unedited and almost documentary-like experience she creates in refusing to cut away too quickly. Her camera lingers to help the audience experience every high and every low. We get to see the slight quiver of a lip just before words are spoken and spy miniscule eye movements just before they completely lower and close the mysteries behind them.

The narrative is succinct; the entire picture takes place in the span of five days after the discovery of Nora's suicide. Friends are made among various family members arriving for her funeral along with housekeepers and rabbis.

Nora's Will isn't about a physical document concerning the distribution of her possessions; rather, the film deals with a woman's lingering presence in the lives of those she left behind. A Spanish-language film, the original title is Cinco Días sin Nora, translating to Five Days Without Nora. For American distribution, the title emphasizes Nora's desires and motives in the wake of her death. The original title captures the setting for the film; the revised title captures the themes contained within it.

Amid so much meditation on death, Nora's Will includes moments of lighthearted humor. (No, that isn't Nora's flashlight—it's her vibrator.) Also inside Nora's bedroom, Jose discovers a photograph of a young couple underneath her bed. A bikini-clad Nora is earnestly smiling in the photo, yet Jose finds himself devastated that he isn't the man beside her in the image. He ponders if Nora had ever loved him completely and if he had truly meant something to her. This leaves the invulnerable Jose feeling exposed, haunted and jealous.

The script wonders how well two lovers can know each other and what dormant secrets are exposed in death.

This is a film about memory and learning, about experiencing an odd moment from the past in a new light. Nora's Will serves to remind us that reflection and time away are the best judges of how we feel versus what we believe we are feeling.

The final scene features a table filled with the loving people from Nora's life. All of them are conversant, joyous and sharing a traditional Jewish meal together. Death shouldn't be about splintering people from each other, the film seems to counsel, but instead about bringing everyone closer.

Books: Sex, Sin and Zen

No one picks up a book on Buddhism expecting something entertaining and possibly relevant to their life without first suffering from some serious brain damage. But look, Brad Warner has done the seemingly impossible by delivering “Sex, Sin and Zen” to delight readers everywhere. 

“Sex, Sin and Zen” marks Warner's fourth book delivering the same style of writing found in his previous work. Full of wit, thought and charisma, the book looks at sexuality from a Buddhist perspective. Warner answers a variety of life pressing concerns such as “Can a Buddhist monk jack off?” “Is orgasm the highest form of meditation?” The questions Warner raises on sexuality are the same ones everyone is discussing today, he's just doing from a Buddhist perspective.

Warner hails from the Sōtō school of Zen Buddhism and is an ordained Sōtō  Zen priest having trained under the tutelage of 81-year old Zen Buddhist monk Gudo Wafu Nishijima. 

Warner's main accomplishment is taking abstract Buddhist musings and presenting them for a modern audience. In his writing he distills the lessons of Buddhism by using examples from his own life and at times uses Buddhist koans to help illustrate his own ideas on sexuality. He isn't writing “Sex, Sin and Zen” like a 5th century scroll, he's writing it as a man who wrote for Suicide Girls and made monster movies. He brings Buddhism down to the real world which created it.

Warner breaks the ice on his discussion of prostitution by referring to a 15th century monk who called himself Crazy Cloud. Mr. Cloud wrote a rather famous poem titled “Sipping the Sexual Fluids of a Beautiful Woman.” Warner understands that Buddhists are humans too and Buddhism itself isn't a perfect value system. Warner isn't concerned about presenting Buddhism as a perfect philosophy of life. By referring to Crazy Cloud, Warner not only creates a highly humorous moment in his book, he also creates an understanding that although Cloud's action aren't a Buddhist ideal, Cloud wasn't entirely condemned for his actions. This difference between condemnation and commendation is at the heart of his analysis. 

Buddhism has no concept of sin within the practice. There isn't anything in Buddhism stating that a particular sex act is immoral or sin-like. Imagine, a value system that doesn't apply or foster a system of guilt on human sexuality and then attempt to judge a particular sex act – it simply wouldn't be possible. Warner presents Buddhism as a philosophy in search of a medium between two extremes.

Warner uses Japanese culture as an example of a society that views sexuality in a different light than our American society. Warner hypotheses a heavy Buddhist influence that didn't stigmatize sexuality helped shaped a very open expression of sexuality in Japan. This might just explain the strange Japanese anime porn genre of Hentai one sometimes seen on the interwebs.

At first it's difficult to come to terms with Warner's work, but as the reader continues page after page, it becomes easier to understand Warner's insight into sexuality. He isn't advocating a complete shift in how our culture values sexuality, but rather, he is more concerned that society approaches sexuality from a much more balanced perspective.

Warner argues the American view of sexuality is constructed based on Puritan values, these values have shaped our understanding of our own sexuality. Warner reshapes our perspective on human sexuality by using Buddhism as an opposing viewpoint against our current values. In reading his book, we see differently because we are shown differently.

Every chapter covers a different sex related topic from BDSM, to masturbation, to pornography to just plain dating. Warner mixes story telling with analysis with solid citations of classic Buddhist text. He includes an interview with American porn actress Nina Hartley, who happens to be a Buddhist and took Buddhist marriage vows the day of her wedding.

Warner isn't concerned about presenting Buddhism as a philosophy strictly for intellectuals or hippies, he's concerned about revealing Buddhism without ceremony and bullshit.

“Sex, Sin and Zen” is a really strange, wacky piece of fantastic writing that no human being should live without. Warner's book might be the most relevant book on Buddhist views of sexuality ever. It's a fun read, easy to get into and - it's about sex. Buy it for the title and keep it for the writing.

Note: An alternative version of this review is featured in the Sonoma State STAR Fall 2010 Issue #8.

Howl Review

--Crew--
Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman as Director/Scriptwriter

--Cast--
James Franco as Allen Ginsberg
Jon Hamm as Jake Erlich

--Review--

In 1956, City Lights Booksellers & Publishers co-founder Lawerence Ferlinghetti published Allen Ginsberg's “Howl and other poems,” nearly half a century later the film “Howl” arrives to depict the life of the poet and the landmark poem's infamy. Traditionally documentary filmmakers, Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman find themselves in both the director's chair and the script writer's for this fictional account of the real life poet.

With “Howl” the filmmakers have created a espresso blend of documentary movie making with an amazing cast featuring James Franco, Jon Hamm, David Strathairn and Jeff Daniels.

