"21 Jump Street" is a combination of three genres that have been done to death lately: the Bumbling Cop Movie, the Big Screen Version of an Old TV Show, and the Foul-Mouthed Sex and Drug Comedy. Like most Bumbling Cop Movies, there are several scenes where the main characters expect something cool to happen like it would in a movie, and the results are less than spectacular. This device was clever once, now it's tired. Like most Big Screen Versions of Old TV Shows, the characters make tongue-in-cheek comments about how the lameness of movies based on TV shows. These comments aren't half as clever and are twice as tired as the movie thinks they are. Like most Foul-Mouthed Sex and Drug Comedies, there's a lot of foul language and sex and drug humor. Sorry to not elaborate, but I have to spare the dirtier details. In this case the humor is at least somewhat clever and not quite as tired, so it's here where the film finds the most success.

            Schmidt (Jonah Hill) is an awkward egghead who was miserable in high school. Jenko (Channing Tatum) is a dumb beefcake who was popular in high school but whose life has gone nowhere since. After seven years, both meet up again as they train to become police officers. They help each other to qualify, but neither is mature enough to serve properly. Fortunately, there is an undercover program that needs immature officers. Their captain (a scene-stealing Ice Cube) sends them to take down a drug ring in a place that got the better of both of them, high school.

            There's a running gag throughout the film that Jenko and Schmidt look like they're too old to be high schoolers. Actually, the actors are too old even for the characters they're playing. Hill is 29, Tatum is 32. The characters are supposed to be 25 and I just don't buy it. The film further pollutes its own timeline by thinking that high schoolers in 2005 would be obsessed with Eminem and "The Real Slim Shady". That song came out in 2000, five years later it was a fossil.

            The film doesn't have much original to say as a cop movie, buddy movie, or high school movie. I will concede that it does do something interesting as a TV adaptation when we find out late in the film that it is actually a sequel to the TV series and not a remake. And yes, the film has a cameo from THAT star of the original series. To that point I will add that before the film there is a trailer for the actor's next film, another Big Screen Version of an Old TV Show in "Dark Shadows". The film looks horrible and the trailer received boos and insults from the crowd at the screening I attended.

            "21 Jump Street" gets a pass from me because of its humor, an immature brand that I nonetheless found pretty funny. As embarrassed as I am to admit it, my favorite parts of the film involved drug trips, the best gag being Jenko's performance in a science class following intake. But there are mounds of other R-rated comedies I can recommend, including 2007's "Superbad" which is a much better movie where Jonah Hill also plays a high schooler. Then again, "Superbad" isn't playing at the theater this weekend. There are worse ways to spend two hours than with a group of friends and a rowdy crowd watching a raunchy comedy like this and laughing at its idiocy together.

Two Stars out of Five.

          I feel sorry for Mars. It's been at the center of so many bad movies over the past decade or so. 2000 saw a pair of immense disappointments in "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet". There was an animated flop last year called "Mars Needs Moms". It was also the setting for the most boring parts of "Watchmen". Now it's the setting for "John Carter" a film whose box office performance is already a punchline.

             Perhaps the marketing people knew that Mars is box office poison, that's why they made the last minute decision to change the film's title from "John Carter of Mars" to just "John Carter". Now all that people can tell about the film from its title is the name of the main character. I've also noticed that a lot of people confuse this name with John Conner, and mistakenly think that the film is part of the "Terminator" franchise. I guess the film is grateful to have this audience because it needs all the help it can get.

            In the film, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a loser Civil War veteran on a quest for a cave of gold. The cave turns out to be a portal to Mars, where the local creatures don't know what to make of him. The species does its best to stay out of a war between the planet's humans, even though the evil side will probably go after them once they've eliminated the good. The only person who can return Carter to Earth is Princess Dejah (Lynn Collins) of the good humans, who is set to marry the leader of the bad guys in a sham wedding. Carter is forced to step up to protect "people" he barely knows, yet have so much to teach him about himself.

               Perhaps the biggest flaw of the film is its reliance on made-up words. The locals refer to the planet as "Barsoom" instead of Mars, the characters themselves have strange names, and there are plenty of unique terms for places and objects. The confusing language makes the action hard to follow and the whole film unnecessarily complicated. By the way, I didn't have this problem last week when I saw the movie based on a Dr. Seuss book, and he's best known for using made-up words. Another confusing aspect of the film is that the characters from the main alien species all look alike. And I mean all of them - the males are indistinguishable from the females.

               The film does one thing right, and it quickly squanders the opportunity. When he first arrives on Mars, Carter has trouble adjusting to the planet's gravity. There's a funny sequence where he repeatedly flops, floats, soars, and crash-lands. But all too soon he gets the hang of walking and stays pretty much on his feet for the rest of the film, save for a few scenes where he's required to jump high. Imagine the possibilities if he struggled with gravity for the whole film. It would be funny to see him try to carry on a standard conversation while involuntarily doing flips in midair.

               I think the main thing that makes "John Carter" uninteresting is that we don't get a feel for any of the cultures on Mars. We're told which characters we're supposed to root for, but we don't know exactly what makes them the good guys. Even if we did, we wouldn't care because we wouldn't remember their names. Except for John Carter of course, that name is easy to remember. We'll all remember the name of "John Carter", one of the lousiest films of the year.

            "The Lorax" reminds me of how much I love animated movies and of how often I love animated movies. Roughly two out of three animated films are better than the majority of live-action films that I see in a given year. Maybe it's because animated films allow filmmakers to do things that they can't do with live-action. Maybe it's because animated films are so hard to make that everybody puts in extra effort. Maybe I just enjoy humor aimed at kids more than I'd care to admit. "The Lorax" is yet another fine animated film that I mostly found to be cute, creative, and clever.

            The film is based on a book by Dr. Seuss. Actually, only about half the film is based on the book, the other half is an original storyline. Seuss's books are short, filmmakers need to fill in some gaps. The part from the book concerns The Once-ler (Ed Helms), an optimistic young go-getter who dreams of marketing his invention, a glorified fabric swatch called a Thneed. The problem is that Thneeds can only be made by damaging the local population of Truffula trees. This angers The Lorax (Danny Devito), mystical spokesperson for all things nature. But The Once-ler ignores The Lorax and his carelessness leads to ruin for everybody.

            The newer part takes place several years later and centers around young Ted (Zac Efron). Ted lives in Thneedville, a town where everything is artificial and unhealthy. Even the air supply is controlled by evil tycoon Aloysius O'Haire (Rob Riggle). Ted wants to impress his dream girl Audrey (Taylor Swift) who loves the seemingly extinct Truffula trees. His grandmother (Betty White, who even in a voice-only performance is a complete scene-stealer) advises him to talk to the Once-ler, now an old hermit living in exile. The Once-ler has a lot to teach Ted that he himself didn't learn from The Lorax until it was too late.

