Chrisicisms: Waiting for Zack Snyder's "Superman"

So, in the interest of keeping this blog more active, I want to start adding in some new features. A few looks at older movies, maybe some capsule length reviews of movies I've watched and not reviewed for the paper. But a big component I want to introduce is "Chrisicisms," in which I talk about some recent news, trends or other opinions in film. Sometimes it will be a bullet list of some items that I've stumbled across during the week. Other times, such as this week, it's just my viewpoint on something I've been mulling over. Hope it's enjoyable!

The big news this week is that Zack Snyder has been chosen to helm the Christopher Nolan-produced reboot of "Superman" for Warner Bros. for a 2012 release.

I've seen quite a bit of reaction on both sides about this news. There are some who feel Snyder is a perfect fit for such an iconic character, as the "300" director has fueled his career by putting together some particularly dazzling images. Others feel that Snyder's reliance on slow motion and green screen (which, to be fair, was only with "300") make him the wrong person to tackle the Man of Steel.

It's kind of a silly game to play. After all, whether we like it or not, WB has made their decision. Unless there's some kind of behind-the-scenes fiasco, Snyder is going to make the next Superman movie. It might be best just to take a breath, let him choose his Clark Kent and make the final judgement once we've seen the final work.

But it's Superman. And fans of Superman movies are likely going to have opinions on this matter.

I wasn't much of a comic book reader as a child--a few Batmans and Ninja Turtles as they grew in popularity, but not much more. But when I was in Middle School, DC Comics presented the "Death of Superman" storyline and, like many of my friends, I was hooked. I read every issue of that arc, riveted to the page and shocked that in the end I actually saw Superman bloodied, beaten and dying in the arms of Lois Lane (I was still young enough to not know what "publicity stunt" meant and be surprised when Supes was resurrected just about a year later).

My grandfather bought us a VHS of the old Max Fleischer Superman cartoons when I was young. I loved every one of those and can still hear the theme song in my head. I loved the Christopher Reeve films (although even as a kid I knew Nuclear Man in Part IV was pretty lame). Superman was always the ideal hero to me--a bona fide good guy, fighting for good causes and without the dark, questionable morality of Batman. I still think Richard Donner's "Superman" is one of the greatest comic book movies ever made and I have a soft spot for "Superman II" as well. While I understand why some people didn't care much for Singer's "Superman Returns," I think it's a worthy follow up to Donner's film and Brandon Routh is fantastic as the Man of Steel.

Superman's a tricky property to get right, though. There's a balance of optimism, hope and Americana that is a large part of who the character is. Superman has been derisively called a Boy Scout, but I have never understood why that's a criticism--there's something pure and admirable about Superman, a character who always does the right thing and stands up for justice. When you can get it right on film, as Donner does in the first 2/3 of the first "Superman," you can make something joyful, inspiring and memorable. But if you go too far in the wrong direction, the character can be cheesy, cliche and campy.

Of course, we don't live in the same innocent world that embraced Superman before. We prefer our characters to be dark and edgy, haunted by inner demons. It's why Batman endures--he does the right thing, but goes to dark places to do it. And perhaps the failure of Snyder's "Superman Returns" was that it was a little too innocent and earnest for current audiences, especially those who had been thrilled by "Batman Begins" only a year prior--a hero reminding the public to fly safely and wearing bright red and blue tights may not have been what they were in the mood for.

But I still think that a warmth and optimism is crucial for getting the character of Superman right. Batman's darkness and edge work because they are a part of the character--the Dark Knight appeals to our darker sides. Superman is the Man of Steel...he's a symbol of hope, fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

Nothing Nolan or Snyder has done have convinced me that they can bring that tone to this story.

Nolan, of course, gets the benefit of the doubt simply because he's a genius. When your filmography includes "Memento," "Insomnia," "Batman Begins," "The Prestige," "The Dark Knight" and "Inception," you've earned a bit of trust. I've enjoyed all of Nolan's films and felt the majority of them are masterpieces. He's an original, a master of both images and narratives. I have no doubt that he has an idea of how to approach Clark Kent/Superman or that he has a fantastically plotted story in mind.