The film is divided into two distinct settings. There's Ginsberg's life in early and late 1950's and the obscenity trial Lawerence Ferlinghetti was involved in because of the publication of Ginsberg poetry. What the audience gets to see of Ginsberg life is regulated to in-character narratives by James Franco. Ginsberg recounts his experiences like he was being interviewed and indeed, a one point in the film an off screen interviewer presses Ginsberg for more information. Virtually all the screen time with Franco as Ginsberg is with the character's reflection of past events. He's talking to the audience members about himself in the way a documentary film would present an interview of a person.

As Allen Ginsberg, actor James Franco adopts a cadence unlike his own, elongating particular words, then condensing them, afterwards speeding up his delivery at the mercy of his vision of Ginsberg. Franco plays the poet with a certain shyness, almost near romanticism of what the perceived genius may or may not have been like. Yet, there isn't any range in Franco's feelings, much of what he does with his performance is with dialogue and brightly colored flannel shirts. Underneath the rim of 1950's eye wear, a frustrated James Franco must be seething at the impossibility of duplicating Ginsberg with the limited vision of the script. This Ginsberg doesn't do anything but talk, this Ginsberg isn't experiencing life.

Franco's readings of “Howl” are accompanied by animated segments which are intended provide the poem's meaning. Filmmakers Epstein and Friedman present a psychedelic vision of alien-like humans within Ginsberg's poem, forcing the audience towards a passive interpretation of Ginsberg's work, thus, allowing the filmmakers complete control over the poem's meanings. The value of poetry is attaching individual interpretation, losing that invaluable dialogue with the poem renders Ginsberg's “Howl” a manufactured disappointment. Although beautiful in execution, the animated segments feel unevenly alien, as it should, “Howl” isn't about aliens.

The film's retelling of the real life 1957 obscenity trail involving “Howl” publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti is much more satisfying than an average court room drama. The Ferlinghetti character has no lines in the movie whatsoever, leaving his defense attorney Jake Ehrlich (Jon Hamm) the sole proponent for the “Howl” poem. Hamm plays Ehrlich so smoothly, the audience comes inches away from purchasing a pack of Lucky Strikes.

The performance is intense, Hamm interrogates his witnesses, pushes them with great believability. These courtroom scenes live by Hamm's performance alone. Whereas Franco is restricted to mere recitals of Ginsberg's thoughts, Hamm has complete control of his character's actions. The throughly authentic discussion of the poem within the courtroom setting should remind viewers “Howl” is not only a significant literary poem but it's also the subject of a landmark First Amendment case.

Epstein and Friedman took a marvelous chance in creating a film based on the life of Allen Ginsberg. Though the film is enjoyable to watch the execution is thoroughly uneven, “Howl” is difficult to recommend. Not every audience member can sit through what amounts to be an experimental film depicting the life of Allen Ginsberg. A standard documentary on his life would do far better in capturing the poet's life. Casting James Franco as Ginsberg isn't necessary when the script doesn't feature emotionally gripping scenes for a strong actor to portray. Franco has nothing to do here. It's a story without an emotional drive. The film makes clear the greatness of Ginsberg poem, but the movie doesn't answer “Who was this man?”

In the end, the “Howl” film lacks the intensity, humanity and creativity of the poem that inspired it. Epstein and Friedman appear to be so out of touch with the reality of Ginsberg's “Howl” that they've disfigured the poem and the artist into mere caricatures. And yet, no other piece of media has been so informative about Allen Ginsberg in such an encapsulating fashion. The film serves as biography, literary criticism and memorial to Ginsberg and his work.

The saddest part of “Howl” is that it stands as one of the few pieces of media to immortalize Ginsberg – and that my friends is letting one of the best minds of an entire generation disappear without a good fight.

The Town Review

--Crew--
Ben Affleck...Director

--Cast--
Ben Affleck as Doug McRay
Jon Hamm as Adam Fawley
Rebecca Hall as Claire Keesey
Jeremy Renner as James "Jem" Coughlin

//Review

“The Town” is a heist film, and it’s brilliant.

The first scene rocks like an explosion, a hard punch to the gut and the chase begins. There’s poetry in the film, too. Filled with splendid visuals from Ben Affleck’s wonderful direction; a scene of  gentle gliding footsteps toward a body of water comes to mind. The framing in the film is positively exquisite.

Doug MacRay’s (Ben Affleck) only obsession lies in finding a meaningful future for himself. MacRay wants to leave Charlestown, a city that means living there is surviving it. The story is riddled with conversations about moving toward a greater future; a clear and definite meaning in life, sought by a man desperately in need of an escape from his birth place. It’s about the American dream and MacRay wants his piece.

Comparisons to Michael Mann’s “Heat” are inevitable. Like “Heat,” “The Town” is a film about a team of expert thieves intent on pulling off large-scale heists. Yet, the two films differ considerably in tone and character development. This isn’t Mann’s “Heat” and having an expectation for the film to mirror “Heat” would render enjoyment of Affleck’s “The Town” to mediocre levels. “The Town” is far more romantic than “Heat” ever had been. The relationship between MacRay and his lover Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) seem innocent and honest, at times, almost naïve. The love is so pure that by the end of the picture, it comes as a shock when the couple doesn’t produce an offspring and give their daughter a hyphenated last name.

Affleck’s MacRay is confident without the lingering aftertaste of jackass. He’s appealing because he’s straightforward and decent. He isn’t looking to hurt others. He just wants to steal money. Presumably this is all in an effort to develop financial means to escape his home town. We get to see MacRay at his best in the company of his lover Keesey, at his worst when dealing with the criminal world. He’s a man first before being a criminal. He plays by a set of rules, structured and intent on redeeming himself from a life he never chose.

MacRay’s motives are always known to the audience, he virtually lacks duality because his morality is consistent as a man and as a thief. Films like “Scarface,” “Godfather” and “Good Fellas” feature protagonists that happen to be villains. But aside from his vigilantism in robbing banks, MacRay doesn’t exhibit corrupted morality or an appreciation for outright violence. He’s a pacifist but isn’t afraid of pulling the trigger when antagonized or hurt by the conditions forced unto him.

Putting the pressure on MacRay is FBI agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) who represents the upper class world MacRay desperately combats with. What “The Town” cleverly reveals is that Charlestown isn’t simply an American city but a metaphor for social boundary. Not only does Frawley represents the successful Irish-American man connected with the larger world, he also represents an entire social class that wants to prevent MacRay’s integration with it. The American dream MacRay desperately attaches himself to doesn’t want him because he’s not good enough.

