(Long Island, N.Y.) While “unfunny” comes to mind, the word I would most associate with Shrek Forever After, the third wretched sequel to the (actually pretty good) original Shrek, is “unnecessary.” This movie just didn’t need to be made. Actually, none of the sequels in this dead-horse franchise needed to be made, but you know how it works: movie makes money, movie

gets sequel. Dreamworks has announced this to be the last Shrek movie, but we all know that’s a vile, evil lie; if Shrek Forever After pulls in 100 mil in it’s opening weekend, you’ll be reading my review of Shrek Goes To Hell (what they

SHOULD name it, anyway) next year.

You know what the Shrek movies are- they’re CG cartoons that parody fairy tales and base their humor solely on pop-culture references are horribly dated 3 months after each movie is released. The Shrek series takes place in the magical land of “Far Far Away” and stars Mike Myers as Shrek, a big dumb, ill-tempered Ogre constantly thrust into the role of a hero; Eddie Murphy as Donkey, his grating sidekick, who’s, well, a talking donkey; and Cameron Diaz as Princess Fiona, a beautiful human woman who is eventually revealed to really be a female Ogre instead. Of course, she falls for Shrek’s *ahem* charms and disgusting mannerisms and eventually the two marry, producing spawn who will no doubt be quite the boon to the gene pool of Far Far Away for many generations to come. Together, the three of them have battled threats to their land ranging from “evil” dragons, 3-foot tall would-be dictators, and other assorted weirdos pulled from popular children’s folklore.

So, after three films filled with goofy misadventure, the fourth bomb finds Shrek a domesticated family man longing for the days when he was feared by the locals as a “true Ogre.” He apparently hates his new life so much that, just to get a one-day break, he’s talked into signing a magic contract by a guy named Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn), who offers him one day off where his life is back to normal, at the cost of one day of his childhood. Of course, not being bright enough to understand that signing any contract in a movie always screws you over eventually, the dim green boob happily puts his John Hancock in the form. Not having bothered to read the fine-print, Shrek then learns the hard way what the price of his day off is: the day from his childhood he has to give up is the DAY HE WAS BORN. Sadly, this didn’t retro-actively remove the entire Shrek film series from existence- remember, these movies are make-believe- but now Shrek finds himself in an alternate version of Far Far Away where he never existed.

Shocking to me was the fact that things were actually WORSE rather than BETTER- apparently Shrek managed to have a positive affect on things and with him removed from the picture, Far Far Away is in a bad way. It’s revealed that this was all a plot hatched by Rumpelstiltskin to change the events of the past and usurp the throne of the kingdom, and Shrek must get to

know his old friends and allies all over again if he’s to

defeat Rumpelstiltskin’s plans and return things to normal. One wonders why he bothers, though, since he was miserable to begin with. I say just count your blessings and move on.

You can tell a film series is on life-support when the filmmakers have to resort to the whole “alternate reality” bit to try and make things fresh (it’s the same idea as when TV shows add an adorable new child to the cast), but I guess its good to be able to re-use most of the old CG character models again. Sadly, this “new” concept doesn’t manage to revitalize the franchise for it’s fourth installment; instead, it just comes across as the final nail in the coffin. I’m not saying the movie is terrible, but it’s stale, not altogether funny, and reeks of being a re-tread cash-run made by the studio in an attempt to wring the last drops of dough from the concept.

Still, there’s a few good laughs hidden here and there among

the vast flood of pseudo-emotionalism and tired references to popular culture that are Shrek’s trademarks. Also, the visuals are pretty in a technical sense; everything is detailed, nicely rendered, and well-animated. However, I am just not a fan of the art style and character design- never have been. It’s an unattractive blend of realistic and cartoon-like styles that don’t serve each other well. Pixar does this combo in a lot of their movies too, but they actually know how to get it right. Dreamworks, take note.

As for the return cast of voice actors, they do a solid job with the material they’re given to recite into their respective microphones. Mike Myers must be overjoyed for one last opportunity (hopefully) to dust off his beloved (read as: obsessed with) Scottish accent, but he does a good job bringing Shrek to life and making you not complete hate the big, lumbering, grumpy oaf. As much as I’ve grown to hate the Shrek movies, I still can’t help being charmed a little by Myer’s performance. Just a little. Eddie Murphy, on the other hand, wore out his welcome as Donkey about 3 minutes into the first sequel. He’s Eddie Murphy at his most annoying, and he’ll make you wonder where the heck the hilarious and edgy guy that starred in “Delirious” and “Trading Places” ever went. Cameron Diaz is just okay- she doesn’t bring anything to Princess Fiona that any 300 other actresses could, but she delivers her lines, and they’re convincing for the

most part, so she gets a pass from me. But the two stand-outs of the film are Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots and Walt Dorm as Rumplestilskin. Dohrn does “smug villain” pretty much perfectly, and the swashbuckling Puss was always an enjoyable character in the previous Shrek films. Thankfully, Banderas hasn’t lost his touch; actually, hearing his smooth and suave accent coming from a now obese and lazy Puss in Boots (as he appears in the alternate Far Far Away) is pretty amusing.

But overall, Shrek Forever After is…not good. It’s a film made, not because some creative dude was all like “wow! I have a great and original idea to breathe new life into Shrek!” but because some suit probably said “wow! I need yet another new Rolex!” If you loved the formula followed devoutly by the previous Shrek movies, I guess you might like this movie. Non-fans, however, would be better served seeing How To Train Your Dragon (still in theaters!), proof that Dreamworks can still put out quality animation with heart and character (instead of fart/earwax jokes and references to Starbucks) when they actually want to.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Wow! My 100th movie review for Long Island Exchange and it’s Iron Man 2! Considering how much I was looking forward to the sequel to the 2008 Marvel Comics superhero movie, I’m overjoyed to be marking the history-making milestone that is my 100th review with it! And I couldn’t have done it with out you, my millions and millions of loyal readers. Here’s to the next 100…

So, do I really need to recap the plot of Iron Man? Didn’t you see it? Didn’t everyone? What? You didn’t? Well, okay…since we’re such good friends, I’ll fill you in. In the first Iron Man movie, we were introduced to one of the most unconventional and charismatic super heroes of all time: Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a playboy billionaire industrialist and arms manufacturer who is captured by terrorists and is forced to construct an invincible yet clunky mechanized exo-suit to effect his escape. Once back home he realizes he’s onto something, starts tinkering around in his workshop, and eventually refines his design into a sleek, high-tech, red and gold suit of armor. Tony uses this armor to protect the innocents suffering under terrorists using his company’s weapons, and soon comes into conflict with an evil business associate with an even bigger, meaner suit of metal duds. Iron Man was a movie that not only was a loyal adaptation of the comic it was based on, but an excellent movie when taken on its own, with equal parts personality, character development, and action.