But remember what I said about optimism and hope. Up until now, all of Nolan's films have been dark, possessing a distrust of even their protagonists. The reason Nolan's movies are so resonant is because he deals with broken characters, men who are trying to do the right thing and yet find themselves complicating situations throughout the way. He has a recurring theme of men haunted by their past, trying and failing to do the right thing and often with a habit of sabotaging themselves; it's this interest that has elevated Nolan's Batman films beyond mere superhero movie status to actual art. I'm not saying that he doesn't have an optimistic bone in his body and I trust that he's smart enough to know what sort of theme "Superman" should have...but given the themes he's traditionally tackled and the tone in all of his films, it's just hard to fathom what a Christopher Nolan-produced "Superman" would be.

Snyder's more problematic for me, and not because I'm a hater. As I stated in my "Legend of the Guardians" review last week, I think Snyder knows how to produce gorgeous images. He knows how to deliver a hero shot and he's a master at delivering action sequences--yes, he might overdo it with the slow motion, but you have to admit it always looks good in his hands.

And Snyder's made good movies. A "Dawn of the Dead" remake should have been verboten; Snyder's is surprisingly effective and entertaining. While "300" has not held up well in my experience, I must confess that it was quite the visceral experience when I first viewed it in theaters. He deserves major points for just being bold enough to tackle "Watchmen" and even more for actually making it good, even brilliant in parts (although he also cast Malin Ackerman and oversaw the horrible makeup jobs that marred the film). "Legend of the Guardians" is an interesting children's film and I think his upcoming "Sucker Punch" looks visually amazing.

But all of those films are surface entertainments for the most part--pretty-looking movies that don't have a ton that stick with you. With Superman, he's setting up a franchise and has to be able to take a character that, in the wrong hands, can come off as silly and cheesy, and make him heroic, admirable and intriguing. Nothing Snyder has done has made me confident in his ability to put likable characters on the screen or engage me beyond a visceral level.

And again, look at that filmography. A zombie movie. A bloody gladiator epic. A satire featuring superheroes with neuroses who kill villains with meat cleavers or have awkward sex on the couch. A children's movie in which owls attack each other with metal claws. Snyder's films typically have a darkness and edge to them. He pushes the limits. He's best when he's going beyond what we'd expect in a traditional movie. He has a dark aesthetic and seems to prefer characters that don't apologize for their blood lust. With a little reining in, he might be good for Batman. But I don't see the right tone for Superman in any of his work.

Of course, with the success of "The Dark Knight," WB might be edging towards a darker Superman movie. The other two directors up for the gig were Ben Affleck and Darren Aronofsky--neither of whom is known for their lighthearted fare (although I can't help but dream about what an Aronofsky Superman would look like). After all, before Singer took on the material, the franchise was set for a reboot helmed by Tim Burton with Nicolas Cage as a Superman who dressed in black and didn't fly.

A dark, edgy Superman may be what WB wants. If so, I think it's a mistake and misses out on some of the most essential characteristics of this iconic character. I don't want a dark and edgy Superman...I want a noble, pure and courageous Superman, one who inspires children to deeds of great heroism.

And maybe I'll be wrong. There's nothing more I'd like than to sit back in 2012 and realize that Snyder has made a fantastic Superman movie. I will happily admit it if I'm wrong.

But still...if you've seen what he's done with owls, what do you think he'll do with Supes?

Movie Review: "The Social Network"

Originally published in October 3 edition of the Source.

Ironically, the first thing I did upon walking out of the theater after screening "The Social Network" was check my Facebook.

It's almost a reflex. Since becoming one of the social networking site's 500 million users a few years back, it's become a part of my normal life. Whether through a computer or on my phone, I'm constantly viewing what my friends are up to or updating my status. There is hardly a person I communicate with regularly who is not on Facebook. Even my grandfather has a profile.

It's a rare thing to live through a communication revolution like this. Through social networking sites, we have the ability to reconnect with old schoolmates, keep up with our coworkers and learn every little thing about people we barely know in real life.

And if we're to believe "The Social Network," all it cost Facebook's creator to design this online intimacy was every close relationship he had.David Fincher's "The Social Network" is not really about Facebook, even though its creation drives the plot. Digging deeper, Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin examine a culture in which billions can be made by college students with only an idea and the life of a genius for whom technological revolution was a conduit for revenge.