How can MacRay leave Charlestown if the world won’t accept him?

MacRay’s right hand man, James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) is pure violence. Though standing nearly a foot shorter than MacRay, Coughlin is much more intimidating. He beats people with the butt of guns, stares holes through bullet proof vests and walks with the biggest on screen swagger since Humphrey Bogart. He’s brash and unpredictable with his demeanor. And when Coughlin discusses loyalty to family and friendship, it surprises the audience because his crude actions contradicts his internal beliefs.

He believes that there is good, though he himself might never be that light of morality. The character is creatively written and fully realized through Renner’s incredible portrayal of this conflicted man.

The action sequences are expertly shot and choreographed. The realism to the violence is refreshing, the car chase in the film feels potent and raw. “The Town” delivers in hard hitting action, easily attributed to Affleck’s instincts as a director coupled with his wonderful sense of motion.

Affleck’s previous directorial effort came in “Gone Baby Gone.” With “The Town,” Affleck solidifies a second career as a director. Though he is a great performer, as exhibited in the film, Affleck can quit acting and make a living as a director. It’s that well shot.

“The Town” is a vivid portrayal of the earnest American dream, the desire to have more and live happily. It’s about moving from one socio-economic order to another one. It’s about class barriers and heritage, and above all else, it’s a great film.

Machete

--Crew--
Robert Rodriguez...Director

--Cast---
Danny Trejo as Machete
Robert DeNiro as Senator McLaughlin
Jessica Alba as Santana Rivera
Steven Seagal as Torrez

--Review--

Machete is big, bloody fun.

The first 10 minutes of “Machete” unfold like a blood soaked orchestra. Loud gun fire, obnoxious gore and full frontal nudity splash the grainy screen. At times watching “Machete” feels like watching the hidden mind of some demented human being. Its digitally altered visual style mimics the grindhouse films from of the late ‘70s, furthering a feeling of frenzy.

Director, Robert Rodriguez is known for making two very distinct film series; the “El Mariachi” trilogy and the “Spy Kids” series of films.

“Machete” isn’t really like any of those two pictures.

Surprisingly a highly political film, “Machete” engineers a plot revolving around the construction of a border fence between Mexico and the United States. The stakes are high and values are questioned.

Machete (Danny Trejo) doesn’t ooze the specific cool demonstrated by Antonio Banderas in Rodriguez’s “Desperado.” Instead, Machete delivers in a menacing way. His weapon of choice is his namesake. Rather than being graceful with weaponry, Machete is pure brutality. Entire limbs come off during the course of the picture. Nothing is done in an overt grizzly fashion but clearly, Machete isn’t the John Woo inspired flick that is “Desperado.”

Trejo doesn’t talk much. He mutters a bit and starts attacking. It’s a character design thoroughly calculated in other genre’s films like “Terminator.” Other than being intimidating, there isn’t much to go on in the way of Machete’s character. At times his character is interchangeable with any other bad-ass. He doesn’t throw out clever one-liners. Instead, he’s too busy using intestines to break his fall from one floor to the next.

Trejo’s dialogue is limited and left to the majority of the other cast members. Cheech Marin cleverly shown in the film’s trailer is left with little more than exposition in the feature length film. The cast is rapidly expanded by Robert DeNiro, Michelle Rodriguez, Jessica Alba, Don Johnson and a pre-jail stint Lindsay Lohan. It should be noted that Steven Seagal also plays a major role in the film’s plot line.

Make sure the bad guy isn't you.

Seagal’s false Hispanic accent is a huge payoff for the film. It’s neat seeing Seagal play a role that is out of his comfort zone. Seagal is used to playing a lumbering Zen martial artist. Here in “Machete” Seagal plays a lumbering Mexican drug lord with knowledge of martial arts. With a tinge of villainy, Seagal comes off as a good antagonist for Trejo. Not many actors can play opposite the granite glare of Trejo and be a believable nemesis. Thankfully, Seagal is present for this role.

Robert DeNiro plays corrupt Texas Senator John McLaughlin and like Seagal brings out a heavy accent for his character. DeNiro humors the audience with a Texas drawl and a cowboy hat. His character rails against “change” because to him America is always perfect.

Michelle Rodriguez plays Shé, a character allusion to the South American revolutionary Che Guevara. Nothing is particularly special about her performance.

Far too little time is devoted to each character. The screen time shared amongst all of them appear equal, lending the sense that all characters exist on an equal footing to each other. Even the titular hero’s screen time appears on an equal footing with the film’s secondary characters. This inability to divert strong scenes for specific actors and their characters leads to the films major weaknesses.

It’s an unbalanced film, no single scene in Machete delivers memorably.

Although action, plot and minor character development live in “Machete” nothing stands out quite like the humor.

A physician telling Machete that surgical tools capable of cutting human flesh with a completely dry delivery will be of no use to the hero brings uproar from the audience.

When the line “You better learn to become Mexican fast” is uttered by one character to another, the other character begins to don a sombrero, a plaid shirt and poncho. It’s a clever moment playing on stereotypes to create humor and not prejudice.

All the witty parts of Machete will require a second look. The action is brutal, but like the script, it feels occasionally clumsy. This is clearly a choice by the director, but having well thought out action sequences could bring Machete to another tier in the action film genre.

In many ways “Machete” delivers on Rodriguez’s original fake trailer that inspired the full-length film. “Machete” is filled with bloody action, senseless nudity and some absolutely hilarious moments. Less character management and a shorter runtime would help the picture tremendously.

"Machete" is an enjoyable thrill ride and a great action film to round out the end of the summer movie season.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World Review

--Crew--
Edgar Wright...Director

--Cast--
Michael Cera...Scott Pilgrim
Mary Elizabeth Winstead...Ramona Victoria Flowers
Kieran Culkin...Wallace Wells
Ellen Wong...Knives Chau

--Review--
When directors need an actor to portray an unprepared young man waiting for the world to crush him, they turn to Michael Cera. He is a veteran of portraying such young awkward stuttering men as in films like "Juno," "Superbad" and television's "Arrested Development."

"Scott Pilgrim vs the World" will be known as Cera's best work.

Director Edgar Wright's other directorial efforts include "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz." Here Wright channels the humor of those two films for another round of action comedy. Based on the comic book Scott Pilgrim, the film explores the unpredictable rise of Pilgrim's mushy spine into a much more apparent one.