Of course, Iron Man made tons of dough, which leads us here: to the inevitable sequel, again effectively directed by Jon Favreau. After outing his secret identity as Iron Man at the end of the first movie, Tony Stark’s life has become rather complicated: the government wants the designs for his armor; the magnetic arc reactor imbedded in his chest (the only way to keep his heart beating after an injury in the first movie) is slowly poisoning him; Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a crazy Russian with a vendetta, manages to re-create Stark’s arc reactor tech and comes gunning for him; and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), head of a secret government agency called SHIELD, keeps bugging Tony about starting up this little superhero group called The Avengers. Needless to say, Tony’s having a rough time, and to give himself a break he appoints his former personal assistant and current possible romantic interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) as CEO of Stark Industries.

However, things grow even more complicated when a rival weapons manufacturer named Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) teams with Vanko and gives him the resources to take on Iron Man head-to-head. The deck seems stacked against Tony, but help comes from his long-time friend James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard), wearing his own suit of armor: a heavily modified version of Tony’s older suit, known to comic book fans as “War Machine.” But can even the armored duo stand up to the deadly forces poised against them?

Overall, Iron Man 2 is a great follow-up to the original. Sure, it loses a bit of that “breath of fresh air” feeling the first movie had, but that’s to be expected; after all, it came out of nowhere and was a wonderful alternative to all the moping, gloom-and-doom superhero films going around at the time. Here we had Tony Stark, a hard-drinkin’, hard partyin’ guy who actually loved the idea of being a superhero. He was a genius and rich beyond words, but at the same time he had all-too-human frailties; in the comics, Stark is an alcoholic, and this malady is again hinted at in Iron Man 2’s narrative, just as it was in the first film. I can only assume that this is all a set-up for some kind of downfall for Tony in the third movie, which would make for some very compelling cinema indeed, as readers of the infamous “Demon in a Bottle” comic book story can attest to.

Again, the center of an Iron Man movie is not the action, or the fancy special effects (although they are really, really nice); it’s the ACTORS and their personalities. I can’t tell you how refreshing that is in this day and plastic age of style-over-substance. Robert Downey Jr. again gives a command performance in his role as Stark- he’s arrogant, thrill-seeking, a jerk, but somehow Downey Jr. manages to make him loveable, not despite his flaws, but actually BECAUSE of them. And worry not…his chemistry and playful relationship with Gwyneth Paltrow is just as endearing as ever. Mickey Rourke does a fearsome job portraying Ivan Vanko, with his authentic prison tattoos, the muscles left over from filming 2008’s The Wrestler, his accent, and his overall wacked-out appearance. Word is that Rourke did his “method actor” thing and spent time in actual Russian prisons to get into the part, and it shows; he’s real scary.

A lot of hoo-ha was raised in the press about Terrence Howard getting the heave-ho from the sequel and Don Cheadle taking his place. Howard said they didn’t honor his contract, Favreau says Howard was a pain to work with, blah, blah, blah. Whatever the reason, the fact remains: Don Cheadle is an improvement. First of all, he actually looks much more like the comic character, and second, he plays the role with a bit more conviction. Howard was fine, but he came across as somewhat weak and wishy-washy to me in the original. Moving on…Sam Rockwell was fun, and I’m glad to see him turning up in more big-name movies lately. If you’re not familiar with him, he made a flick a few years back called Moon; I highly recommend giving it a rent. Meanwhile, Samuel L. Jackson plays Samuel L. Jackson playing Samuel L. Jackson. You know, like he always does- no surprises from this man.

Iron Man 2 also features more of other things made the first movie popular; adventure, explosions, cutting-edge effects, fight scenes, and amazing tech design work courtesy of the late, great Stan Winston’s studio. The pace slows in parts, especially the middle, but while ADD-riddled action junkies might start squirming in their seats, the rest of us will realize that the movie is giving us some more of the great character-building moments that the first Iron Man delivered in spades. A highlight is a birthday party scene that possibly hints at drama to come in the sequel. But don’t worry, junior, something will blow up real pretty-like…and soon, I promise.

One thing about Iron Man 2 I feel I must point out: at times it feel like an extended ad for The Avengers film due to come out in 2012, with hints and references dropped every so often. For those that don’t know, The Avengers are a “super team” made up of Iron Man, Captain America (his movie is currently filming, starring Chris Evans), Thor (his movie’s filming too, directed by Kenneth Branagh), and The Hulk (his movie was released in 2008, starring Edward Norton). Previously, such a cinematic team-up was impossible because the movie rights to so many of Marvel Comic’s characters were owned by different studios. But now that Marvel is producing their own films, the idea of creating one whole Marvel film universe is becoming a reality. Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury will also appear in The Avengers, as will Scarlett Johansson‘s Black Widow, whose character makes her film debut here in Iron Man 2.

So, Iron Man 2: is it as good as the original? That’s hard to say, but I think the answer is yes. And considering how good the original was, that is one impressive feat indeed. Highly recommended, even if you’re NOT a comic book fan. By the way, remember to stick around until after the credits, kids…

(Long Island, N.Y.) Freddy Krueger. This horrific movie boogeyman got his start in 1984 in director Wes Craven’s groundbreaking horror classic, A Nightmare on Elm Street. It was the tale of a group of teens being preyed upon by a disfigured madman wearing a bladed glove named “Freddy.” The catch was that he was stalking and murdering them while they slept; Freddy had the power to invade his victim’s dreams, a place where anything can happen and there is no escape. Creepy, huh? You betcha.

Anyway, the success of NOES (I love that abbreviation!) spawned a franchise, with each successive installment growing more comedic and lame, until the series was supposedly shelved for good. Now, while I may be a much bigger Friday the 13th fan and was firmly rooting for my boy Jason Voorhees in 2003’s terrible movie monster match-up Freddy Vs. Jason, even I must concede that the first Nightmare flick was one of the most effective horror films ever made. Don’t kill me, Jason!

Of course, even a monstrous mass-murderer like Freddy can fall victim to the most heinous predator of all: the dreaded Hollywood remake machine. Yeah, Jason got the treatment last year, and the success of the Friday the 13th remake has now set producer Michael Bay’s sights on Mr. Krueger. But while I was glad about the Friday remake simply because it meant I’d be getting new installments of my favorite slasher franchise, the idea newly-rebooted Nightmare had me conflicted. I mean, aside from some dated special effects, the original NOES is a true horror classic in every sense of the word, whereas the F13 flicks are just fun carbon-copies of each other. While NOES might benefit from a modern coat of paint, I had my doubts that, in terms of story and suspense, a remake could even touch its forbearer. Let’s see if I’m right, okay?

A Nightmare on Elm Street is about…well, a bunch of kids having nightmares on Elm Street. Nancy Holbrook that indigestion isn’t the issue. The teens struggle to stay awake to save themselves, we all know that will work for only just so long, right? Eventually the sleep deprivation causes Nancy and her friends to start having random “micro-naps,” which is the movie’s way of letting Freddy pop up whenever he darn well pleases. And as usual, the grown-ups never believe anything the kids say, so you know they’re being no help. They just rightfully think their children are going nuts.