            It's hard not to love the cuteness of the film. Before the Once-ler destroys their habitat, the forest is populated by all manner of adorable little creatures. My favorites were walking singing fish with a cuddly bear species a close runner up. Just about everything they do is cute and funny. I laughed harder at these scenes than anything else I've seen recently. The human-related humor isn't bad either, but the animals get a reaction out of me simply for existing.

            The major weakness of the film is the way it presents its environmental message. It's bad enough that chopping down trees is portrayed as a villainous act (the book faced the same controversy), but people who use artificial products are portrayed as ignorant sheep. The film would have you believe that the entire world is a few generations away from completely overlooking the environment. There are undoubtedly benefits to going green, but the film unfairly makes it seem like not doing so will contribute to the devastation of all the cutest species of animals. A person making lifestyle changes because of "The Lorax" is like them becoming a vegetarian because they watched "Babe". It's a respectable decision, but is it good that it's done because of a movie that is blatantly fictitious?

            "The Lorax" really hits you over the head with this message, especially toward the end. It does taint the otherwise wonderful film, but it doesn't ruin it. Just go into it knowing that it's going to try to send you on a guilt trip about yourself and your habits. If you can condition yourself to not be bothered by the one uncomfortable element, then you can enjoy the majority of "The Lorax" as much as I did.

Three Stars out of Five.

Perhaps the biggest selling point for “Act of Valor” is that its principal cast is made up of active-
duty Navy SEALs instead of traditional actors. I certainly don’t mind the decision to use real-life heroes
for this or any other film, but I do mind that this is the first thing that the ads like to put forward. It’s as if
the film is anticipating criticism over bad acting and is trying to guilt everybody into not expressing these
opinions. For the record I have no problem with the acting in the film, maybe it’s a little stiff at times, but
even with traditional actors I would chalk it up to SEAL discipline. The real problem with the film is that
it doesn’t develop its characters and even with extended sequences of explosions and shooting doesn’t
give them anything terribly interesting to do.

There are a few moments where the SEAL squad hangs out on a beach before they deploy. Rorke
has several kids. Dave has one on the way. The others get even less backstory. Soon the team is sent to
rescue a CIA agent (Roselyn Sanchez) who was onto something big and is now being tortured. They
uncover a plot to attack the United States with a new kind of exploding vest. Firefights and plenty of
explosions ensue. And one member of the team performs the ultimate Act of Valor. There isn’t much in
the way of plot. I guess when the villains are terrorists there isn’t a lot of explanation needed for why they
need to be stopped.

This is the kind of film that likes to show off as many elements of SEAL-related excitement as it
can. There’s actually more air than water involved, the only watercraft that really come into play are
rinky-dink fan boats used during the rescue. The most impressive sequence of the film involves
skydiving, the kind of sequence where I feel sorry for the camera operators who have to do their jobs
while plummeting 30,000 feet. I once got fed up trying to film the local Cinema Center building from the
passenger seat of a car. Needless to say the guys who do that in midair are immensely talented.

The film has a unique feature to its cast even more unusual than the fact that they’re real Navy
SEALs. With the exception of the bad guys and Roselyn Sanchez, the lead actors are anonymous. Usually
when I say “anonymous” I mean that they were virtual unknowns who have now gotten their big break
and are now going on to bigger and better things. But this time when I say “anonymous” I mean that the
film refuses to divulge who they are. Whether this is because of security reasons or something to do with
humility I do not know. But imagine getting a starring role in a multimillion dollar film and not even
having your name appear in the credits.

I’m told that “Act of Valor” started life as a recruitment film and I believe that. If it were a
recruitment film, it would promise the excitement of guns, explosions, saving the country from terrorists,
and rescuing beautiful women. It’s also a good explanation for why the characters are such blank slates.
Potential recruits would need to picture themselves in the shoes of the characters and giving them too
many traits would make them less relatable. But some of the more tumultuous moments of “Act of Valor”
make it unsuitable as a recruitment film, so it’s just passing itself off as straightforward entertainment, a
level where it also doesn’t fit. There’s no denying that everybody behind “Act of Valor” had their heart in
the right place, but the film can’t seem to make up its mind if it wants to appeal to military prospects or
action fans.

Two Stars out of Five.

            I got some complaints a few weeks ago over my review of "Underworld: Awakening". The film was the fourth in a franchise, and I mentioned that I hadn't seen the previous three. I then proceeded to trash the film, and it remains my frontrunner for Worst of the Year. A few "Underworld" fans contacted me to say that I wasn't giving the film a chance, that I was joining the series in progress without the proper preparation. They had a point, maybe familiarity with the franchise would have led to a better understanding of the most recent installment. I vowed to do better next time.

            "Next time" was this past weekend with the release of "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance". Once again, I was about to go see a sequel without being acquainted with the original. So I did some scrambling and watched the 2007 predecessor on Thursday before catching the new release on Friday. What I accomplished was wasting a perfectly good Thursday night in addition to Friday.

            In the films, Nicholas Cage plays motorcycle stuntman Johnny Blaze. The Devil has endowed him with superpowers, including the ability to light things on fire, suck out souls, and do really dangerous things with motorcycles. When he's using his powers, Johnny's head morphs into a flaming skull. Both films are surprisingly dull despite these awesome elements

            The only good the first film did for me was explain how Johnny got the powers of the Rider from the Devil. He traded his soul for his father's life, which the Devil took anyway on a technicality. The Devil then had the right to use Johnny as his servant, tasking him with collecting evil souls. Johnny has since broken free of the devil's control, and is now trying to stop him at all costs.

             The plot for the sequel involves the Devil (now played by Ciaran Hinds instead of Peter Fonda from the original) trying to take over the body of his son (Fergus Reardon), a boy of about ten who isn't ready to do evil. Johnny initially tries to rescue the boy for selfish purposes, but takes a shine to him and then does so for the right reasons. He is aided by Moreau (Idris Elba), a drunken monk more interesting and worthy of his own movie than Johnny.

             The special effects are a little better this time around. There's a decent sequence where Johnny's face tries to morph into the flaming skull, but keeps getting only about halfway there. Aside from that, I don't have too many compliments. Cage's hammy performance is still a distraction and the story moves along at a snail's pace. One specific problem I had was that I could never tell if Johnny was doing his soul-sucking schtick or not. Come to think of it, I don't remember him actually doing it once in the entire movie.

             The close proximity with which I saw the two films affords me the opportunity to evaluate "Ghost Rider" as a franchise. Simply put, it doesn't deserve to be one. At least not with Nicholas Cage and the sloppy action sequences. There's probably a good movie to have with the character, but we haven't gotten it after two tries. At least you can have some fun going to the theater for "Spirit of Vengeance", but to watch the original "Ghost Rider" at home is to waste your valuable time alone.