Twenty-two year old Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) falls in love with Ramona Flowers (Mary Winstead). Pilgrim's courtship of Flowers is rather succinct. He is thwarted by the arrival of the seven evil exes. Who aren't necessarily evil but self-absorbed and vengeful. Although those character descriptions aren't as verbally appealing as the official name for the group, The League of Evil Exes.

The League challenges Pilgrim to several duels. Pilgrim must fight each of the members to the death in order to remain Flower's lover. Yet, Pilgrim isn't alone in his fight, he has plenty of moral support from his friends.

Kieran Culkin plays Scott Pilgrim's homosexual roommate Wallace Wells. The character's sexual orientation isn't much of a character trait than it is a gag. The film references the character's sexual orientation multiple times during narration and for humor.

Culkin's delivery is impeccable and the character definitely brings life to the film. He plays the character in a subdued way. It's quality acting and surprisingly good coming from a Culkin.

Mirroring Scott Pilgrim's turn from scrawny hero to vicious bad assery is Ellen Wong's Knives Chau. The character starts out very wholesome and sweet, but like Pilgrim, undergoes transformation.

From a naïve girl, to a troubled lover, to finally becoming a mature young woman, Wong delivers. It's a transformation that few supporting actors get to go through.

Rounding out the cast as Scott Pilgrim's band mates are Kim (Alison Pill), Stephen (Mark Webber) and Young Neil (Johnny Simmons). The band's inclusion in the film is irrelevant. They're not necessary to the plot and serve only to give Pilgrim some semblance of a talent other than being nervous.

Everyone wants Pilgrim to realize something about himself he has yet to recognize...his potential. They want him to grow up and overcome his emotional issues. Everyone wants to see Pilgrim confront his morose self-defeating behavior and become a man. To do that he's got to believe in himself and acknowledge his own flaws.

Michael Cera's performance as Pilgrim takes a much more prominent role than his previous films. He is visibly angry, confident at times and even masculine. He stands up for himself. He believes in something. What makes all of this enjoyable is Cera's ability to present himself as an uncoordinated musician, geek juxtaposed with newfound confidence and zeal. Cera isn't going to be the next big action hero, but he definitely arrives at being a believable one.

There isn't much to go on in the way of Pilgrim's romance. He doesn't seem to have a greater reason to like Romona Flowers other than an ethereal vision.

Why does Pilgrim like her? Maybe it's because Flowers dyes her hair color just like Kate Winslet does in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Flower's hair colors are her emotions or rather her only personality traits.

Action sequences play out in a hyper realistic fashion. Visual cues derived from video games are found and  in some parts of the film explain changes to Scott Pilgrim. In a scene he even gains "+1 life."

When the several fights commence, characters inexplicably gain super human knowledge of Chinese martial arts and Bollywood dancing. Romona Flowers pulls out a mallet from her purse.

Afterwards none of the characters mention how absurd and fantastical the combat on screen had been. But it's okay because mentioning how over the top they were will break the illusion of the film's reality. The action is strange but is acceptable because it's normal to the characters.

"Scott Pilgrim vs the World" is a film about a young man coming to find his sense of self worth. It's less of a love story than it is a story about characters pulled together by a peculiar event. There's a point to Pilgrim. It's witty and self-deprecating. It's observational and poignant.

It might just become a cult favorite.

The film isn't perfect by any means but it's all of those wonderful flaws that makes "Scott Pilgrim vs the World" stand out as one of the summer's most unique and post-modern of the bunch. In many ways it kicks ass.

Sherlock Holmes [DVD]

--Crew--
Guy Ritchie...Director

--Cast--
Robert Downey, Jr as Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law as Dr. John Watson
Mark Strong as Lord Henry Blackwood
Rachel McAdams as  Irene Adler


--Review--

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) absorbs his environment. He makes notes of the smallest details. He is a detective, taking in clues that most of us wouldn't consider. He is also a skilled fighter. He can deflect attacks and calculate the number of movements necessary to defeat his opponent. To Holmes, life is a game, abundant with mystery and waiting for someone to solve it.

Downey plays Holmes with a lot of character quirks. Holmes is constantly looking around himself, eying things from the corner of his eyes. He's speaks quickly and almost always seem to be in over his head. He is curious about the criminal mind and likes a good chase. He also likes alcohol and anything that keeps him from being sober. Conan Doyle would be proud.

Dr. Watson is here too, played by a mustached Jude Law, acts as Holmes' foil. Watson is humored by Holmes, they are friends reliable to each other. Where Holmes might execute subtly, Watson is abrupt and straight to the point. Their personalities compliments each other the way real friends do. They like each other.

Holmes is on task to stop the resurrected Lord Henry Blackwood (Mark Strong) from a plot to take over the British government. There are several twists in the story and the expectations of the audience will be played with. In the backdrop of an industrial London, can magic really exist?

The plot isn't as interesting as the characters. There is a clear villain in Blackwood but the real joy of watching the picture is for Downey's amazing performance. The plot is serviceable but the picture straddles the line of an origin story with teasers for a true “Sherlock Holmes” picture. The elements for a sequel is well placed throughout the picture. Sherlock Holmes is waiting for a real nemesis.

Holmes' love interest Irene Addler is played by Rachel McAdams who is far too young for the role. When Holmes and Addler are in scenes together their age difference isn't noticeable. But it's difficult to ignore McAdams age when the rest of a cast consist of people in their forties. McAdams does well as Addler, but she doesn't feel necessary. She feels like a miscast actress for a character that shouldn't be part of the story at all. She doesn't detract from the picture but she doesn't add to it either. Are my comments for Addler or McAdams? I will let you decide.

“Sherlock Holmes” is a movie worth seeing. It isn't filled with the best of things but plays out very well. It's an action film with mystery elements. Downey and director Guy Ritchie play with the preconceived ideas of Holmes and does away with them. It's Sherlock Holmes reinvented for a modern film audience.

It's good. It's brief and I'd like to see more.

Up in the Air [DVD]

--Crew--

Jason Reitman...Director

--Cast--

George Clooney as Ryan Bingham

Vera Farminga as Alex Goran

Anna Kendrick as Natalie Kenner

Jason Bateman as Craig Gregory

--Review--
Ryan Bingham's [George Clooney] job is to fire people he doesn't work with. He's brought into various companies to fire their employees and to absolve managers of their own responsibility in firing an employee. The concept is unique and allows Bingham an emotional distance from the people he fires. It doesn't effect Bingham because he doesn't know them. At least that's the premise.