Anyway, it turns out that the man attacking the teens in their dreams was a real, live man once, and that they all may share an unknown past with him…one none of them can remember. As the kids’ numbers start to dwindle, Nancy struggles to uncover their connection to the unstoppable demon plaguing them. But the answers provide no comfort; indeed, they uncover a truth even more horrible than Nancy could have ever imagined.

As far as remakes go, this one was perhaps one of the most unnecessary ever. It felt plastic, corporate, and by the numbers. The producers seemed to cherry pick all the best scenes from the original NOES, grabbed one of the thousands of teen slasher flick scripts gathering dust in their filing cabinets, added some rather out-of-date CG, threw it all in a pot and came up with…well, this. And Samuel Bayer’s direction came across as the forced work of a simple hired gun. This was a remake made, not because the filmmakers felt they could add or expand upon the source material, but solely for the sake of making a quick buck on name recognition. And you know what? It shows in every single frame.

The fans balked when it was announced that long-time Freddy actor Robert Englund was being replaced, but when they discovered that it would be by Watchmen’s Jackie Earle Haley they grew interested, since Haley is known for his gritty, odd characters. What he does with Freddy is solid, but really, Englund originated the character and, when he wasn’t doing ill-suited stand-up material, he was pretty darn frightening. Haley was good, but with his slight build (although Euglund was no Schwarzenegger, either), electronically altered voice, and less-threatening mannerisms (Englund was “twitchier”), he didn’t seem to capture the role as well as his predecessor. Oh, and the new change in Freddy’s make-up design isn’t for the better, either. The filmmakers claim they were going for a more realistic “burn victim” look, but to me he kinda looks like a frog.

Of course, when taken on its own and not compared to the original, NOES is actually okay. Well, okay in the sense that it didn’t make me want to walk out or anything. It has its moments of atmospheric terror and some effective (but cheap) jump scares. The cast are just a bunch of your typical 20-somethings playing teenagers and they all look like they were discovered by those “New Faces” scouts camped out at every mall in the land. No one embarrasses themselves, but no one stands out, either. Clancy Brown pops up as one of the teen’s father, but even he wasn’t on his A-game. And sadly, the NOES remake doesn’t take advantage of modern tech to go completely crazy with the Dreamscape like I was hoping it would. In reality, much of the effects work rather unimaginative and sub-par, which really makes you wonder why the producers bothered in the first place. Oh, right. They wanted your money.

So, we come to our conclusion…I’ll make it quick: The Nightmare on Elm Street remake is as soulless and unneeded as any remake made nowadays, but when not compared to the original (which is hard not to do), it stands as an okay time-waster. But the disturbing fact remains: Hollywood will remake anything for a quick buck, and I mean ANYTHING. I wouldn’t be surprised if they make a remake of the NOES remake next year. Sound crazy? Hey, they’re already rebooting Spider-Man, and the last one was only 3 years ago! Someone make it stop!

(Long Island, N.Y.) The Losers is a comic book movie based on a comic book I have never heard of. I don’t know how this reflects upon me, but I’m going to assume that the Vertigo/DC-published comic was fairly obscure; the only other options are that A) I’m tragically unhip, which is impossible, or B) I’m not as big of a geek as I’ve been worrying, which is a relief, as my recent hunt for a Doctor Who Cyberman action figure had me thinking otherwise.

Oh, right. The Losers. It’s kinda like the A-Team…no, wait, it’s EXACTLY like the A-Team. Members of an elite Special Forces team (each with their own specialty) are betrayed while on a mission in the Bolivian jungle, framed for a crime they didn’t commit, and, as far as the outside world knows, were killed. Of course, this is not the case, or the movie would only be 10 minutes long. Anyway, lead by Franklin Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), The Losers (I don’t recall them actually being called that in the movie, but whatever) lay low in some stinky backwater town and plan their next move. Along comes Aisha (Zoe Saldana, who played Uhura in the recent Star Trek reboot), a mysterious and deadly woman who first appears to be an enemy, then a friend, then an enemy, and eventually a friend again. Or something. Confused? I am.

So, Aisha (while in friend mode) offers The Losers the chance to clear their names and strike back at the man who set them up to die- smarmy a CIA operative named Max (Jason Patric), whose agenda includes naughty things like selling Weapons of Mass Destruction to the highest bidder. Needless to say, The Losers, while not trusting Aisha, decide they have no choice and embark on a final mission they may not walk away from.

The best phrase to describe The Losers is this: “It was okay.” That’s not to say that it didn’t have several aspects that made it stand out, but overall it was…”just okay.” The story is serviceable but barely there and rather inconsequential. The action scenes are solid and plentiful but somewhat bland and run-of-the-mill. It’s paced well, but it goes nowhere. It has awkward introduction scenes to each new locale that include giant block lettering floating over the terrain or the water, I guess because it looks cool. People are shot in the arms and legs and then use those very same limbs five minutes later, running and climbing up telephone poles like Olympic athletes. Huh? What?

So, do you see where I’m going with this? No? Well, I’ll spell it out plainly, then: on the surface, The Losers is just like every other recent, flashy action flick- all style, no substance. Well…almost, anyway.

Where The Losers actually shines is in the personality department- it’s got loads of it. It helps that the ensemble cast are all genuinely likable and have great chemistry with one another. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was good as the grizzled veteran and leader of the band. Columbus Short, previously known for roles in dance flicks, played the fairly down-to-Earth Linwood “Pooch” Porteous, a man that just wants to get home for the birth of his child. The rest of The Losers are rounded out by Idris Elba as William Roque, a big mean guy, and Óscar Jaenada as Carlos “Cougar” Alvarez, a guy who doesn’t say much but is very good at shooting people from miles away.

Jason Patric was fun as Max, although he did play the role with a rather large amount of quirkiness. He also did stupid, stereotypical “bad guy” stuff like shooting lackeys who didn’t hold his umbrella straight just to show you that yes, he is indeed a bad guy. But I really want to get to Zoe Saldana’s performance as Aisha, because I’m rather perplexed about it. Zoe, while possessing the correct tough-girl attitude and demeanor for the role, sadly continues the lame trend in modern action movies where gaunt, rail-thin supermodels can kick more ass than any 3 men in the movie combined. I mean, there’s a scene where twig-woman Zoe is totally holding her own in a brutal fistfight with a guy that outweighed her by at least 100 pounds. No matter what, that kind of thing just can’t be taken seriously. At least cast a woman with a solid build, one that maybe looks like she hits the gym and eats more than a small bowl of spinach a day.

Now that we’re past all that, I have to say that this movie really belongs to Chris Evans, who you might remember as The Human Torch in the horrible Fantastic Four movies. Here, he plays Jake Jensen, the “hacker” of the team, which means he’s the only member of the team that wears glasses, which (of course) means that he’s smart. I’m actually starting to become a pretty big fan of Chris Evans- he’s funny, with a good sense of comic timing combined with a physicality that an actor needs if he’s going to be in an action movie. He reminds me a little of Ryan Reynolds, only he’s not annoying or effeminate. Evans has another comic book film coming up- Captain America: The First Avenger, which is currently filming. Hopefully it’ll prove to be his big break in the business.