The film opens with Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg, "Zombieland") on a date with Erica (Rooney Mara). In just five short minutes, a cordial date unravels as Mark parades his condescension, impatience and unchecked ambition, ending with Erica delivering a wickedly perfect break up that sets the stage for everything that follows. It's a breathtaking dialogue sequence that spells out everything we need to know about this character and Sorkin's script dares the audience to keep up.

Angry and rejected, Mark returns to his dorm for some drunken blogging. With the help of his roommates, he gets the idea to hack into Harvard's various online photo archives to create a website where users can rate student attractiveness. The site attracts so many hits in such a short time that it crashes Harvard's network. When he's called in front of Harvard administration, Mark simply requests recognition for revealing the network's vulnerabilities.

The incident makes Mark a pariah among the school's females but a hit among the computer elite. Twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer) enlist Mark's help in setting up a Harvard-only online dating site. At the same time, Mark and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Patrick Garfield) are busy setting up a Harvard social networking site called TheFacebook in which users can connect to their friends' profiles and trade information. It's a business venture that ultimately attracts the attention of Napster creator Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

The fact that the narrative is filtered through litigation between Zuckerberg and his former friends should tell you that Facebook's start was not without a few bumps. The Winklevosses, not without reason, suspect that Mark has appropriated their idea and we quickly learn that things will not end well for Mark and Eduardo's friendship either.

I first read about Facebook's tumultuous behind-the-scenes drama in a magazine article a few years back. While I found the subject fascinating, I never pictured it as a film. It was a story about computer programming, shady business contracts and legal action - not the most cinematically gripping stuff.

But Sorkin, famous for turning Beltway politics into weekly drama on "The West Wing," finds a human element in presenting Zuckerberg as a socially clueless, wounded and ambitious young man who doesn't seem to get the girls or the attention of the popular clubs. His solution: be better, be cooler and attract more attention ... and then use that attention to shut down everyone who he feels has slighted him. Portrayed with fierce brilliance and aloofness by Eisenberg, however, Zuckerberg doesn't come across as being a true jerk - just an overly prideful young man who doesn't fit in and then lashes out when his feelings get hurt. He's like an unfunny version of "The Big Bang Theory's" Sheldon Cooper.

It's a tough role and Eisenberg, best known for his comedic work, tackles it ably. We don't learn much about Zuckerberg except that he's brilliant and driven - and, perhaps, that's all there is to him. When he gets the idea for Facebook, it consumes him. He moves out to California and dedicates himself to the site. But no matter how popular the site becomes, he's always wrestling with insecurity over the friend picked for the club that neglected him, the slight from other students or the girl who just wasn't impressed with how smart he was. He doesn't know how to navigate social situations and gets irritated when others aren't on the same page as him. Eisenberg perfectly captures the condescending character of a man who sees himself as intellectually superior to everyone in the room, yet he also finds a few quiet moments to showcase Mark as a kid out of his element, afraid at how fast his dream is coming true and not sure how to emotionally react.

Sorkin is the rare writer to make legal and computer jargon crackle off the screen. Like on "The West Wing," his dialogue flies out of characters' mouths, daring the audience to keep up. The writing is whip-smart, gripping and surprisingly funny. Fincher's technique of cutting back and forth in the narrative between depositions and the actual event, coupled with Trent Reznor's propulsive score, give it a momentum that rivets attention to the screen and makes two hours pass in an instant. It's refreshing to see a film that respects audience intelligence enough to expect them to keep up and pay attention.Fincher's ensemble is superb, particularly Garfield. As the film's victim, a level-headed economics student who'd rather see Facebook slowly gain a profit rather than peak early, he presents Saverin well as a business-savvy young kid who wants to proceed cautiously and is ultimately betrayed for his wisdom. Timberlake is perfectly cast as Parker, the rock star of the Internet world, a cocky and brash rebel who talks a big game despite being fueled by paranoia and not having a buck to his name.