Eventually Bingham runs into Alex Goran [Vera Farminga] at a hotel bar. The two connect on a level and begin a relationship. It's a complex, risk-less relationship. Just the way both parties like it. Both are working for giant near anonymous corporations that forces the pair to travel throughout the nation. The vast distance between them are both emotional and physical.

Bingham's world is turned upside down when the new hire at his company, Natalie Keener [Anna Kendrick] proposes a shift from personal firings to firings done over the web. It would be more cost effective not to fly employees across the nation to fire. The reasoning by Keener is highly logical and near emotionless. Keener's proposal goes into conflict with Bingham who finds the web firings cold and impersonal. Not to mention Bingham's entire career will take a dynamic shift from personal communication to an impersonal digital one. Firing someone isn't about simply letting them go. To Bingham there's a logic to firing someone in person, it's personal, it's comforting and more than anything-human.

We come to find Bingham and Keener traveling the country firing people together. Keener begins to realize the emotional involvement in firing an individual. Bingham slowly becomes a mentor and even a father figure to Keener.

There's a lot happening in "Up in the Air." The film looks at age, relationships and the meaning of goals. Is it enough to want something? What do people fall back on where there's a crisis? After all the miles traveled by our characters, it's not about the distance that makes them better people, it's their relationships. Their involvement and appreciation of others is the key to understanding the film.

At one of Bingham's presentation on the meaning of baggage, Bingham equates that relationships are the great burden of our lives. It's the weight of relationships that will force the shoulder straps of a back pack into our bodies. It's those binding relationships that tie you down, that may even harm you. Bingham is correct in a way. Relationships are perilous adventures but they can also be highly rewarding. The film wonders about our sense of isolation and our sense of acceptance. How do we fit into a world that seem to eclipse us and not accompany us?

There is a scene in "Up in the Air" that appears to have Bingham conversing with a near ethereal father figure. It could be God, or it could just be a missing paternal figure not present in his life. When Bingham is able to finally converse with this man, Bingham is at a lost for words. It's as if he's finally reaching adulthood and looking back at the various aspects of his life. There's a lot that has happened to him. There's just too much to talk about. Bingham's highly engaging speeches on the dangers of relationships and baggage are displaced. He's changed and in his altered state he begins to understand a new way of existence. What he use to think isn't what he thinks now.

"Up in the Air" is so charming and delightful it's hard not to recommend the film to everyone. The film deals with age, romance and the obscure thoughts that transcend all the hours of the day. It's about our expectations and the idle thoughts that goes with them. Can we overcome our fears and emotional tremors, our elite fragile egos? "Up in the Air" believes that together we might be able to and I do too.

Iron Man 2

--Crew--
Jon Favreau...Director

--Cast--
Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark
Don Cheadle as James Rhodes
Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts
Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko
Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer

--Review--

“Iron Man 2” isn’t about saving the world, or saving the people Tony Stark loves. The film is about the duplication of the technology found in the Iron Man suit. It’s a film about gadgets and not about the human condition.

This is perfectly fine since “Iron Man 2” can be considered an action film. But aside from a race to assemble high tech gear, there isn’t much happening in “Iron Man 2.”

For a film fascinated by gadgets and high tech equipment, the film’s pacing fails to deliver. It’s slow like a drama but has none of the depth. The pace is absurdly disrupted by too many characters speaking too many lines at too slow a pace. The terrific action sequences are too far spread out to keep the pacing exhilarating.

Robert Downey Jr. returns as Tony Stark. Tony Stark came out to the world as Iron Man at the end of the previous picture. Why wouldn’t he? Being a hero with vast media attention is a modern allure.

For an egomaniac such as Tony Stark, confessing to the world of his dual identity is simply stroking his ego. His cocksure manner has him gleefully running about the entire film. He is funny and flirtatious. But he seems to have digressed a little from his growth from the original “Iron Man” picture. Stark’s charisma doesn’t win over any other characters in the film.

A lot of people dislike Stark. Don Cheadle has replaced Terrance Howard as James Rhodes. “Rhodey” doesn’t get increased screen time over his original “Iron Man” incarnation. He is there, but seems to be non-supportive of Stark. Rhodey and Stark don’t seem to be friends but mild enemies.

Everyone scolds Tony Stark. Mickey Rourke is in the film as Ivan Vanko, and hates Tony Stark too. Though he appears intimidating, he really isn’t developed well enough to present a great danger.

For the other villain we have Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. He’s like Tony Stark in many ways. Hammer is an arms dealer seeking to imprint his legacy on the future of modern warfare. He runs his own corporation. Yet, Hammer isn’t imposing, he stumbles and is easily outwitted by Stark. Thus, making Hammer an unrewarding antagonist. It’s hard to believe that Hammer will ever be able to outwit Stark. It’s not a surprise when he doesn’t. He hates Tony Stark as well.

The premise of the picture doesn’t give “Iron Man 2” the intensity it needs to make the villains and heroes feel like something larger is at stake. Instead all of the dialogue descends into witty exchanges between all the various characters. Every character is always trying to verbally joust at another one. It’s a funny flick and perhaps that’s a reason the film can’t be taken seriously. With no real conflict and characters uninvolved in a deeper moral issues, “Iron Man 2” becomes a lightweight picture filled with only humor and visual effects.

There are too many characters in “Iron Man 2” that do not directly contribute to the overall story. A film with an ensemble cast is harder to direct and juggle screen time with. The film doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of some characters and everyone seems nearly interchangeable in the plot.

The film’s director Jon Favreau appears as Tony Stark’s driver Happy Hogan. This time Favreau’s Hogan has longer screen time than in the previous “Iron Man.” He gets to throw a couple of punches. But there are no subplots involving his character. Hogan isn’t interesting or humorous. Hogan’s inclusion is a disservice to cinema and the script.

The action sequences of the film are quite wonderful. There are lots of explosions in the film. Yet, the action sequences are awkwardly spaced throughout the picture. It’s an action film without an exact understanding of where to place the action sequences. It takes nearly twenty minutes into the film before we get our first taste of action.

“Iron Man 2” doesn’t have much of a plot. There are no vast conspiracies, no underlying themes involving freedom, security and militarism. “Iron Man 2” is devoid of a deeper meaning. It’s a story populated by attractive people preening about and flirting with each other incessantly under the boom of fire crackers.