As an aside, I remember reading an article on The Losers where director Sylvain White claimed that the movie contained no CG whatsoever, which would have been a refreshing change of pace in the CG-obsessed world we live in. However, this wasn’t quite the case. There was CG early in the movie: when a jet bombs a compound, and when a helicopter is shot down and blows up- all 100% CG. And it was terrible, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra-level CG as well. Just comically bad. When your dramatic scene of destruction and loss of human life causes the theater crack up instead of being horrified, you know you have yourself some bad, bad CG.

So, in closing: The Losers is an “okay” movie, but it’s cast manages to make watching it more worthwhile and it would be for any other “okay” action movie starring less interesting actors. Worth checking out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Kick-Ass, a hyper-violent new action/comedy based on a Marvel comic book, is causing some degree of controversy. That controversy is mostly centered around the 11-year old superhero “Hit-Girl” who cusses and kills bad guys left and right with an assortment of guns and bladed weapons. Personally, I enjoyed the character, but I’m sick. Seriously, though, I enjoyed Hit-Girl in much the same way that I enjoy anything that crosses lines in an attempt to be different from the norm. But also, in the back of my mind, I wondered how her parents could let their kid

portray such a risqué character (obviously they’re either wonderful or horrible people). And deep down, I can understand why people might be bent out of shape… heck, even film critic god Roger Ebert himself called the idea of Hit-Girl “morally reprehensible,” and went on to denounce Kick-Ass for its supposed effect on the kids that will inevitably view it.

Now, I’m going to take the obvious route here and point out that Kick-Ass is an R-rated movie; it’s made for adults, NOT children. Of course, what does that rating really mean? Kids, with or without parental consent, will get into the theater one way or another. For example, a friend of mine reported seeing a row of 5 year-olds(!!!) at the showing he attended. Um, hello? Child Protective Services?

But does the fact that kids will manage to watch Kick-Ass in any way invalidate it’s existence? Alcohol isn’t for children either, but High School kids hold keg parties every weekend. Does that make alcohol “morally reprehensible”? What about cigarettes? Porn? Firearms? Spray Paint? My point is, calling a movie (or anything else) aimed at grown-ups to task for its detrimental effects on those too young to legally consume it is a tad much. Personally, I find it more disturbing that people are upset over Hit-Girl’s potty mouth and not the amount of blood she spills, not to mention a rather explicit sex scene between 2 other underage characters at one point. As per the norm in America, sex and violence is fine as long as you don’t drop the F-Bomb.

Kick-Ass, directed by Matthew Vaughn, has an interesting development history, which began before the first issue of the comic it’s based on had even hit newsstands. Intrigued by the gritty and (somewhat) realistic take of youths donning costumes and fighting crime in a world where such activities are normally confined to comic books and TV, Vaughn got in touch with the creators of the graphic novel (Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr.) and worked out a movie deal. Approaching major studios for financing, Vaughn was told to cut down the violence, make the characters older, and so on…all things he refused to do. He eventually found independent backing, which enabled him to thumb his nose at the Hollywood big-wigs and do pretty much whatever he wanted. And boy, did he ever.

Our film involves Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), an average (if geeky) teenager who, inspired by comic books, dubs himself “Kick-Ass” and dons a green wetsuit to become a superhero. Of course, he has no idea what he’s doing and is soon beaten, stabbed, and run over by a car. Believe it or not, this misfortune is actually a stroke of luck- between the extensive nerve damage and the plates and screws now holding him together, Dave emerges from the hospital far hardier and more capable of withstanding a beating. His enthusiasm undeterred, he throws himself back into his “duties” and soon becomes an overnight sensation when kids film him single-handedly defending someone from a gang and uploads it to YouTube.

Kick-Ass soon attracts the attention of the brutal crime fighting duo of Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and his daughter, Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz), who see potential in the clumsy yet passionate Kick-Ass. Unfortunately, he also attracts the attention of Mafia kingpin Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) an his son Chris (McLovin himself, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who has succeeded in forever typecasting himself as a nerd). They mistake Kick-Ass for the masked vigilante responsible for thwarting their recent schemes when it was actually Big Daddy, who has a long-standing vendetta against D’Amico. D’Amico’s son Chris,

eager to prove himself to his

father, hatches a plan to draw Kick-Ass out by posing as a fellow superhero, “Red Mist.” Soon Big Daddy and Hit-Girl are also drawn in by Red Mist’s deceit, which leads to a bloody and final confrontation between the heroes and the mob.

Kick-Ass is a fun entry into the swelling comic book-based movie field, effectively serving as both a unique take on superhero films and an effective satire of the genre itself. The cast is collectively very good- British actor Aaron Johnson, with his flawless American accent and intense, awkward delivery, especially stood out. Nic Cage was a lot of fun as Big Daddy, seemingly channeling the spirit of William Shatner whenever in costume, while assuming a far goofier demeanor the rest of the time. But the scene-stealer, of course, is Chloë Grace Moretz’s Hit-Girl. It’s not because she’s a good actress (she is); it’s because you don’t normally see movies where masked 11 year-old girls look into the camera and growl insults that make the collective jaw of the audience drop to the popcorn-stained carpet of the theater in shock. Oh, and then she proceeds to slice a room of thugs into piles of quivering, bloody sushi- that’s an attention-getter as well. It’s nothing that Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn’t done better when he was making action flicks, but we’re talking about a CHILD, here. Geez.

In addition of getting solid performances out of his actors, Matthew Vaughn has put together a excellent film on a technical level. The editing of the fight scenes is about as good as it gets- tight editing, camera work and choreography ensure you see and feel every visceral blow landed in each fight. The pacing, aside from one exception covered below, is fast, and the production design is inspired and true to the comic- in addition to the costumes and weapons looking authentic, a nice touch includes a character’s origin scene rendered using cell-shaded computer graphics, giving the appearance of a 3D comic book come to life.

However, there are problems with Kick-Ass. Minor is the fact that it slows down mid-way and starts to drag a bit. It eventually regains its composure and the pace picks up, but that speed bump is exactly what the otherwise fast-paced movie didn’t need. But the bigger problem lies with the characters: despite being a fairly likable bunch (reportedly more so than they were in the comic), they’re not fleshed out in any way, and as a result, it’s hard to be moved when the big emotional scenes come up…and they do. Although it started out rather lightheartedly, Kick-Ass took a decidedly dark turn halfway through and when tragedy struck, I felt myself oddly disconnected. Now, I understand that this is primarily an action/comedy and not some overwrought drama, but if you’re going to inject the film with dramatic elements in an attempt to draw in the audience, you darn well better give them a reason to care. Kick-Ass doesn’t do really bother to do this. Occasionally you’re reminded that the characters are human beings, but make no mistake; all this movie is really about are laughs and cool characters slaughtering the bad guys in flashy, over-the-top ways. Which, when just taken on it’s own, can be a good thing as long as you don’t expect anything more from it.