Fincher, a visual maestro in "Fight Club" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," has to rein in his tricks here. But still, no one shoots darkness on digital better than him and his creation of life on Harvard has a wonderfully edgy, dark tinge to it, taking place in a world where cultural revolution occurs amidst 3 a.m. frat parties and drunken bouts of brilliance. The director, who made three decades of investigative work intriguing in "Zodiac," ensures that despite the legal mumbo jumbo and massive tech talk the audience never loses site of the character drama at play or becomes lost in a maze of dialogue.

The film is peppered with insights that may require a second viewing. It's amusing and a bit sobering to think that the online social network community started by appealing to our attraction to exclusivity and desire meet the opposite sex. There's so much to say about the dangers of online business and intellectual property; the film should be required viewing for anyone thinking of starting a website. But none of this would work without a human story propelling it.

And in "The Social Network," that story is how a young man changed the way we communicate and connect with the people we love, even though it meant his own friends list had no one else on it.

Movie Review: "Legend of the Guardians--The Owls of Ga'Hoole"

With "Legends of the Guardians," Hollywood has finally delivered a movie about anthropomorphic animals that is exciting, visually sumptuous and features nary a poop joke.

Reminiscent of Disney's attempts to deliver more serious fare with "The Black Cauldron" or Don Bluth's "Secret of Nimh" in the 1980s, "Legends of the Guardians" may be about talking owls, but don't mistake it for an avian "Happy Feet." Helmed by director Zack Snyder ("300," "Watchmen"), "Guardians" is, at heart, a fantasy-adventure more interested in high-flying battles than clever pop culture references.

Based on a series of young adult novels, the film follows Soren (Jim Sturgess), a young, idealistic owl who revels in stories about the legendary Guardians of Ga'hoole - warrior owls who fought for the weak. When Soren is kidnapped along with thousands of other owlets and made to labor for a wicked queen (Helen Mirren) bent on overthrowing the owl kingdom, it is up to him to track down the Guardians, led by noble warrior Allomere (Sam Neill), and rescue the enslaved birds.

It's a fairly straightforward adventure, but one of "Guardians'" charms is the way it celebrates cultural myth-making. No one is really sure whether or not the Guardians of Ga'hoole exist; Soren only has heard of them in his father's (Hugo Weaving) tales. But it's the hope that these stories are true that fuel Soren to find rescue. In an age where most children's films rush to ape the latest pop culture fad or a timely gag, it's refreshing to see a film that celebrates our heritage of creating heroic tales to pass down to our children.

The film feels charmingly old-fashioned, right down to the cadre of friends that accompany Soren on his journey, from a lute-playing old bird (Anthony LaPaglia) to a care-taking snake (Miriam Margolyes). It's a charming and funny group, and each character is given a distinctive personality - the crazy old bird, the motherly nanny, the gung-ho best friend. They're the character types seen in earlier animated films and children's stories, crafted with gentleness and whimsy, free of the annoying catchphrase spouting and slapstick shenanigans.

Snyder, whose work has been decidedly aimed at adults for his directorial career, makes the wise decision not to pander. He knows children can handle serious, adventurous fare and treats his audience with respect. He's not afraid to have a story full of shifting alliances, dangerous escapes and scary villains, such as this film's Metal Beak (Joel Edgerton). His cast also treats the material seriously, particularly Mirren, who is wonderful as the film's villainess. The film is pleasantly missing the manic, gag-a-minute noise of recent family fare and could almost be viewed as a gateway into more epic fantasy; once children have handled 'The Guardians,' might Harry Potter or "The Hobbit" be the next logical step?

Snyder's biggest asset has always been his visual flair. "300" and "Watchmen" have their detractors, but few could deny the visual feast Snyder reliably brings to the table. "Guardians'" photo-realistic computer images are breathtaking - every feather, drop of rain or blade of grass is meticulously crafted; only the expressive eyes give away that these are animated characters. The film's numerous flight and battle scenes are some of the most amazingly realized animated sequences I've ever seen. Snyder's love for slow motion is on full display here, but I didn't mind - it gave more time to admire the art on display.