We’re meant to be enchanted by it all. The special effects, the heavy banter about neutrons and protons. There isn’t any humanity in “Iron Man 2.”

Simply having actors portray characters isn’t enough. The characters must undergo a process of transformation.

None of the characters change, making “Iron Man 2” seem like a mere dress rehearsal rather than a real “Iron Man” sequel.

Nightmare on Elm Street

Clever, suspenseful and powerful, none of these things describes the “Nightmare on Elm Street” reboot film. Many familiar elements remain such as Freddy Krueger's fedora and hand claw. Yet, there is a casualty in the new film and that casualty is the reason for this film's existence.

Freddy Krueger part-time homeless man, full-time non-corporeal terror of the children on Elm Street haunts a handful of teens. He pushes them, teases them and sometimes tortures the audience with his films. Jackie Earle Haley plays the part of the titular villain. Haley is very good.

As the non-ethereal Krueger, Haley performs with a hint of frailty. He is pitiful, mildly sympathetic until a semi-dramatic plot twist ruptures this image completely. As evil Freddy Krueger bent on dealing terror throughout Elm Street, Haley does the best he can with the dialogue given.

He says all of lines like he means them, but half way through realizes his lines are just filler. He seems to be wondering why he is talking at all. Why do villains explain any of their actions? It makes the villains seem reasonable and even negotiable. Don't do it.

The film makers also decided that Haley's Krueger voice needed a boost in bass. Audience members will clearly know Krueger is in town when the theater's seats start to rumble. Haley's augmented voice is not subtle. It's irritating, his voice is too loud. If a person dies only to come back as a ghost and for some inane reason posses a deeper voice, people will start asking questions. People with brains.

The first clue that Freddy Krueger is back isn't the nightmares, it's his ridiculous voice.

The plot differs from the original 1984 film. The setting is different, helping to represent the new state of the world. Audience's will know that this is an entirely new take on the Nightmare series because the male characters of the film wear just as much make up as the female characters. Expect heavy use of both computer imagery and mascara on the male actors.

Why do the male characters of the picture wear mascara? Are they trying to protect themselves from Freddy Krueger or are they dressing up for him? No one knows and I don't care.

Yes, there are parts of “Nightmare on Elm Street” that can be liked. The visual effects are wonderful. Freddy Krueger's face is a mixture of make-up and computer imagery. Film makers have gone ahead and made Krueger appear ghastly through the details of visible muscle and tendons. He looks more like a zombie than a demon from hell.

Rooney Mara plays Nancy Holbrook, the protagonist for the picture, Mara is a very believable actress. When she expresses fear or concern, audience's will forget that those expressions are for the film's script. I genuinely found Mara to be charismatic and cheered her on in her fight against Freddy Krueger. Her victory over Freddy can only be meaningful if she is a likable character. But even as the main protagonist of the film, Mara's Holbrook cannot escape the script. Virtually the only thing audiences find out about Mara's Holbrook is that her character is artistic.

There's some blood colored syrup throughout the picture. It wouldn't be a slasher or horror film without it. Most of the scenes involving Krueger aren't particularly gory. But, a few scenes will haunt the memories of film goers, the first and last scene of the picture are the most disturbing. Cover your eyes.

The horror industry has found many new friends from “Saw” to “The Fourth Kind.” “Nightmare on Elm Street” responds to these films with a whimper. It's a picture displaced by time and unapologetic affection for the original source material.

There isn't a point in recalling the greatness of the original “Nightmare on Elm Street” films or revisiting the Freddy Krueger character. Simply walk down to the local video store and rent the original pictures, that way multiple films can be watched at the same cost as a ticket to the theater.

The “Nightmare on Elm Street” reboot is akin to rewriting Jane Austen's classic “Pride and Prejudice” but set in a contemporary time period with the same characters, motivations and releasing that atrocity to the public. If you're saying that would be pointless and cruel, you're right.

Kick-Ass

“Kick-Ass” is a film that does not live up to its name. The film follows the rise of Dave Lizewski in his effort to become a superhero. The journey is maligned by terrible circumstances such as poor dialogue and pointless character development. The trouble with the film is direction. For a film about a boy’s odyssey, it sure lacks a sense of it.

A teenage male, raging with hormones is the main character for the film. It is strange that the film goes out of its way to make Lizewski horribly uninteresting on top of his already embarrassing character traits. Lizewski narrates the tale. He explains to the audience that he isn’t smart, a hardcore gamer or possessive of any talent.

For a film that attempts to advertise toward young teens, there is a great deal of gratuity. The film is Rated R. The film relies on violence and gore to express its MPAA rating. There isn’t a seemingly mature subject matter handled by the film. There are no major thematic elements or even a social commentary on the value of superheroes to the modern world.

“Kick-Ass” positions itself as a film geared toward teens. But the level of violence and the MPAA film rating will block that entire demographic from viewing “Kick-Ass.” The film caters to no particular audience because it lacks themes and is peppered by pointless violence.

Aaron Johnson does the best he can as Dave Lizewski. The name Lizewski is pronounced Looser-ski. The character’s name choice should be evidence to the quality of thought by the creators. Johnson’s performance hovers between levels of apathy and tears.

Lizewski spends most of his time at a comic book store with his equally uninteresting friends. At one point he unwillingly puts the real heroes into real danger. He isn’t clever or courageous. He is simply present and available. By the end of “Kick-Ass” he is nowhere closer to possessing heroic qualities than at the beginning of the film.

Nicholas Cage appears as Damon Macready. The scenes with Cage are nothing short of awkward. He plays a character who is meant to be taken seriously, but his dialogue is filled with cringe-worthy humor. He makes terrible jokes and is terrible at trying to be sweet.

Cage comes off as a creepy uncle. Yes, it is that bad. Nothing about the character’s dialogue is worth listening to; he isn’t charming, wise or witty. Yet, Cage’s Macready is so integral to the story that it feels like the film is doing a disservice to the audience by not making his character more likable.

The villains of “Kick-Ass” are underdeveloped as well. The audience is never told what type of drugs the criminal organization in the film sells. In one scene a passing comment is made about lost “kilos” of some product. Is it cocaine? Crack? No one knows because the film never really shows kilos being pushed around, which makes the audience think that the crimes are all imaginary.