One and a Half Stars out of Five.

            Here's the requisite mushy romance movie for Valentine's season 2012. It is a relatively inoffensive movie that is designed to be seen by couples who cannot agree on anything better to do with their time. I can see where it would be fun to go see the film on a Valentine's date. It isn't a good movie, but a couple could enjoy themselves jointly mocking the film for being so sappy.

            The film stars Rachel McAdams as Paige and Channing Tatum as Leo. Paige is sweet and smart, Leo is an adorable lunkhead. They spend the first segment of the film in puppy love, the gaggiest part of which is a care package Leo sends Paige during a miserable day at work. They get married and are all ready to live happily ever after. They're even considering a baby. But a catastrophic car accident changes everything. Leo is relatively unharmed, Paige wasn't wearing her seat belt and isn't so lucky. After a brief coma, she wakes up with a devastating case of amnesia.

            It was easy for Leo to handle Paige's trials through the accident and the coma (he did, after all, make a Vow when he married her), but he's not prepared to handle the amnesia. Actually with Leo he's just not prepared to have the more competent mind in the relationship. Then again, Paige's condition would throw anyone for a loop. The last few years of her memory have been wiped out. She doesn't remember anything about Leo including the fact that she's married to him. Nor does she remember her decision to drop out of law school and become an artist. She thinks she still has a strong relationship with her estranged parents (Jessica Lange and Sam Neill). And perhaps worst of all, she doesn't remember breaking up with her slimy ex-boyfriend (Scott Speedman) and there might still be a bit of a flame there.

            Leo does what he can to overcome this new obstacle. Inadvisably he throws a huge party for Paige as soon as she arrives home under the assumption that she'll remember one of her friends and everything will come rushing back at once. She just gets more confused and frustrated. Over the next few days he makes every attempt to jog her memory to no avail. To make matters worse, all the cute things he used to do for her are no longer endearing. As it becomes clear that Paige's memory isn't coming back, Leo feels more distant from the woman he loves. He realizes that he's going to have to make her fall in love with him all over again.

            The film will be best remembered for its endless scenes of cutesy romantic behavior. I think its goal is to elicit more "Awwww"s than a puppy petting zoo. From the initial flirting to the wedding to Leo's attempts to win Paige back, the film is filled with loving gestures that many will find charming but more will find nauseating. Before seeing the film, ask yourself this: do you like the "Twilight" movies but wish Edward was a little more lovey-dovey?

            All the affection isn't really a problem for me since "The Vow" is clearly determined to have as much as possible. But the film could have done with a lot more work as far as character development. Paige's ups and downs are reasonably compelling, but the same cannot be said for other characters. Her father, for example, remains an overprotective snob throughout the entire movie. And I would have felt more sympathetic toward Leo if I could see him as anything more than a total bonehead. All in all "The Vow" is a harmless date movie, but nothing more. I doubt that it even wants to be anything more.

Two Stars out of Five.

          I typically choose my movie for the week by guessing which one will do the most business. Every now and then I get it wrong. Last year I wrote a review of the miserable "Sanctum" instead of "The Roommate", which did much better. I made a similar mistake this past weekend, but I caught it just in time. I thought that the star power of Daniel Radcliffe would carry "The Woman in Black" to the #1 spot at the weekend box office. I saw the lemon on Friday and spent the better part of the day Saturday wondering how I could stretch "not that scary" into a full-length article. While procrastinating, I caught a tidbit on an entertainment website saying that it was actually "Chronicle" that had the biggest audience Friday night. I scrambled to make it to an 11pm showing. My reward was one of the best and most original films I've seen in a good long while.

            The film is comprised of found footage, a filming style usually reserved for horror films like "The Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity". It's a refreshing change of pace to see it used in a sci-fi action movie like this. In a few weeks we'll get "Project X" a film that applies the found footage style to raunchy comedy. The style is either going to have a bright future or get old quickly. For now I like it, it gives the film a feeling of unforgiving thoroughness and accuracy.

            The main character of the film is Andrew (Dane DeHaan), an awkward teenager who gets bullied both at school and at home. His only friend is his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) who seems to only stick with him out of family obligation. He buys a camera to document his life, which is just one more thing that makes everybody think he's a weirdo. But it turns out to be useful in making a connection with popular kid Steve (Michael B. Jordan). Steve has found a mysterious crater in the woods, and wants Matt and Andrew with his camera to explore it with him. The three find themselves in an underground cave where they happen upon an alien edifice. Next thing they know they're somehow out of the cave and they've developed telekinetic superpowers.

            The characters are teenagers, so of course they initially use their powers for immature things. They play pranks, wow their friends at the school talent show, and of course, pick up girls. Andrew makes his camera float, which means that he doesn't always have to be out of the picture while filming. The group also discovers that they can fly and go soaring above the clouds until pesky airplanes interfere. The sequences of them flying for the first time are the most memorable of the film, but the other scenes where they have fun exploiting their powers could use some trimming.

            Things turn dark when Andrew realizes that he can use his powers to dominate others. He gets back at people who have bullied him, robs and mugs others, and even commits a murder. Soon he's a monster, spreading terror throughout metropolitan Seattle including a midair battle with Matt at the tip of the Space Needle. Andrew makes for a very compelling villain, especially since we're able to follow him from his bleak beginnings.

            "Chronicle" is nothing less than a highly enjoyable film. It does some things that I've never seen before and now am glad to have experienced. The film is in not yet part of a franchise, but I imagine we'll get at least one sequel where we find out more about the extraterrestrial entity that allows the characters to have powers. It's a bit scary to think that I nearly missed out on "Chronicle" but the fact that it was a pleasant surprise makes it all the more special.

Three and a Half Stars out of Five.

            I've spent the last few weeks complaining about the lame release slate in January and February. These months are regarded as a dumping ground for weak new movies that would never survive in a busier movie season like summer or the holidays. That said, I did think we might be in for a rare bright spot in "They Grey". It's an ugly movie about wilderness survival, and I figured a movie like that is a tough sell at any time of year. It may as well come out in January where the star power of Liam Neeson can let win a weekend where people are desperate for anything halfway decent. I thought that maybe it was a good movie that was simply short on marketing potential. Alas, my optimistic theory proved fruitless. "The Grey" is both unappealing and uncompelling.

            Neeson stars as a mopey wolf expert for an oil company in Alaska. His job is to shoot any wolves that are making a beeline for the workers. After a last-minute decision not to commit suicide, he joins the others on a plane headed back to wherever they call home. The plane goes down. Now Neeson and a small group of fellow survivors are stranded in the middle of nowhere and the nearby wolves feel threatened by their "invasion". With only crude spears for armament, the group tries to make it to safety with full knowledge that they themselves are being hunted.