Snyder's refusal to pander to kids, however, should provide a caution to parents. The film's battle sequences are often dark and intense for a PG-rated children's film, and it's likely that many younger viewers will view the movie's final act through their fingers. Then again, kids of the 1980s grew up with "Poltergeist" and "Indiana Jones," so maybe children are more resilient than I like to think.

But an over-reliance of battle sequences keeps the film from presenting any real depth or insight. Soren learns that the Guardians are real, of course, but is never taught to develop any unique skill of his own; his success at the end is to simply fight and defeat Metal Beak. For a film that begins with the intentions to craft an old-fashioned myth, and is filled with such ingenuity and whimsy, ending with a fight seems shallow.

I would love to pronounce "Legend of the Guardians" as a new children's classic, but missteps like that keep it just off that shelf. While the majority of the film is free of pop culture inanity, Snyder does make the mistake of resorting to a pop music montage - made all the more cringe-inducing by the fact that the music is by Owl City (seriously?). Also, the film's 90-minute runtime means the story is rushed at a few points; it's hard to keep some of the main characters straight, and some motivations and intentions are lost in the shuffle.

Still, it's rare to see a children's film showcasing this much heart, charm and ambition. The visuals alone make the film worth a look on the big screen and it's the rare time you'll hear me urge you to see a movie in 3D. Hopefully it's the start of pushing the boundaries of what a family film can actually be, and we'll see more epic fantasies and adventures for children on the big screen.

Until then, this isn't a bad flight to take.

Movie Review: "The Town"

In 2007, Ben Affleck took many by surprise with his nuanced and gritty directorial debut “Gone Baby Gone.”

The adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s best-selling novel was a tough and twisty examination of crime in a Boston neighborhood. It earned Amy Ryan a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and convinced several critics that Affleck’s skill behind the camera might be strong enough to put the “Gigli” jokes to rest once and for all.

With his sophomore follow up “The Town,” Affleck may have also earned the right to have “Jersey Girl,” “Paycheck” and the Animal Crackers scene in “Armageddon” stricken from his record. Keeping his eyes on Beantown, Affleck crafts one of the most riveting crime thrillers in years and delivers one of the strongest performances of his career.

The film is set in Boston’s Charlestown neighborhood, an area known for having more bank robberies than any area in the country. Heists are a way of life to Charlestown boys, who seem to inherit it from their fathers the way others take on the family hardware store.

Doug MacRay (Affleck) is one of those boys. His father in prison for a murder-robbery, MacRay is a washed up hockey player and drug addict who now organizes robberies for an Irish crime boss (Pete Postlethwaite). As the film opens, MacRay and his crew commit a brutal bank heist, taking manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage before leaving her stranded by the ocean.

Upon learning that Claire lives only four blocks from the gang, MacRay’s hot-headed partner Jem (Jeremy Renner) suggests silencing the witness. MacRay, hoping to keep the situation from turning violent, offers to follower her and see what she knows. The two strike up a relationship that has Doug beginning to reconsider his criminal ways, all while Jem tries to convince him to take on a big score and an FBI agent (Jon Hamm) pieces together the new string of robberies plaguing Boston.

This is all well-tread territory and Affleck doesn’t try to reinvent the genre. What “The Town” may lack in originality, it makes up for in reliability.

I was one of the reviewers impressed with “Gone Baby Gone,” but Affleck outdoes himself here. The film, beautifully photographed by Robert Elswit (“There Will Be Blood”) is a slick, energetic affair. The action sequences move with an electricity reminiscent of Michael Mann or William Friedkin, particularly a chase through Boston and a blistering climax inside Fenway Park.

It’s easy to crash cars, shoot guns and blow things up, but Affleck also knows how to play out the film’s quieter scenes, knowing just how long to hold a shot and deliver the suspense and emotion the moment calls for. An encounter between Doug, Claire and Jem at an outdoor bistro is fraught with tension, with the entire scene hinging on whether Claire will notice a tattoo on the back of Jem’ neck. The scene plays out with delicious suspense, thanks to both nimble directing and strong performances by Affleck, Renner and Hall.