None of it is to be taken seriously because Frank D’Amico, the film’s criminal mastermind, states that his business is put into jeopardy by the death of one drug dealer. He states that the death of one drug pusher completely disrupts his entire criminal enterprise. A complex criminal organization being dependent on one drug pusher doesn’t seem logical. For a film that takes violence seriously it is strange that logic isn’t a big concern.

The film also lacks morality. The violence is harsh and bloody. It is a gory film and for a comedy this is an important point to understand. The violence feels needlessly excessive. Characters freely fire pistols at each other without flinching. Death is present in every scene, yet there isn’t a character that expresses contempt for murder, not even the film’s heroes.

When Hit-Girl starts attacking several armed men with a double-edged blade the film really loses its ground. She murders with such fervor that it is hard not to think about the consequences of her actions. Although the film presents villains as pure evil, the heroes are just as guilty or more guilty of being reckless with human life. There isn’t anything heroic about the murder of another human being. “Kick-Ass” doesn’t care about any of that.

What is left of “Kick-Ass” is a series of meaningless action sequences tied together by a series of uninteresting interactions between characters. Violence in action films is to be expected. But when the plot fails to be coherent and meaningful, the violence fails to be anything more than visual filler. Films shouldn’t just be about visual spectacle but about character growth and development. A film that fails to provide these fails to be a film worth watching.

Hot Tub Time Machine

“Hot Tub Time Machine” is near exact what it sounds. Three estranged friends and one nephew embark on a journey involving a hot tub time machine. The device is accidentally triggered after a wild night of excessive drinking and male bonding. When the four awake they find themselves miraculously transported back twenty years into the past.

It is not evident to any of the men exactly where they are at first, but they soon discover an opportunity to experience memories long buried.

At the heart of the film are various familiar elements, time traveling and male bonding. When Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson) , Lou (Rob Corddry) and Jacob (Clark Duke) attempt to understand the device, Robinson's Nick glares at the camera and says “It's some kind of hot tub time machine.” His unflinching glare and stoic expression deliver a clear message from the film makers. The film is undiluted fun and everyone knows it.

This ability to both poke fun at the premise and other films with time travel film plot device is what makes “Hot Tub Time Machine” enjoyable. The film makers and the audience are familiar with the trappings of a time travel plot dos and don'ts. The film makers invites the audience to take part in the time travel gags. There are numerous references to a variety of 80's films, popular musicians and trends.

John Cusack plays a much more likable character than in his “2012” outing. His performance is filled with variety. He is disgruntled, sympathetic and writes poetry. At one point, he dons a strangely familiar trench coat highly reminiscent in appearance of his trench coat from his 1989 film “Say Anything.” He never rolls down the sleeves but the homage is welcomed.

Craig Robinson's delivery is unmatched when it comes to comic timing and facial expressions. Robinson is a great addition to the cast. The actor sells each scene magnificently.

But the real lead in the film has been deceptively marginalized in the film's ad campaign. Rob Corddry as Lou provides the stories catalyst and is the heart of the picture. For the film to succeed Corddry needed to be able to provide not only a lively deranged character but also a believable hero. Corddry may have delivered his best performance so far, outwitting all of his previous efforts and proving he isn't simply a comedian capable of only silly faces.

Crispin Glover plays a very minor role as a one armed bell boy. Glover is best known for his role as the elder George McFly from the “Back to the Future” trilogy. For this film Glover drops any pretension of geekdom. Glover adopts an acting range from creepy to creepy but kind. His character pops up at just the right moments, providing some of the funniest scenes for the film.

All the lead characters of “Hot Tub Time Machine” has something to find in themselves. Cusack's Adam is hopelessly lost when it comes to finding lasting love. Robinson's Nick must come to terms with his self-denials. Corddry's Lou must overcome his failure to grasp a meaningful existence. For a film built on a premise of entire fun, “Hot Tub Time Machine” delivers a wealth of meaning.

“Hot Tub Time Machine” asks what is commitment? Not just in terms of adherence to space time continuity but to your friends. What matters more, friends or your own self interest? The characters are realized through their selfish motivations. When individualism fails and friendship makes the save, the film begins to truly shine.

There are morals points to “Hot Tub Time Machine,” but it never feels too soft. It feels real, heavy handed and masculine.

The film never tries to be funny because it simply is funny. For a comedy to succeed in making audiences laugh at the numerous gags and keep the plot coherent is amazing. Audiences will fall over and laugh at even the most absurd of situations. A scene with Corddry and Robinson in a bathroom comes to mind.

Some of “Hot Tub Time Machine's” most humorous moments are of the more raunchy variety. So be prepared to be shocked at various points.

A couple of plot points is an easy guess, but for the most part “Hot Tub Time Machine” never does exactly what the audience expects. It is this pleasant sense of real surprise that gives the film a true value. It is non-formulaic and freely analyzes some classic time travel films.

There is a lesson learned in “Hot Tub Time Machine,” one involving the value of true friendship and bitter honesty. It is a hopeful, delightful film that fans of Rated-R comedies  should not miss. And yes, I liked it better than “The Hangover.”

Shutter Island

In “Shutter Island” Leondardo DiCaprio spends much of his time scowling. He scowls at women, prison buildings and clothes. He spends so much time scowling, the film should instead be titled “Scowl Island.” Unfortunately “Scowl Island” can only exist in the form of being an audience member watching Martin Scorcese's latest effort in “Shutter Island.”

Set in the 1950's, the story centers around a mental hospital for psychotic criminals. The facility is located on an island. When a patient goes missing, U.S. Marshals Teddy Daniels (Leondardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) arrive to investigate. DiCaprio's Teddy constantly smokes, is temperamental and suffers from migraines. Ruffalo's Chuck smokes, is an amiable detective, and suffers from being partnered with Teddy.

Their arrival on the island is welcomed but their investigation is limited. A series of incidents leads the pair to believe their investigation is being slowly obstructed by an orchestrated conspiracy. Teddy believes there is a massive cover up concerning psychological experiments.

During course of the film, Teddy succumbs to hallucinations of his time as an Allied soldier liberating a concentration camp from Nazi control. These series of flashbacks reveal a complicated hero that is troubled by the cruelty of wartime experiments. Teddy never lets the past go, as is exhibited by his sense of guilt for the atrocities he has seen.