So, while not without its faults, Kick-Ass is a fine example of a film made outside the restrictive Hollywood studio system and the risks/departures from the norm it can take as a result. If you’re in any way a fan of superhero or action movies, not to mention the idea of breaking the homogenized, focus-tested stranglehold major studios have over film development, be sure to support it. And if you take your little children to see it thinking “Oh, how cute- superheroes! This’ll tide little Jimmy and Mandy over until the next Spiderman movie,” please beat yourself over the head with

a brick. Kick-Ass is rated R for a reason, people!

(Long Island, N.Y.) Remember last week, when I reviewed

the remake of Clash of the Titans and said that is was a solid action movie, but ultimately generic and forgettable? Well, Date Night, the new comedy starring Steve Carell and Tina Fey, pretty much evokes the same exact response. You’ll get some good chuckles out of it, sure, but given the very tangible talents of its stars, Date Night was surely capable of so much more.

The plot is rather simple: Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey) are your typical married couple whose relationship, burdened with bills, unfulfilling jobs, annoying kids, and a near-fanatical adherence to routine, has grown stale and comfortable. In other words, boring. They get a bit of a wake-up call when some of their friends break up for the very same reason, but Phil and Claire’s idea to combat the ennui eroding their marriage isn’t exactly ground-breaking: they simply change the restaurant they go to on their weekly “date night.” However, this joint is a bit more swank and exclusive, and, unable to get a table, Phil evokes the name of a couple on the reservation list who have no-showed: the Tripplehorns.

All seems good- excellent food, fine wine, opulent surroundings- until two thugs show up, mistake Phil and Claire for the Tripplehorns, drag them outside, and start demanding a stolen flash drive at gunpoint. The claims that they simply masqueraded at the Tripplehorns to get a table going unheeded, Phil and Claire manage to outwit and ditch the thugs, but when they go to the police with their story, things get worse instead of better. Soon, the Fosters are on the lam from both the law and the lawless in an attempt to clear their names. Of course, it turns out that this little dose of excitement is just what their relationship needed; naturally, once that wears off, they’ll probably gravitate back to the same exact holding pattern as before, but why sully our tale with a dose of reality? That’s not why we go to the movies, after all.

It’s hard to say what exactly I do and don’t like about Date Night. It certainly doesn’t go out of its way to either be very funny or very bad; it’s merely content with being competent at what it does. Yet Carell and Fey both possess an inherent charisma, likeability, and sense of comic timing, and their chemistry made the experience of watching Date Night far more palatable than if it was helmed by lesser actors. The pace of the film is fairly brisk as well, so it’s not like you’re squirming in your seat waiting for something to happen…it’s just that nothing comes that really engages you or tries TOO hard to be funny. As I said in my opening paragraph, this is a film that’s about chuckles, not laughs. And that’s fine, if that’s all you aspire to. After all, not every film can knock it out of the park (I try to avoid clichés in my writing whenever possible, that that’s all that came to me), but I’d rather see a movie try to deliver more and fail than not even step up to the plate (arrggh! Another cliché!).

Date Night’s status as simply a mediocre film is a shame, because Carell and Fey are not the only draws in terms of star power and talent: Mark Wahlberg (who’s pretty funny in this, but mostly because he plays his character straight), Ray Liotta, James Franco, and Mila Kunis (among others) also headline. But while they all contribute something worthwhile, it still wasn’t enough to take this flick to the next level. You could blame the rather pedestrian script for Date Night’s issues, but more likely the blame falls squarely on the shoulders (another cliché!) of director Shawn Levy. After all, it’s the director’s job to translate the shooting script into something watchable, and he should have been able to tell something was off and made changes to inject life into this somewhat flaccid picture. As it is, it’s an okay effort, but, at the risk of becoming repetitive, I must once again re-state the missed opportunity Date Night is. In a way I’m annoyed more so by this than I was by Clash of the Titans’ failure to be compelling; after all, Clash was your typical special-effects driven “blockbuster” movie, and they almost always sacrifice brains in favor of mass-appeal. Comedies usually have smaller budgets and thus can afford to take risks and be different, so what’s Date Night’s excuse?

It’s hard to write much more about Date Night. I mean, it’s a good bet if you’re looking to be entertained and that’s what we go to the movies for, right? But with ticket prices rising to near-astronomical levels these days, movies are becoming less escapist entertainment and more of a luxury. For at least twelve bucks or more, do you want to merely be “amused” or “not bored?” If so, Date Night would certainly fit the bill, but I’d personally recommend taking a chance on another film currently playing in theaters: Dreamwork’s animated feature, How to Train Your Dragon. Yes, it’s being marketed to kids, but it’s a great example of the animated genre with the heart, intelligence, and creativity that would appeal to the adult viewer as well. Think on it.

Oh, and if you do opt to see Date Night, there’s the obligatory after-credits sequence to watch involving some alternate takes of a certain scene that’s worth watching. It’s nothing amazing, but you might as well squeeze every penny out of your twelve dollars, right?

(Long Island, N.Y.) I’m tired and cranky, so in case that comes through as I write this review, I’ll just preemptively apologize now. But don’t worry- I’ll try my best to be a professional, even through a lot of what Hollywood pumps out these days makes that difficult. Case in point: the remake of the 1981 fantasy film, Clash of the Titans, directed by Louis Leterrier (of 2008’s The Incredible Hulk).

Now, if you’ve read my column here for any length of time, you’d probably know that I, like so many out there, am sick of Hollywood’s insistence on remaking almost every movie ever created, even if they were made perfectly well the first time around. Will Smith even gave his son Jayden a birthday present by producing a remake of the Karate Kid and giving him the starring role, despite the kid’s complete lack of charisma or acting ability. Nepotism rules! But wait, I’m getting off track.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, remakes. I hates ’em. But when it was announced that Clash of the Titans was getting the treatment, I wasn’t actually offended by the idea. Now, I loved the original as a kid. It was a creepy and atmospheric trek into the bizarre and fascinating world of Greek Mythology, loaded with personality. However, it also had an abundance of cheese, and Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion work was a tad primitive-looking even back then (while I absolutely LOVE stop-motion animation on its own, I usually hate it when it’s inserted into a live-action film; it just doesn’t mesh well, in my opinion), two big reasons I felt that Clash of the Titans would actually benefit from a modern-day retelling. And well, yeah, Clash did indeed come through pretty well in that department, but it also forgets about what made the original work so well, despite its shortcomings. The result is a very pretty movie with tons of eye-blistering CG, but no brains or charisma whatsoever.