Despite some unfortunate career choices earlier a few years back, Affleck has always had a strong screen presence, delivering solid performances in films like “Chasing Amy” and “Changing Lanes.” As Doug, Affleck ably captures the weariness of a man born into crime, raised by criminals and proceeding fatefully into the underworld. Claire provides a glimmer of goodness, intelligence and humanity into Doug’s world, forcing him to think that change might be possible. But his convict father (Chris Cooper) and Jem serve as reminders that Doug is a street kid and that leaving behind the crime-ridden Charlestown streets would not be seen as escape, but abandonment. In a way, it’s the anti-“Good Will Hunting.”

Hall is solid as Claire, and Hamm is terrific as the driven as the FBI agent on Doug’s trail whose ethics may be slimier than Doug’s. Cooper, relegated to one scene, still manages to impress and bring a gravity to the film. But it’s Renner, hot off “The Hurt Locker,” who steals the show, taking the cliché “live-wire” character and giving him a sense of misguided honor and a willingness to do anything at all to stay out of jail and keep his friends nearby. It’s a fantastic performance and Renner creates a terrifying character.

Affleck loves his hometown and, as in “Gone Baby Gone,” he makes Boston a central character in the film. His characters are defined by their settings, wearied and beaten-down by family histories that have played out in the city for years. Elswit’s photography captures Beantown in all of its glory; Boston hasn’t looked this good since “The Departed.”

The film balances its action sequences and relationships well, rarely bogging down in exposition and keeping the breakneck scenes plausible and comprehensible. Affleck allows his characters to breathe and grow without sacrificing the film’s pacing. Only in the final moments does the tone slip from his grasp, turning what should have been a hard and gritty ending into something a bit too cheesy and sentimental. As much as I love “The Shawshank Redemption,” that’s the last film I should have been thinking of at the end of “The Town.”

There’s nothing about “The Town” that hasn’t been done before. Where it succeeds, however, is in taking those familiar elements—the robber with one last job, a chance at redemption and a vicious partner—and playing them out with tension, skill and drama. You may have seen it all before, but rarely is it done this well.

Movie Review: "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World"

Normally I don't care enough to make more than a passing note of what films succeed or fail at the box office. If I liked a film, I consider it a success. If I dislike it, I don't care how much money it made - it remains a bad movie.

But once in awhile, moviegoers make a huge mistake. And last week, that was ignoring "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," one of the year's most original, funny and enjoyable movies. Moviegoers instead decided they'd rather see Sylvester Stallone, Julia Roberts, Will Ferrell or take a third go-around with "Inception," leaving the adventures of Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) to settle for fifth place at $10 million.

Nothing against those choices - I enjoyed most of them. And I can understand why some may be a bit reluctant to see a film so heavily steeped in geek culture that it plasters its video game and comic book influences on the screen.

But gamer or not, there's a lot to enjoy in "Scott Pilgrim." Director Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead," "Hot Fuzz") has crafted a modern-day slacker epic so packed full of action, romance, comedy and fantasy that the film sometimes seems at risk of toppling under its own whimsy. It's a miracle that Wright brings this all to life with a steady hand and a skill at controlling chaos, turning what could have been a hollow action-comedy into a funny, exciting and surprisingly smart look at maturity and relationships.

To be sure, Scott doesn't have much of either at the start of the film. A self-absorbed slacker who avoids steady jobs so he can play bass in his garage band Sex Bob-omb, Scott is rebounding from a broken heart by dating a 17-year-old high school student Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Knives may be a poor dating option, but Scott isn't looking for a relationship - he's content to just stay at the hand-holding stage, so long as Knives tells him how much she adores him.

But then, one night, Scott meets the literal girl of his dreams when Amazon delivery girl Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) rollerblades through his subconscious. After a disastrous encounter at a party, Scott tries again with Ramona and the two start dating. Things are progressing nicely until Scott learns what every person who has been in a relationship discovers at one time or another: Partners come with baggage.

In this case, however, the baggage takes the form of seven evil ex-boyfriends, who Scott must battle to the death if he is to win Ramona's hand. These exes include a Bollywood-singing hipster (Satya Bhabha), a punk-rock chick (Mae Whitman), a psychic who gains his powers from veganism (Brandon Routh) and a Hollywood action star (Chris Evans).