            The wolves are fearsome enemies, but it's hard to take the "man vs. nature" theme seriously when they behave like typical horror movie slashers. That is to say that they strike only when the plot decides that we haven't seen a wolf attack for a while, and it's always during an otherwise quiet scene so the movie can give us a cheap scare. On the upside, I don't have to question their motives for attacking like I did with the werewolves from "Underworld" last week. "Scared and hungry" is a simple explanation, but a sufficient one when the characters aren't supposed to be super-intelligent.

            As for the humans, their story isn't terribly interesting. Neeson is good for a halfway decent performance as always (the best scene of the movie is one where he talks a fatally-wounded passenger through his final moments), but his fellow survivors are way short on personality. It's hard to see them as anything more than inevitable victims. One element I found interesting but depressing is that there's very little talk of getting rescued or going back to their lives. It's as if they're all staying alive for the sake of staying alive. The film tries to be deep about it, asking us to ponder issues such as life and its purpose. My simple answer is that nobody wants to end up as a frozen corpse or wolf food.

            "The Grey" is at least a competent film, which is more than I can say about many of the films released in January and February. But it is by nature an unpleasant film, the kind that only works if it's extraordinarily well done and compels you to brave its subject matter. It instead has a moderate quality that is a notch above everything else that's been released recently, but by itself isn't terribly entertaining.

            There is still hope of getting some good movies this season. The Academy Award nominations were announced this past week and both "The Artist" and "The Descendants" did very well. They should be getting wide releases soon and then you can treat yourself to two of 2011's most exceptional films.

Two Stars out of Five.

           Last week in my review of the lousy "Contraband", I wrote that January and February generally consist of a miserable slate of new releases. The principle is that if a movie were any good, it would be released in the summer or near a holiday where it could get a ton of business. Though it will dominate the weekend box office because there isn't another franchise piece in sight, "Underworld: Awakening" is indeed a miserable new release. The film is so bad that the season could include three decent new releases and I would still consider it a dumping ground because it contained this one.

            By my own admission, it doesn't help that I'm just now entering the franchise. I have not seen the previous three entries (which came out in 2003, 2006, and 2009 respectively) which may explain why I can't make sense of plot of this most recent installment. To its credit, he film actually does make a valiant effort to catch me up with a nifty little prologue. I understood that Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is a 600-year-old human who fights on the side of vampires in their war against the werewolves. I understood that the vampire elders betrayed Selene, which is why she's less then welcome when she visits a vampire coven midway through the film. I even understood her relationship with a vampire/werewolf hybrid that produced the hybrid daughter she has in the film. But I did not understand Selene's need to kill everything in sight, and for that I found the film to be pointlessly violent.

            As the film opens, humans are trying to wipe out both vampires and werewolves. A scientist (Stephen Rea) promises hope, although I'm not sure what he's trying to cure exactly. Selene and her lover are trying to get out of the city, but in a crazy mix-up she gets cryogenically frozen for over a decade. Selene awakens to find that both vampires and werewolves are nearly extinct and she has a hybrid daughter whose DNA can be used to repopulate either race. Despite the betrayals in her past, Selene is still most loyal to the vampires, which makes the werewolves the bad guys. Selene cannot let the werewolves or the human scientist (who has nefarious purposes of his own) get ahold of the daughter. And she kills hoards of people to make sure of it.

            It was just last week in "Contraband" that I watched Kate Beckinsale take a discomforting amount of abuse. I should find it enjoyable that this week I get to see her dish it out. The problem is that the character she plays is so poorly constructed that I couldn't even cheer for her. I just didn't get the sense that half the people she kills needed killing. I honestly felt that some of the conflicts she finds herself in could be solved by talking and trying to make sense of the situation. But no, she needs to go right to the fancy knifework. It should also be noted that the film is so dark and ugly that the action is hard to follow. We don't even get too many good looks of Beckinsale in her skintight black suit, which is supposed to be one of the film's major selling points.

            "Underworld: Awakening" is a mess, pure and simple. The only reason to see it is if you absolutely have to see the movie that everybody else will unfortunately be seeing. We've still got a lot of this sloggy season to get through, hopefully "The Artist" and "The Descendants" will get wide releases in the coming weeks and then you can treat yourself to two of the best films of 2011.

One and a Half Stars out of Five.

            The first few months of the year are traditionally the worst as far as getting decent new movies. Mega-blockbusters usually open in the summer or around the holidays. Lately the release slates in March and April have been gaining steam as well. But January and February are still regarded as a dumping ground for lame movies that the studios know would get crushed by the competition in a better season. Speaking of lame movies that would never survive against real competition, Mark Wahlberg has a new movie out called "Contraband". You can probably guess from the trailer that it got dumped in January because it's a piece of junk, the film itself spends 110 minutes confirming that theory. 

            Wahlberg stars as Chris Farraday, an ex-smuggler who's been successfully legit for a few years now. He is currently enjoying a domestic life with his wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and his two kids. He still hangs out with a buddy from his smuggling days (Ben Foster), and he looks to be about ready to straighten up soon. Trouble arises when his brother-in-law Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) botches an important run for the malicious Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi). Andy now owes Briggs $700,000, which means that the whole family owes Briggs $700,000. Andy's not too bright, so it's up to Chris to save the day. His old friend has plenty of smuggling work available, so Chris just has to pull one last job.

            The job requires that Chris take a job on a boat working for an unpleasant captain (J.K. Simmons). In order for his plan to work, he has to do some minor sabotaging of the boat. The film overestimates how much its viewers understand the mechanical workings of such a boat, especially when it comes to its fuel system. I was completely lost during these scenes. I wish Chris had just made everyone worry about a hole or something. I know holes are bad for boats.

            The film tries to build suspense with the smuggling job itself. The problem with doing this is that you know Chris is going to have to make it home because that's where the bad guys are and they need to be dealt with. There is one scary part where he gets on the wrong side of a Panamanian crime boss (Diego Luna), who is too psychotic to make a good criminal, but unpredictable enough to be a threat. But mostly this chunk of the film is just dull trickery that's been done to death in death in the "Ocean's" movies. 

            The element that people are going to remember most about "Contraband" is the amount of abuse taken by Kate, the wife. Briggs wants his money, and he doesn't much care that Chris is out of town getting it. He gives her some unforgiveable "warnings". She suffers even more violence at the hands of another villain. I seriously question the logic on the part of the characters (it makes Chris less likely to atone and more likely to get back at them) and I question the logic of having these types of scenes in the film at all. Nobody's questioning the stakes, including disturbing scenes to reestablish them is unnecessary and it takes away from the spirited attitude that the film wants to have. 