Clash of the Titans is the tale of Perseus who, unbeknownst to him, is a demigod and the illegitimate son of Zeus, ruler of the gods of Mount Olympus (played by Liam Neeson, who just plain rules), after a tryst with a human woman. Bad news: this particular woman was married, and when her hubby finds out, he casts his wife and Perseus out to sea to die. Zeus makes sure the baby is rescued (but not the mother…that’s cold, dude) by a kindly fisherman who raises Perseus as his own. A few throwaway scenes take place to obnoxiously drive home how much his new family loves him, and then we flash-forward 12 years so adult Perseus (Sam Worthington of Avatar and Terminator Salvation fame) can watch the family that loves him so much die at the hands of Hades, god of the Underworld (played by Ralph Fiennes). Of course, Perseus gets mad and vows to kill Hades.

While all this is going on, there’s another plot where the human race, created by Zeus, is now turning against the gods of Mount Olympus for…well, they never really bother to say what, but they’re peeved about it, whatever it is. The humans start pulling down statues of Zeus and that’s got the Big Man annoyed. The gist of it is that Zeus needs the love and prayers of humans to remain strong, and with the humans being all belligerent and all, Hades convinces Zeus that they need to stir things up and release this giant thingy called the Kraken to kick butt. Zeus, despite normally being a nice guy, is all for it. They target this city called Argos after its Queen stupidly dares to compare the beauty of her daughter, Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) to the Goddess of Hotness herself, Aphrodite. Biiiig mistake. Hades shows up and declares that Andromeda must be sacrificed in 30 days or the Kraken will stomp the city flat. Perseus decides this is the perfect chance to get his revenge, so he goes off on a quest to destroy both the Kraken and Hades himself. But even with the blood of Zeus flowing through his veins, is he up to the task?

Alas, Clash of the Titans is like every movie made nowadays- all flash, no substance or personality (the original had it the other way around). I’m not kidding when I say that the second you walk out the theater, the movie is forgotten; it’s THAT generic and by the books. You never care about one character in the movie, not one second is spent establishing who they are, so you feel no tension or empathy for them whatsoever. I’m actually getting bummed by how commonplace this filmmaking approach is getting lately; you just don’t find yourself on the edge of your seat anymore. Also, thanks to how good modern CG is, it’s getting impossible to be awed by anything you’re exposed to. You’re reduced to basically watching a Playstation game, but in that case the least they could have done was attach a controller to the seat in the theater so you could make Perseus actually do something unexpected and interesting. Just a thought.

In defense of the remake, however, I have to say this: a lot of critics who wax nostalgic about the original Clash are complaining that, in the 2010 version, Perseus isn’t motivated to go on his quest by the love of Andromeda, but instead for revenge against Hades. That the original was, in fact, a love story, and with that element missing, the remake loses out. But those people tend to forget that, in the 1981 Clash of the Titans, Perseus had never even met Andromeda. After spying on her with his invisible hat like some creepy stalker, Perseus just shows up in the throne room, answers a goofy riddle to win her hand, and…well, that’s the extent of their heartfelt relationship that drives the whole movie. He doesn’t know a thing about this girl, yet the clod still feels compelled to fight every creature out of Greek Mythology’s Bestiary to save her. Meanwhile, I feel like I accomplished a lot if I remember my girlfriend’s birthday. I’m tellin’ ya…some guys just try too hard.

Personally, I don’t get all the praise being heaped on Ralph Fiennes for his portrayal of Hades. He skulks around like Quasimodo, speaks in this annoying, raspy whisper, and looks like the bum with male pattern baldness that pestered me on the subway the other day for a dollar so he could buy rubbing alcohol. Needless to say, he’s the least imposing god of the Underworld ever and was much better as Lord Voldermort in the Harry Potter movies. Liam Neeson, on the other hand, with his long hair, beard, gleaming armor and cape, cut quite the majestic figure as Zeus. When he walked up to his throne, spun around for dramatic effect, and decreed “Release the Kraken!!” in a booming voice, I got chills. Seriously. Even in cruddy movies, Neeson manages to rise above the material and be watchable. Neeson was a fantastic Zeus, and a great successor to Sir Laurence Olivier, who played the Lord of Olympus in the 1981 original.

As for Sam Worthington, he is officially the blandest lead actor in the history of celluloid. How in the world did he manage to get thrust into the limelight out of nowhere like this? I just don’t get it. All he manages to convey with his performance if that he’s kinda mad, and his Australian accent is now slipping through more than it did in Terminator and Avatar put together. Mads Mikkelsen as Draco, leader of the Praetorian Guard, is enjoyable, and the rest of the cast is solid but nothing special. I guess it’s hard to do any serious acting when you’re playing opposite a giant green screen.

I must at least give major points to Clash of the Titans for it’s imagination when it comes to visually depicting its world- the CG, for the most part, is top-notch; both the breathtaking designs of Mount Olympus and the various hideous monsters that try to eat our intrepid hero are beautifully conceived and executed. I especially enjoyed this version of the evil Medusa, with her mane of living snakes adorning the face of a lovely, porcelain-skinned human woman. Nice contrast, there. The skeletal boatman was quite effective as well.

Overall, the Clash of the Titans remake is a decent way to kill time, but not much more. If you’re just looking for some action, it’s a good bet, but just be prepared for a film that doesn’t suprise you or involve you on any emotional level at all. You’ll most likely watch it, leave the theater, and not spend another thought on it as long as you live. That doesn’t make it a bad movie at all, but shouldn’t we want an experience that’s a bit more lasting than that? We used to get it years ago- when I was a kid, I’d go and see fare like Raiders of the Lost Ark and run out afterwards wanting to BE Indiana Jones. But I can’t see anyone wanting to be Perseus. Take that as you will.

As a side note: if at all possible, avoid watching the 3D version of Clash of the Titans and instead see the regular 2D version. Apparently, the movie was filmed solely in 2D but the studio forced the filmmakers to shoehorn the 3D effect in late during post-production after then saw all the dough Avatar was raking in. As a result, the 3D in Clash is barely-existent and terrible. Just a friendly heads-up from your pal Chris at Long Island Exchange.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Ah, the 1980’s. An era of big hair, greed, neon, and non-stop partying. It was also a time that delivered film audiences some of the most memorable comedies ever, so you knew it was only a matter of time before Hollywood found a way to cash in on

all that nostalgia. Enter “Hot Tub Time Machine,” a hilarious parody of the 80’s that uses the simplest of plot devices to transport four hapless

modern-day men back to the decade where Don Johnson and Michael J. Fox ruled: a hot tub time machine.

Seriously, it’s a hot tub that’s also a time machine when you pour Russian energy drinks on it! I know it makes no sense, and the filmmakers also make no attempt whatsoever to explain why a innocent-looking hot tub would hurl its occupants through the time-space continuum. However, keeping the ins and outs of the whats and the whys on the down low (did that make sense? I think it did) allows Hot Tub Time Machine to get right to business entertaining us without slowing down to explain useless techno babble. Onward.