These fights are staged by Wright with the flair and energy of musical numbers - sometimes literally employing song and dance. Influenced by gamer culture, "Scott Pilgrim" unleashes a visual and aural assault on audiences, with every "smack!" and "kapow!" boldly flashed onscreen, guitar bass lines that erupt into sonic waves and villains that transform into coins when they are defeated. Wright also employs comic book tropes - such as abrupt "panel shifts" in lieu of cuts and written narration - to keep the film moving at a bullet's pace.

There's so much wit on display - a Bollywood number here, vegan superpowers there - that "Scott Pilgrim" could easily risk being ADD-adled and empty. But Wright, who showed a skill at tweaking genres while celebrating them with his previous films, allows the film to show a surprising maturity and understanding. Scott never questions his newfound skills or ridiculous situation because, as a slacker steeped in gamer culture, this is how the world appears to him. Who hasn't felt like they've had to fight against the men or women their current love knew in the past? And who hasn't ever looked forward to falling in love, only to discover that it's a battle and we have to face our own demons, put a little elbow grease into the relationship and do some growing up - even if it means facing our own flaws. "Scott Pilgrim" may be hilarious fun, but there's a strong heart propelling it from start to finish.

It helps that all the comedic anarchy is grounded by one of the year's best ensembles. Cera is the go-to guy for playing awkward youths, but he finds new notes to play as self-obsessed, somewhat narcissistic Pilgrim. Winstead ably portrays Ramona as the punk girl every guy wants, with an air of mystery about her. Each of the evil exes appear to be having the time of their lives hamming it up for the role, but none get as many laughs as Routh, playing the perfect tool as the Vegan supervillain. Even the supporting actors get big laughs in their scenes; Wong has an enthusiasm and innocence about Knives that makes her a sympathetic heroine, and Kieran Culkin steals the film's biggest laughs as Scott's sardonic gay roommate.

Every year I ask for just one movie that shows me something I haven't seen before. And while "Inception" deservedly gets a lot of attention for its trippy narrative and action sequences, "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" blasts out of the gate with so much visual wit, energy and charm that it's impossible to dislike. It opens, with an 8-bit video game graphic of the Universal logo and charges through, never putting the same joke on screen twice, and gaining big laughs from its plethora of video game, television, movie and comic book references. By the time the film ends, asking the audience if we'd like to continue, I was already reaching for more quarters.

Movie Review: "The Expendables"

Never have so many "Y" chromosomes been pummeled in the name of entertainment.

With its never-ending parade of machismo, bone-shaking combat scenes and a summit placing Rambo, the Terminator and John McClane in the same room, Sylvester Stallone's "The Expendables" aspires to be the "Godfather" of action flicks. Stallone clearly wants nothing left than to give audiences a film that reeks of gunpowder, sweat and grease.

Though he falls short of that goal, the former Italian Stallion can find consolation in knowing he made a tough, red-blooded and enjoyable action picture.Comprised of a who's who of B-movie action stars, the Expendables are a group of mercenaries led by Barney Ross (Stallone), and include knife-wielding Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), short but lethal Ying-Yang (Jet Li), gun-packing Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) and therapy-addicted Toll Road (Randy Couture). When they're not dispatching pirates or toppling drug cartels, the boys hang out with ex-Expendable, Harley-riding tattoo artist Tool (Mickey Rourke).

Yeah, it's that kind of movie.

The film opens at the end of a job, in which the team has outwitted a group of Somali pirates but had to cut loose one of their own (Dolph Lundgren), who became a little overzealous. The team is offered a new mission in a fictional South American country overrun by a corrupt dictator (David Zayas) and slimy ex-CIA official (Eric Roberts). Barney and Lee initially turn the job down after a close encounter scouting the land, but, as always, a determined girl (Giselle Itie) draws them back to save the day.

But "The Expendables'" target market doesn't care too much about plot. They just want to know how good Stallone blows things up. And although I could have done without the computer-generated blood sprays that punctuate every fight, I'll admit that this is a welcome return to the gritty action of the '80s, when fists, knives and guns were involved in every fight. Every team member gets an applause-worthy action moment, be it diminutive Li facing off against big lunk Lundgren or Stallone going fist to fist with Steve Austin. Statham gets a nice brawl on a basketball court and Crews gets the loudest cheers from the audience wielding a very big gun at a very opportune moment. Stallone, who brought vitality back to the Rambo and Rocky franchises in the last decade, seems eager to revive the days when action pictures were less cerebral and more physical, and stages chaos with a good eye. The film's last 30 minutes will be bliss to action aficionados.