            All the new releases in January and February are going to be about as worthless as "Contraband". But the season does have an upside and that's the wider expansion of Academy Awards nominees. You'll probably have a chance to see "The Artist" and "The Descendants" in the coming weeks, I suggest you do so. I'm hoping that the films are popular enough to justify articles and then I can write two of my most positive reviews of the year.   

One and a Half Stars out of Five.

            For the past few months I've jokingly referred to Steven Spielberg's "War Horse" as "Oscar, Please". I've had this mental picture of Spielberg submitting a canister of film to a low-level Academy employee and then arrogantly outstretching his hand expecting to receive an award. 

            The reason I think this way is that the film incorporates a lot of elements that typically lead to a good showing in Oscar voting. The film has shots of English countryside, harrowing war scenes, tales of triumph, European accents, a swelling score by John Williams, lovely evening lighting in the final scene, and of course a horse that you can't help but love. Spielberg combines all of these elements marvelously, but the sheer quantity of the elements makes it seem like he's pandering to Academy members. That said, Academy members have good taste and if you have good taste you'll probably find a lot to like about "War Horse". 

            The horse is purchased early in the film by a drunken but good-natured farmer (Peter Mullan) who risks his family's farm buying a beautiful horse instead of a practical one that can pull a plow. His son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) has an immediate rapport with the horse, who he names Joey. I couldn't be sure, but I think there might be something off about Albert as far as his mental faculties. That's another one of those awards-bait elements right there. With rent due and the landlord's patience running out, Albert must get Joey to plow a key field. Against all odds the team succeeds and they become inseparable. But then they're separated. The father needs more money after all and the British army needs horses for World War I. Joey is sold and goes to war. 

            Joey sees the war from both sides as he's passed around from one owner to another. He starts out with a hotshot British captain (Tom Hiddleston), then is captured by Germans and put in the care of two teenagers who try to desert, then is found and by a girl and her grandfather on a farm in France, then is taken by Germans to pull artillery, then escapes and becomes trapped in the middle of a battlefield during a tense standoff between armies. Joey is very lucky in all his adventures as it seems there's always some horse-lover nearby to stick up for him just as he's about to be shot. Albert meanwhile joins the army hoping to track Joey down and goes through some wartime adventures of his own. 

            The battle scenes are very well done, capturing the horrors of war while not making the film inappropriate for a PG-13 audience. And the plow scene at the beginning is an inspiration to us all. But the film's best scene is the one where poor Joey is trapped in the middle of the battlefield as soldiers from both sides empathize with his struggle. The characters' actions in this scene are very low-key, but the tensions are very high. The scene proves that Spielberg is a great filmmaker even when he's not handling a flashy blockbuster.

            "War Horse" is Steven Spielberg's best film in a while. I like him more when he does serious films like this one. I believe 2005's "Munich" was his last great one. He's been dropping the ball lately on his "fun adventure" movies like the alien-heavy fourth "Indiana Jones" installment and the dull big screen adaptation of "Tintin". I was afraid that "War Horse" would be a beautiful but uncompelling film, and I'm glad that it turned out those fears were unfounded. 

             Last week I wondered if we really needed "Sherlock Holmes" at the movies when we already have "House" on TV. This week I question the necessity of a fourth "Mission Impossible" movie when we already have 22 James Bond movies with a 23^rd on its way next year. Bond and Ethan Hunt are both super-competent spies with an array of neat gadgets at their disposal. Not to mention that they both have trademark opening sequences and iconic theme music that follows them everywhere. But Hunt as a character doesn't have as many distinctive traits as Bond, and it makes the whole franchise come off as derivative and unoriginal. That's the bad news. The good news is that "Ghost Protocol", is arguably the best installment of the inferior franchise. 

           Tom Cruise stars once again as Hunt, his celebrity smile somehow always showing even when the scene doesn't require it. Other members of his team include Paula Patton as the requisite tough beauty, Simon Pegg as the comic relief computer nerd, and Jeremy Renner as a dull analyst who gets sucked into the action. It's a lightweight team, with two members who are rookies, one who's rusty, and two who spend most of the time beating themselves up over past failures. I think there should be at least one member who looks somewhat dangerous. It's a shame previous cast member Ving Rhames pretty much sits this one out, he would have worked well as a fifth member or as a better choice than Pegg for a fourth. 

           The plot is some mumbo-jumbo with Russian nuclear launch codes. The team first has to break Ethan out of a Russian prison, then they undertake a mission in the Kremlin which gets botched. The team is disavowed (just as Ethan's overseers are always threatening to do) and they have to carry out the rest of their mission with only a traincar full of supplies.  It would have been a more interesting challenge if they didn't have an entire traincar, but they need to keep all the spy toys somewhere.  Then they have to manipulate some bad guys in the world's tallest building and then get vital information from the host of a fancy party. It's practically a requirement with spy movies that the characters go undercover at a fancy party.

           The scenes at the Kremlin and the high-rise are the film's strong points. At the Kremlin the team uses a hologram to sneak down a hallway in an impressive sequence. The tower sees a tense series of negotiations, a super-sexy catfight, and Ethan having to climb the side of the building twice, once using adhesive gloves of dubious functionality and again improvising with a poorly chosen rope. I hate heights, but I love those scenes. The film's weak points are its predictable second half and its poor choice of villain (Michael Nyqvist), probably the most uninspired antagonist of the year.  The climactic fight scene in one of those car vending machines is sort of a draw, the action isn't terribly original, but it gets points for its unique location. 

           "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" goes along quite nicely for a while, but loses its way after the tower scene. Director Brad Bird is best known for animated work, which perhaps explain why the film has impressive visual sequences but is lacking in its script. It's an agreeable enough action movie, some decent eye candy for the holiday season. I still don't have the same loyalty to the "Mission Impossible" franchise that I do for James Bond, and because of that I see "Ghost Protocol" as little more than a warm-up for next year's "Skyfall". 

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"

By Bob Garver

Did you know the title character of the television show "House" is based on Sherlock Holmes? Played by Hugh Laurie, House is a brilliant solver of mysteries who has an antisocial personality, a drug problem, and a number of annoying personal traits. It's no accident, we're supposed to be seeing how the greatest mind in literature would operate in today's society. Holmes himself is portrayed basically the same way by Robert Downey Jr., both in 2009's "Sherlock Holmes" and now in "A Game of Shadows". The portrayals are so similar that my mother saw the trailer for the original and asked if the actor was the one from "House" despite not knowing the deliberate connection. The actors don't look very much alike, they just take the same approach to the character. 