There is a a sense of dread upon entering the Shutter Island facility. The buildings are large, they appear ghostly and near demonic. One building is mentioned to have been repurposed from an old Civil War base. The theme of trauma is constantly being imparted by the film's dialogue and narrative. The criminally insane on the island are there because of trauma. The protagonist are there to resolve them.

Martin Scorcese channels a little of Hitchcock's suspense. Scenes are slow, the camera settles on characters and the areas DiCaprio's Teddy travels in is haunting. The island appears dangerous, because Teddy has not only the conspiracy of the island to contend with but also it's terrain and weather. It might as well have been shot in black and white, and not a difference would have been made. The musical score provides the most tangible sense of horror. Wonderful use of color comes when Teddy begins to hallucinate about his wife. The vivid colors becomes a huge contrast to the banality of the nearly gray palette of the reality presented in “Shutter Island.” Everything is dark and hidden in shadows. Every room an impending danger. Thus, making Teddy's dream like trance a rewarding safe haven from the muted reality.

The film is quite miserable. Not in a sense that the film is definitively bad, rather the film isn't a joyous trek. DiCaprio's Teddy never laughs, and seemingly never smiles. He is constantly on edge. In having a protagonist so wired, the film fails to find a safe way to move the plot along. At one point in the film Teddy makes a joke, but few of the audience members laugh because of the intensity of the film. The film is too intense, and is unpleasant.

Ben Kingsley brings in an eloquent performance as Dr. John Cawley. Kingsley acts with subtlety, a smile here and a slight sense of amusement there. An entire performance based on hidden emotions. It is clever acting that will never see an Oscar nod, but is accomplished nonetheless. This talented performer brings a great contrast to DiCaprio, who is firing on extreme emotions in nearly every scene. However, the variety of DiCaprio's performance is limited based on the requirements of the script. Watching DiCaprio scowl at everything and the sun is disappointing. Films are supposed to be about substance not an indulgent self-inflicted drudge through the emotions of constant despair and paranoia. Nothing about the film is uplifting.

The audience is spoon fed plot points in order to attempt to grasp the entire situation. It is not immediately made clear what exactly is occurring on “Shutter Island.” But by the time everything is figured out, the story becomes a major letdown. In the end it is impossible to cheer for the hero, because he was never in a position to be able to meet his challenges in the first place. Simple rule of film making and storytelling 101, have a hero that is able to either face his challenges or learn to face his challenges. “Shutter Island” does neither.

“Shutter Island” is a trek through terrific film making mortified by a conclusion that nearly photo copies the ending of “The Sixth Sense.” Save the pennies, and go rent a Martin Scorcese picture that has social values like “Casino.” Avoid “Shutter Island” because your sanity really does depend on it.

Mass Effect 2 [Xbox 360]

Someday humanity will master space-time travel and establish colonies on planets in various parts of the galaxies. Until that day arrives, Mass Effect 2 is the closest thing to galloping around the galaxy and interacting with alien species.

Mass Effect 2 premise isn't exactly original, Dune, Star Trek and Star Wars have tackled what the future looks like, or in the case of Star Wars what the past looks like. However, Mass Effect 2 remains highly compelling, complex and engaging. Because the territory isn't particularly unfamiliar players will find themselves easily immersed in the experience.

The Mass Effect Universe is filled with politics, alien species, and fancy space ships capable of light speed travel using devices known as Mass Relays. The Mass Relays are giant structures in space that allows light-speed travel to be possible.

Aliens and humans coexist. But because humans are the pestilence that they are, human colonies have emerged in the fringes of the galaxy. These human colonies are not approved of by the Alliance, the governing body of the future's version of the UN. Slowly each one of these human colonies disappear without a trace of how and why. Super pro-human centric mysterious organization Cerberus enlist the help of Commander Shepard to find out what is happening.

Commander Shepard can be male or female depending on player choice. Shepard can look like anything the player chooses Shepard to look like. A face editor allows players to control virtually every detail of Shepard's face. An in game a dialogue tree system is employed. Players choose what Shepard says and what Shepard does. Players are able to select their reaction, questions or statements when in conversation with another character. From a non-gamer perspective, it appears very much like an interactive film. The camera moves and the animation for characters are lifelike.

The number of characters the player is able to interact with is quite monumental. Set in outer space, the various alien races makes the player feels that all characters are different. Their voices are as varied as their appearance making it feel like Mass Effect 2 is filled with a galaxy of depth.

All of the voice acting is very well done. Notable celebrity voice work include Martin Sheen, Carrie Ann Moss and Michael Dorn famous for portraying Star Trek's Worf. Hearing Michael Dorn's familiar voice in a science fiction setting is worth the price of admission alone.

Mass Effect 2 can be best described as an RPG-Shooter. It blurs the genres together well. Mass Effect 2 does a lot of things very well.

The combat is utterly satisfying. The game consists of 70% combat and 30% role playing. Of course the role playing aspect is divided in sub categories like character development, space exploration and player choices. All of this is done seamlessly. The remarkable thing about the game is that the Mass Effect Universe is highly cohesive. Every aspect of the game fits together organically. In terms of politics Mass Effect 2 is highly political.

The game task the player to assemble a team of scientist, soldiers, and biotics. One of these recruitable characters is responsible for an alien atrocity. However, for all this fantastically shocking truth, the player understands the motivations of that particular character.

Mass Effect 2 is indeed about understanding. The game emphasizes the in game relationships and politics. The personal trauma of Shepard's crew, the personal role of saving the galaxy from emerging threats real or imagined. For a video game to be highly personal, and show high levels of personality this is amazing.

Mass Effect 2 isn't a movie, and cannot be done as a movie. The reason why Mass Effect 2 succeeds is its adherence to being a video game. It is immersive and visually spectacular. The production values of the game is top notch, and perhaps one of the most graphically potent video games this generation. From Illium to Omega, each world that the player is able to explore is designed differently. Each locale is populated with various alien species, and the player is able to interact with various members of the population on a multitude of levels.

As Commander Shepard, players will solve crimes, unite families and save the galaxy. Mass Effect 2 task the players with choices involving morality and questions what the heroic ideal means.

Mass Effect 2 is about loyalty as much as it is about saving the lives of millions. The questions and answers of Mass Effect revolves around loyalty to the galaxy and loyalty to your crew. The choices that are made will effect both equally in ways that cannot be comprehended without playing it yourself.

Mass Effect 2 is a video game from developers Bioware. It is only available for PC and Xbox 360. It is available now.