Hot Tub Time Machine is basically Back To The Future with a Hot Tub instead of a DeLorean. It deals with three unhappy middle-aged men who all had potential failed to live up to: Adam (John Cusack), who’s very unlucky-in-love; Lou (Rob Corddry), a drunken loser; and Nick (Craig Robinson), an emasculated dog groomer who blew his big shot in the music biz.

After a despondent Lou’s failed suicide attempt, the guys try and cheer him up by taking a trip to the fun ski resort town which also served as a major turning point of their collective youth. With Adam’s geeky nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) tagging along, the guys are horrified to discover that the once-bustling resort is now run-down and practically deserted. Trying to make the best of a bad situation, they end up getting loaded and pass out in the outdoor hot tub. Oh, and then they wake up in the year 1986, still looking old to each but like their young 1986 selves to everyone else…isn’t that odd? By the way, Jacob still looks normal, as he hasn’t been born yet. Well, normal, except for the fact that he’s starts becoming randomly transparent (ala Marty McFly) due to changes in the past possibly affecting the chances of his future birth. Again, just like Back To The Future!

So, the gang goes about trying to figure out what the heck’s going on, while vowing not to change anything that could alter the future. Of course, this line of thinking quickly goes out the window and soon the guys are engaging in all sorts of tomfoolery in an attempt to right the wrongs of their misspent youth. Meanwhile, they receive visits from a mysterious hot tub repairman (Chevy Chase!) who keeps dropping vague hints about what they should and should not be doing while he’s fixing their broken tub. But even if Chevy CAN fix the hot tub, will our heroes’ lives be better or worse when they return to 2010? Time travel movies can be funny like that.

Let’s get this out of the way- Hot Tub Time Machine is pretty darn amusing. Craig Robinson really steals the show…his delivery, mannerisms, and overall attitude make him one of the funniest guys in film today. There’s a scene where he’s forced to cheat on his wife (technically; in 1986, he’s not actually married yet) to preserve future events, and he’s weeping and calling the girl his wife’s name the entire time. Priceless. Rob Corddry as the party hound Lou was a highlight as well, playing the usual “gross” character that you always see in this sort of movie. But on the other end of the spectrum was John Cusack, whose attempts to hold up his end of the raunchy humor came across as very forced. I’m not saying that he’s in any way bad- he’s just clearly a little awkward when it comes to this type of material. Clark Duke is

solid and gets his share of the laughs; his many clashes with Lou are some of the best scenes in the movie.

Also, as a film that both parodies and pays homage to the 80’s, we have cameos from a few of its well-known stars. Already mentioned was Chevy Chase, but we also have wacko Crispin Hellion Glover playing a one-armed bellhop and William Zabka (sweep the leg, Johnny!) as a gun-wielding bar patron. Alas, this (very) small handful of guest-stars worked out so well that I found myself disappointed that the film didn’t have more of them. Imagine the Anthony Michael Hall, Robert Downey Jr., and Molly Ringwald showing up in various bit parts…the possibilities were endless.

Speaking of paying homage to the 80’s, it’s actually less of a factor in Hot Tub Time Machine then you’d think. Once the required jokes about Michael Jackson, cassette players, Jheri Curls, Miami Vice and gaudy pastels are used up, the time period doesn’t actually come into play that much. Likewise, gags involving the whole time travel aspect are pretty much left alone as well, at least until the end. This is just a movie that drops its characters into the past and lets them do their thing without constantly shoving extremely dated pop-culture references down your throat like Adam Sandler’s The Wedding Singer did. Thankfully.

There are things I COULD complain about regarding Hot Tub Time Machine… John Cusack acquires a hot-and-heavy love interest in record time (even when taking into consideration how quickly typical celluloid relationships pan out), many additional plot elements are *ahem* “borrowed” from Back To The Future, and there’s the typical sappy interlude near the end of the flick where the characters bicker about how they let each other down when they needed each other the most, blah, blah, blah. But the film is otherwise so good-natured and down-right funny that you don’t really care about its little imperfections; unless you suffer from OCD, you’ll just find yourself being entertained.

So, Hot Tub Time Machine is one of the best comedies to be churned out by Hollywood in quite some time. Highly recommended.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Brooklyn’s Finest is an odd film for me to review. An ensemble crime drama starring an eclectic cast of veteran actors (including the welcome return of Wesley Snipes to feature films after an extended stint in Direct-To-DVD Land), Brooklyn’s Finest started out strong. Very strong. As the various characters were introduced, you really got a feeling that their various story-lines were interweaving and converging to an incredible climax.

You knew things weren’t going to end well, but for who? And why? And how? The tension kept redoubling until it was almost unbearable, but then Brooklyn’s Finest committed the cardinal sin: it lost its focus and squandered the amazing atmosphere of impending doom it worked so hard to establish. Suddenly, the tapestry of the character’s stories began to unravel, and you could feel the air being let out of the picture…or perhaps it was just me sighing at the missed opportunity of a fantastic payoff. Brooklyn’s Finest eventually gets itself back on track (somewhat), but to tease us, cut us off, and then start up again like nothing happened was completely anti-climatic. And stupid.

But, I’m getting a head of myself. Let me do the usual storyline/character recap first: Brooklyn’s Finest is actually comprised of three separate tales set in the eponymous NYC borough that slowly intertwine over the course of its running time. The stories are:

1. Eddie Dugan (Richard

   Gere

   ), a lackluster beat cop one week

   from retirement. His career is exemplified by gross mediocrity and, as a final F-U from his rather disgusted superiors, he is given

   the unenviable task of breaking in new recruits during his last days on the force. Adding to his shame is that fact that his only friend is a hooker who, in addition to serving his carnal needs, also manages to listen to his constant whining without snickering. That’s the power of a $100 bill, folks.

2. Salvatore “Sal” Procida (Ethan Hawke), a detective who, despite not being able to pay his bills or come up with a down payment on a much-needed new house, still insists on pumping out kid after kid with his equally dim wife, Angela (Lili Taylor). From what I was able to gather, Sal has 3 daughters, 2 sons, and twins on the way, yet he doesn’t seem to understand why he can’t make ends meet on his limited salary.

   Needless to say, the numbskull is desperate and has taken to doing hits and lifting dough from the crime scenes he raids, but it’s still not enough. Wouldn’t a box of condoms maybe 3-4 kids ago been cheaper and safer, Sal?

3. Clarence “Tango” Butler (Don Cheadle), an undercover cop in deep with the NYC drug trade. As a matter of fact, he’s in so deep that he’s actually become best friends with a known underworld kingpin, Caz (ol’ Blade himself, Wesley Snipes. I missed ya, Wes!). After years of whining to his bosses for a desk gig (the duality of his current job has been wearing away at his soul and marriage for years), his prayers are finally about to be answered- but ONLY if he betrays Caz and puts him behind bars.