I bring up the "House" comparison because the show has rendered the films moot. Why make a big to-do about going to a see a movie when you get to see the same character in 24 new adventures a year from the comfort of your living room (not to mention for free)? About the only thing the films do to distance themselves from the show is set the stories in Victorian London. The most notable unique elements are fancy dress, cobblestone streets, and no cell phones. This is supposed to give the film an "authentic" look reminiscent of the books, but all the camera tricks and special effects take away from the classical feel. 

For this film, Holmes takes on his literary arch nemesis, Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris). We are constantly told of what a sharp intellectual Moriarty is and how he's a perfect mental match for Holmes, but frankly I'm not convinced. Having the resources to carry out an evil scheme (in this case egging on World War I so he can profit from the sale of weapons) doesn't make him smart, it just makes him rich and powerful. And he makes the ever-stupid villain mistake of bragging about his plans to Holmes so our hero can stop him just in time. I think the message we're supposed to take away from these scenes is that Moriarty is the original Bond villain.

Holmes is joined by his ever-faithful sidekick Watson (Jude Law). Holmes loves to annoy Watson, and Watson tolerates it because he sees it as some kind of sign of affection. Holmes puts poor Watson in danger just so he can earn his gratitude when he saves him. Watson is getting married, but the film still likes to be childish and tease that the two are more than just friends. Other characters include Noomi Rapace as a gypsy girl whose brother may be mixed up with Moriarty and Stephen Fry (an comedy partner of Hugh Laurie) as Holmes's brother. 

As with the original "Sherlock Holmes", "A Game of Shadows" has little to make it interesting or memorable. I'll admit that the film does have one cute trick where Holmes imagines how an entire fight sequence will play out before it happens, usually in defiance of Holmes's strategy. Otherwise it's an action movie we've seen a thousand times before. I have no doubt that the character of Sherlock Holmes can still be enjoyed, provided you can find an older film or better yet, some of the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. But this surly version of Holmes, while fitting in very well on television in "House", has no place at the theater.

Two Stars out of Five

"New Year's Eve"

By Bob Garver

            "New Year's Eve" is a movie that if nothing else has a lot going on.  The film consists of multiple stories each with its own handful of recognizable actors.  The logic is that everything can't possibly fail at once and everyone should find something to enjoy.  It's a faulty logic because the variety of characters and storylines are all products of the same uninspired writing and direction.  What we want is a rainbow, what we get is multiple shades of grey. 

I'll just list the storylines and share a few random thoughts. 

A young professional (Hilary Swank) is in charge of the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square.  She's nervous and frets over everything, but she gets consolation from her security guard friend (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges).  In a highly predictable twist, the big ball malfunctions as the midnight deadline draws ever nearer.  Matthew Broderick has a cameo as her boss and we're supposed to laugh like hyenas over the fact that his character is named "Buellerton"

A courier (Zac Efron) helps a frumpy career woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) fulfill her past year's resolution list in one day.  It's all shortcuts (a quick stop at an Indonesian spa counts as "visit Bali"), but she's pleased with the results.  I didn't recognize Pfeiffer because she's a brunette in this movie and I didn't recognize Efron because he's an adult.  It's not a bad thing, just unexpected. 

A mother (Sarah Jessica Parker) wants to share the evening with her teenage daughter (Abagail Breslin).  The daughter wants to be in Times Square with her friends.  Mom won't allow it so she sneaks off.  Mom gives chase.  Yes, it's one of these storylines again.

An old dying man (Robert DeNiro) just wants to watch the celebration from the rooftop of his hospital.  His doctors (Cary Elwes and Halle Berry) are sympathetic but can't allow it.  DeNiro and Berry have their Oscar-winning charisma, but there's no saving the material from dullness. 

A rock star (Jon Bon Jovi) reconnects with his caterer ex-fiance (Katherine Heigl) who he abandoned and left steaming mad.  The only thing noteworthy about this storyline is that Sofia Vergara play's Heigl's assistant.  She's charming as always, but the film can't really find anything for her to do and she's an awkward fit in the story. 

A bachelor (Josh Duhamel) tries to get to New York to reconnect with a woman he met on New Year's Eve the previous year.  He experiences the usual collection of setbacks before hitching a ride with a quirky family.  Apparently the film thinks that the world doesn't have enough holiday comedies about transportation issues. 

A New Year's-hating jerk (Ashton Kutcher) gets stuck on an elevator with an aspiring singer (Lea Michele) who's booked for a gig with the rock star.  The audience at my screening booed Kutcher the second they saw him, which made me chuckle. 

In the film's most tolerable story, two couples (Seth Myers/Jessica Biel and Til Schweiger/Sarah Paulson) compete to be the first to have their babies arrive in the new year.  It's material that hasn't been mined to death already and the casting of German tough guy Schweiger (as a professional charm coach no less) is an interesting choice.    

It's not that "New Year's Eve" is a painful comedy, just a bland one.  Shifting from one predictable story to another isn't as bad as focusing on one of them for two hours, but it isn't a substitute for compelling storytelling.  I actually have no problem with the idea of the film crowding itself the way it does, I just wish the film would crowd itself with more creativity. 

Two Stars out of Five

"The Muppets"

By Bob Garver

            Before I tell the happy story of how much I loved "The Muppets", I want to tell a sad story.  Earlier this year, my mother took my cousins (ages 7 and 10) on a trip to Walt Disney World.  One of the theme parks features a 3-D movie starring The Muppets.  Neither of my cousins enjoyed the attraction.  I couldn't understand what wasn't to love about a delightful romp starring beloved characters from my childhood.  Then a dreadful thought crossed my mind.  "Do you at least know who the Muppets are?" I asked.  "Yes", said one of them, "They're the boring people". 

In other words, no, they didn't know who the Muppets are.  I'm sure they're familiar with the Muppets of the Children's Television Workshop (a.k.a. the ones on "Sesame Street"), but they've had no exposure to the Muppets in their most classic incarnation: the Muppets of "The Muppet Show".  These kids deserve to grow up with harried emcee Kermit the Frog, diva to end all divas Miss Piggy, hacky second banana Fozzie Bear, wildcard whatever Gonzo the Great, culinary calamity causer Swedish Chef, bungling mad scientist Bunsen and his ever-victimized assistant Beaker (Beaker being my personal favorite), and the hip musical stylings of Electric Mayhem and their adrenalized drummer Animal. 

Fortunately I didn't have to wait vary long to see something done about the lack of classic Muppets in youth culture.  "The Muppets" brings them back in a big way, making up for years of neglect in one grand gesture.  It doesn't just rely on nostalgia for laughs, it has perhaps the funniest script of the year from Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller.  It all adds up to a hundred minutes jam packed with glee.

Before we are introduced to our old favorites, we meet original characters Gary (Segel), Mary (Amy Adams), and Walter (a muppet).  Gary and Walter are brothers despite their obvious textural differences, which leads me to believe that maybe everybody onscreen sees Walter as a human until he makes a crucial decision late in the film.  Gary and Mary take a romantic anniversary trip to Los Angeles and Walter tags along so he can see the legendary Muppet Studios. 

Walter is saddened to find out that the old Muppet Studio is practically abandoned, and even more upset to discover that an evil oil tycoon (Chris Cooper) is about to buy the old Muppet Theater and tear it down.  Walter rushes to Kermit, only to be even more disillusioned when he learns that The Muppets disbanded years ago and a reunion isn't likely to happen anytime soon.  But with their old home at stake, maybe they can band together one last time for a benefit show. 

Okay, so maybe the "benefit show" plot has been done to death.  The story is still handled with an undulled comic energy.  The film does have surprises in the form of celebrity cameos and musical numbers.  The Muppets themselves stay true to form, it's the bad guys who try to force modernization.  There is only one rap number, it's not from a Muppet, and it's over before your eyes have a chance to fully bulge.  The only weak point of the film is the climactic telethon itself, where so many minor Muppets are forced onscreen at once that beloved favorites start to fall to the wayside.  In other words, the film could have used more Beaker. 

"The Muppets" is fun from beginning to end.  Even the sad scenes have plenty funny about them.  Actually, the fun starts before the movie even begins when you're treated to a bonus short starring the characters from "Toy Story".  I'm hopeful that the film will be so successful that it leads to a relaunch of "The Muppet Show".  At the very least I'm happy that a new generation gets to enjoy The Muppets. 

Three and a Half Stars out of Five. 

"The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1"

By Bob Garver

            Since 2008, the "Twilight" movies have been one of my favorite annual traditions.  Not because of the movies themselves, which are drippy romances with endless lovelorn dialogue, but because of the reactions of the audiences that accompany the films.  The camera's obsession with the actors' looks is painful.  Hundreds of girls' obsession with the actors' looks is hilarious.  There is no sound in the world quite like a sold-out auditorium squealing over the sight of Robert Pattinson's face or Taylor Lautner's abs.  The storylines and dialogue are downright laughable, but it's such a genuine laughter that it turns out to be a positive reaction.  Thus, I leave the films feeling positive. 

            This chapter sees human Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) finally marry her vampire boyfriend Edward Cullen (Pattinson).  The wedding is a perfect embodiment of everything fans love about the series, from the awkward interaction between humans and vampires to the eerily beautiful woodland setting to the heaps and heaps of love.  Then it's off to the honeymoon on Edward's private island off the coast of Brazil.  Of course the dreamy vampire with diamond-coated skin has a private island with its own villa.  But I question his choice of Brazil.  The series to this point has mostly taken place in cold, rainy Washington.   The disruption, even for an occasion such as a honeymoon, seems out of place.  I guess I'm just conditioned to expect Edward to hate sunlight, even though I don't remember if vampires hate sunlight in this series or not. 

            The honeymoon is as passionate as fans could hope for.  The romance becomes so intense at one point that every piece of furniture in the bedroom gets broken.  Bella is bruised in the course of the action, which draws immediate concern from Edward.  She laughs it off as collateral damage and insists that he isn't really doing anything wrong.  She wants him to keep doing it.  Proponents of the theory that the "Twilight" series is too easy on those who commit domestic abuse have a lot of fuel for their argument here.  Also, Bella quickly becomes pregnant. 

            The pregnancy presents an immediate dilemma.  Human women are not meant to carry vampire fetuses, they're too dangerous.  Most of the Cullen family insists that the baby will kill Bella, and she needs to have it removed prematurely in order to save her life.  Bella will hear none of it and demands to see the pregnancy through to the end.  This puts Edward and his family in danger as well.  Vampires have a peace treaty with their werewolf enemies which is voided if a vampire kills a human.  If Bella were to die as a result of the pregnancy, the truce would be broken and the clans would be at war.    

            Edward looks to an unlikely source for help.  Jacob (Lautner) is Bella's jilted former lover, a werewolf who hates vampires and would love a war.  But Edward knows that Jacob still has love for Bella and will do whatever it takes to see that nothing bad happens to her.  He is first enlisted to try and talk sense into Bella and the other werewolves, he eventually plays a major part in protecting Bella, the Cullens, and the baby. 

            The final moments of the film are much more intense than anything I expected, proving once again that the danger of vampires and werewolves is nothing compared to childbirth.  I have to hand it to director Bill Condon for putting a surprising amount of edginess into these scenes.  At a certain point the film is no longer ironically delicious, it's legitimately powerful.  What we have with "Breaking Dawn Part 1" is a "Twilight" movie that can be enjoyed on the usual silly levels while quietly turning out to be halfway decent otherwise. 

The Movie:  Two and a Half Stars out of Five.

The Crowd, as always:  Five Stars out of Five. 

"Immortals"

By Bob Garver

            The world does not need "Immortals".  We've have quite enough films with Greeks and gods and swords and sandals and cliffs lately. There's 2007's "300", a film filled with violence and twisted images that "Immortals" seems to be blatantly ripping off.  There was that lousy "Clash of the Titans" remake from last year, which I had happily forgotten about until now.  Even this year has already brought us "Thor", which got a bad year of blockbusters off to an ominous start. "Immortals" has little of interest or originality to contribute to the genre, and serves only to make it audience think twice before purchasing a ticket to an upcoming variation. 

            The story is one of the sloppiest I've ever seen.  From what I could tell, it's about a human named Theseus (Henry Cavill) who wants to stop the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) from taking over the world.  Hyperion intends to do so by freeing the otherworldly Titans from a prison that looks like a foosball table.  This will allow them to kill all of Greece's gods (a tall order considering they're gods and they imprisoned the Titans in the first place) and then I guess they're supposed to be so grateful that they put him in charge of Earth. 

            Rourke is scary and intimidating as Hyperion, but he's not a very bright villain.  He thoughtlessly makes an enemy of Theseus and then leaves him alive to seek revenge.  He also has the questionable goal of wanting to father the entire world.  This tells us that he's selfish and narcissistic, but it's such a logistical nightmare considering the populations involved.  Also, he sees to it that his own men can't father any children themselves.  He sees to it with a sledgehammer.  How in the world does he get men to follow him?  Sure he can threaten them with death, but I still can't imagine many men who wouldn't risk death compared to submitting to the sledgehammer treatment. 

            There's some nonsense with the gods and their willingness to interfere with human affairs.  They serve little purpose other than to justify the unique outfits depicted on the film's posters.  There's even more nonsense with an oracle (Freida Pinto) who is crucial to Hyperion's plan, yet he is successful without her.  She may ultimately serve little purpose in the story, but I think most audience members (especially males) will forgive her when they see her passionate love scene with Theseus. 