So, there you have three intriguing stories, each of which would make a solid film on their own. But when combined, they become more than the sum of their parts…at least, for a while. Eddie has his hands full trying to feed his rather apathetic policies to enthusiastic and headstrong rookies who think he’s a coward while doing his best to resolve his own wasted career to himself. Sal’s house contains mold that is killing his wife’s asthma, making the illegal acquisition of the down payment money for their new home an all-encompassing need and source of stress. And Clarence is wrestling with the choice of betraying his best friend (who doesn’t know he’s a cop- how long has Clarence

been undercover?!?) to give his career a boost and his sanity a rest. These situations are completely separate at first, but as the film speeds along the audience becomes privy to something that the characters do not: that these three men are on a collision course that will eventually claim lives. The fact that Sal, Eddie, and Clarence are all fully-fleshed out and wonderfully-acted instead of generic cardboard cut-outs creates a tangible atmosphere of dread once you realize what they’re in for.

But, as I stated in the

opening paragraph, Brooklyn’s Finest drops the ball in the middle. The pace, which was like a locomotive charging at full-speed, is suddenly de-railed and the picture grinds to a near-halt. This just KILLED the movie for me. All that work getting you involved in the characters and their plights (I mean, I was literally on the edge of my seat for the first third of the film), and to throw it away like that…it’s nearly unforgivable. Again, restating from the opening paragraph, Brooklyn’s finest finds its way back and eventually barrels down the same apocalyptic path, but by then it’s too late. The movie just wasn’t quite the same.

Which is a shame, because Brooklyn’s Finest had all the makings of a classic. It has an all-around amazing cast, and from what I read its leads even took pay cuts in order to get the film made within its low budget. It’s also extremely gritty and realistic, and it’s deft hand-held camerawork and moody lighting solidly compliment those sentiments. In addition, Brooklyn’s Finest was actually filmed in the real-life areas it was set in, which helps its authenticity a great deal. This may not sound like a big deal, but do you have any idea how many movies actually don’t do that? For example, remember Jackie Chan’s Rumble In The Bronx? Yup, it was filmed in Vancouver. True story! But back to Brooklyn’s Finest- I honestly have nothing to complain about, save for that 7-foot speed bump the

movie hits halfway through.

Still, Brooklyn’s Finest is well worth your time, if only to see some excellent performances and, more importantly, to imagine what might have been if it had managed to stay on course.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Whee, another Kevin Smith film. Can you tell how genuinely excited I am? Honestly, I think I’ve given up all hope that writer/director Smith will ever turn out another decent film. By “another decent film,” I do admit that his 1994 indie premiere Clerks was pretty good, but since then he’s just released stinker after stinker and I just can’t

take it anymore.

The fact that the films Smith has made occasionally contain flashes of good wit or humor previously tricked me into believing that Smith was actually some kind of Idiot Savant. Thus, I was prompted to write the following quote about him at the end of my review for his 2008 film Zack and Miri Make a Porno, the closest he’s come in years to making something semi-watchable: “I suppose if I didn’t feel that he truly possessed some undeniable talent buried deep down, I wouldn’t care that he keeps churning out so many bad movies. But the fact of the matter is that the man IS talented, but you only manage to see glimpses of that talent in each flick he creates.”

Anyway, I take that back. I’m through waiting for the guy to get better. Onward…

So, today’s I’m reviewing Cop Out (formally called “A Couple of Dicks,” referring to the fact that the two main characters are detectives, but the studio thought that was too dirty-sounding, so…), a cop buddy comedy film starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan playing the same roles you’ve seen different actors do 10.000 times before. To call this movie a re-hash of every movie where you’ve seen an inept fool team-up with a tough-guy to take down the Mafia or a gang or terrorists or whatever would be…well, the truth. But regardless of Cop Out’s astonishing lack of originality, I’ll cover the plot quickly for you anyway.

Jimmy and Paul (Willis and Morgan) are two police detectives that have been partners for 9 years. As per the norm in this type of movie, Jimmy is a hard, no-nonsense type that kills the bad guys and gets the job done, while Paul is a numbskull who is wacky, basically incompetent, and probably should have been killed in the line of duty years ago. Tracking down the head of a local drug ring, Jimmy and Paul are on the verge of cracking a major case. But of course, the bust goes sour and their informant killed, landing them in hot water with the Stupid Chief who (surprise!) takes away their badges and guns! When does THAT ever happen in a movie (besides all the time)?

In addition to that misfortune, Jimmy is then robbed of a valuable baseball card that he was planning to sell to pay for his daughter’s $50,000 wedding (this is funny- when Jimmy is suspended for a month without pay, he whines to the Stupid Chief that he’s broke needed the money to pay for the wedding- he makes $50,000 a month? Wow, police work pays better than I thought!). Tracking down the card thief (Sean William Scott, who supplied probably the only genuinely amusing performance of the entire movie), we discover that he sold the pricy piece of sports memorabilia to the very drug lord Jimmy and Paul were trying to take down when they got suspended! Can you believe the coincidence? So, the two irreverent cops, despite being suspended and legally possessing none of their law-enforcing powers, nonetheless decide to take down the dealer and get Jimmy’s card back. There’s a little more to Cop Out than that, but I’ll leave it to you to find out if you actually choose to subject yourself to it.

Cop Out was pretty much the equivalent of the wet puddle you’d typically find in the bottom of a fast food restaurant’s garbage dumpster. It had some legit laughs here and there- sure, I can fully admit that- but it got worse and worse as it went on and was almost totally unwatchable by the end. Bruce Willis was, as usual, Bruce Willis (when is he not?), and while

Tracy Morgan was amusing at first, his ultra-stereotypical crazy bumbling sidekick character got old after the first 10 minutes. You literally could have substituted him with any other comedian in history and the result would have been exactly the same.

And while Kevin

Smith is responsible for directing Cop Out (shame, shame), at least he didn’t write this bomb, which means it thankfully didn’t turn all sentimental and sappy and completely lose it’s edge halfway through (like in every flick that he’s scripted himself). Sadly, someone who’s even a worse writer than Smith penned this heap (brothers Mark and Robb Cullen), and it’s actually given me some (a little) begrudging respect for Kevin’s abilities in this regard. The humor in Cop Out is painfully by-the-numbers and bad, the pacing is uneven, and the plot borders on being a live-action cartoon in terms of logic and character interaction. But regardless of who wrote this travesty, the usual Kevin Smith trademark of awkwardly forcing his favorite music in a scene, no matter how ill-fitting, was here in force; having seen quite a few Smith films (save me!), I think it’s safe to say that I’ve never seen a guy with such undying love for 1980’s rap music and cheesy power-ballads before.

BTW, Smith has no idea how to direct actions scenes at all. Every fight or gun battle was slow, awkward, clumsy, and featured camerawork that really appears to have no interest at all in focusing on who’s shooting at what or where. There’s a scene where a house full of assailants open fire on our heroes and there’s a tight close-up of Bruce Willis, edging along the side of the building and shooting at…something. I don’t know what, since all the bad guys were firing out of the front windows. Needless to say (but I will, anyway), my 12 year-old nephew has filmed movies with action scenes that flow better.

So, yeah, the new Kevin Smith movie isn’t good. BIG surprise.