            The film mistakenly thinks that it's beautiful.  Long, loving looks are given to sets and scenery.  Not a minute goes by where we're not supposed to be awestruck by the film's cliffs, oceans, mountains, and heavens.  This is also one of those movies that treats its most violent scenes as elegant, and a lot of unnecessary emphasis is put on that.  I thought most of the scenes looked ugly and the special effects looked cheap.  But the film has been receiving praise for its overall look, so maybe I'm in the minority on this one. 

            I'll toss "Immortals" a half star for its love scene, but I found nothing else to like.  The film can't go very long without making a fool of itself.  The story in particular has been shamefully mishandled.  I think we're supposed to forget the story and just sit back and enjoy the action.  I've already forgotten almost everything about the story and the action.  "Immortals" is a forgettable film, a useless entry in a genre that lately has seen many useless entries.  I do remember one thing very vividly: how much I wanted to go home. 

One and a Half Stars out of Five.

"Puss in Boots"

By Bob Garver

            Seven years ago, swarthy assassin-turned-good-guy Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) stole the show in "Shrek 2".  The film itself was clever and funny and Puss made it even better.  As the series went along it the films became much worse and Puss became less appealing along with them.  Now the decision has been made to remove the ogres from the equation and see if the films are any better with Puss center stage.  The resulting film is about as unfunny as the lesser "Shrek" movies and proves that their critical failure had less to do with the choice of characters and more to do with the choice of writers. 

            I can see the logic in making an adorable kitty the main character for a kids' movie.  The character is highly marketable and with Christmas coming up there is no doubt that a stuffed Puss will be one of the season's hottest toys.  But for a full-length "Puss in Boots" film to work creatively, the character would have to undergo some major tweaking.  He has never been much more than a feline version of Banderas's Zorro, which was funny when he was a minor character three films ago, not so much now.  The film sees him as the same one-joke character he's always been, but this time the joke is staler than ever and the whole film is built around it. 

            Like the rest of the "Shrek" films, the story incorporates elements from various fairy tales.  Puss teams up with his old orphanage buddy Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) and a declawed housecat (Salma Hayek) to steal the Goose That Lays Golden Eggs from atop the beanstalk while the villainous Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sederis) pursue them for nefarious purposes.  There's also a plot involving betrayal, revenge, and forgiveness stemming back to Puss and Humpty's orphanage days.  Two observations: 1) Every "twist" in the story is seeable from a mile away and 2) It might be easier to take Humpty seriously as a villain and a threat if the character was known for anything other than being irreparably damaged. 

            I wasn't crazy about the look of the film, especially when it came to the characters.  The animators seem to have focused much more on faces than bodies, resulting in overly sharp facial features and bodies that are poorly defined.  When the main characters are supposed to be cute and cuddly, we need to get a feel for what it would be like to cuddle them.

            The humor is as expected.  The "Shrek" series is known for toilet humor, this one has more of a litter humor.  Promoting the film, many of the stars have said that the film is funny for both kids and grownups.  Be weary of statements like this; what they really mean is that they've snuck in a few smutty jokes for adults that will probably go over kids' heads but are still present.  Still, a few gags are decent.  My favorite is the angle that the film uses to show the characters falling off the beanstalk.  And I guess it's hard not to like a background character's reactions to inflammatory actions. 

            "Puss in Boots" has a surprisingly dark and emotional climax with a depth badly needed in the rest of the film .  Still, there seems to be little point to the movie other than to get kids to laugh just hard enough that they'll want their parents to buy them toys.  It doesn't have nearly the imagination of the first two "Shrek" films and I'm afraid that the inevitable sequels will continue the downward spiral. 

"Paranormal Activity 3"

By Bob Garver

            This is the third consecutive Halloween where we've gotten a "Paranormal Activity" movie and the door is certainly open for sequels.  I'm all for a horror franchise with annual installments, a tradition you can share with your family and friends.  It's the one thing I liked about the now-thankfully-dead "Saw" franchise.  And it's even better with "Paranormal Activity", a relatively nonviolent franchise that doesn't try to out-gore itself with every installment.  The films are content with scaring the audience with startling noises and baffling phenomena. 

            Structurally the movie is pretty much the same as its two predecessors, especially the second.  We start off with perfectly innocent home movie footage that establishes the characters.  Something mysterious happens during one of the shoots.  One of the characters thinks there might be something otherworldly going on and decides that the house needs 24-hour surveillance.  Over about the next hour, we see highlights of the footage from the next few weeks.  We jump about once every five minutes, usually from red herrings at first, but eventually from things that are unexplainable and dangerous.  Then whatever it is that's causing all the trouble decides to ditch the subtlety and completely terrorizes the characters.  The climax involves the main character running around with a handheld camera "Blair Witch" style as we jump about every five seconds. 

            The major difference this time is that the film is a prequel two the other two films, taking place in the 80s.  Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) and Katie (Chloe Csengery) are just little girls who we know will grow up to be haunted adults.  This of course means that they'll live through the film, which takes away some of the mystery.  They live with their mother (Lauren Bittner) and her new boyfriend (Christopher Nicholas Smith).  Everybody is living peacefully except that Kristi behaves strangely, talking to her invisible friend Toby.  I say invisible.  Not imaginary.  Things start going bump in the night and you know the rest. 

            Knowing the rest does not work in the film's favor.  For a film whose success is based on startling people, it sure is predictable.  It's way too easy to figure out the film's sense of timing.  Watching the film, I kept saying things to myself like "It's early, so this has got to be a red herring",  "We're due for a big scare any second", and the one I repeated like a catchphrase, "This can't end well".  Although admittedly it didn't stop me from keeping my fingers in my ears and my eyes squinted for half the movie. 

            The audience saved the movie, as it usually does.  I picked up on a pattern to their reactions, one you can use to your advantage if you wish.  Many of them were so jumpy that they would scream at anything.  A split second later the entire theater would erupt in laughter because of the screamers, who by that time were laughing at themselves because they had screamed at something stupid.  Try to condition yourself to laugh as soon as you're startled, it will be that much more infectious.

            I won't argue that it's necessary to come out with a new "Paranormal Activity" every year since the movies don't lend themselves well to rewatching.  Once you know exactly where the big scares are, you can predict them down to the second.  The problem is that "Paranormal Activity 3" is so much like "Paranormal Activity 2" that I had too good of an idea of when the scares were coming.  I could usually predict them to within about a minute.  I want the filmmakers to keep the tradition of annual Halloween releases alive, but next time do a better job of keeping us guessing. 

Two and a Half Stars out of Five if you've seen the other "Paranormal Activity" films and have a general idea of what to expect.