Statham and Stallone command much of the spotlight and have a nice little chemistry. Not much is told about Barney, but Stallone has a good heart-to-heart with Rourke, who brings a surprising amount of soul to his world-weary ex-soldier. Statham is saddled with a tired subplot about a jilted ex-lover (Charisma Carpenter) that only exists for a nice basketball court brawl with her violent current boyfriend.The other Expendables are relegated to the sidelines until the film's final act, which may be a blessing. Li and Lundgren may be action icons, but they stumble through their dialogue, and Itie speaks her lines with a monotone earnestness that would seem amateurish even in the worst moments of "Rambo." Roberts tries to be as slimy and creepy as Alan Rickman in "Die Hard," but can't pull it off, and cuts a fairly disappointing villain; it's little stumbles like this that keep "The Expendables" from being the great action epic Stallone clearly wants it to be.

Although many will tout the brief scene featuring Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis onscreen together as the film's most iconic moment, the truth is that the 2-minute scene is a bit expendable itself, just a nice occasion for the Planet Hollywood co-owners to trade some barbs and set up the plot. It's a fun scene, but it hints at a bigger, flashier film that exists in Stallone's head. He wants to be making "Die Hard," but is instead making a more expensive variation of "Navy SEALS" or "The Last Boyscout."

Truthfully, if "The Expendables" were released in the 1980s it would be a second-tier action movie that found its audience on late-night HBO. Coming in an age where heroes have to apologize for brandishing weapons and spend more time on computers than in car chases, it carries a refreshing and nostalgic feel. Even its lame one-liners and puns are exactly what we expect from this genre and, were Stallone not so prone to sincerity in the film's few quiet moments, this could almost pass as a "Grindhouse"-style action revival.

Action fans are notoriously forgiving as long as the explosions are big, battles are brutal and heroes are larger than life. I suspect they'll have a great time with "The Expendables." It's easy to criticize a film for having no meat on the bone, but here's one that's all meat, no bone. I suspect those who line up for "The Expendables" would want nothing less.

Movie Review: "The Other Guys"

Few comedy duos have been as consistently successful as Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.

The actor-director team has spent the better part of a decade tweaking the American male psyche in all its lust ("Anchorman"), swagger ("Talladega Nights") and juvenilia ("Step Brothers"). Ferrell has created a classic collection of blowhard idiots, lampooning male hubris and idiocy, and McKay, a writer-director pal from his "Saturday Night Live" days, has always been his best collaborative partner, finding new levels of absurdity to explore.

With the duo turning their eyes to the action-comedy genre for the new release "The Other Guys," it would seem a given that they would tweak the over-the-top, testosterone-fueled macho male hero. Perhaps sensing our expectations, McKay sends Ferrell the other way, encouraging him to be as fussy, cautious and nerdy as possible as NYC forensic accountant Allen Gamble.

Not that they totally resist the urge to poke fun at buddy cop conventions. The film opens with Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson playing two NYC super-cops who appear to have been flown in from a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie, unafraid to destroy millions of dollars in property if they can catch their crooks. Allen and his partner Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who would much rather be the one crashing cars and shooting guns, are "The Other Guys" - police officers assigned to write up all the paperwork for the real cops.

Chasing a tip on a paperwork violation, Allen and Terry stumble upon a financial crime of unexpected proportions. When the city's best cops are taken out of commission, they step up to solve the crime and save the day, much to the chagrin of their captain (Michael Keaton), who can't be expected to clean up their mess and balance his part-time job as a Bed, Bath and Beyond store manager.

Unlike this year's wretched "Cop Out," "The Other Guys" isn't that interested in slavishly paying homage to cop movie conventions. While there may be a plot to follow and bad guys to find, McKay is more interested in using the genre as a framework for his cadre of bizarre characters to bounce around in.

Allen lacks the over-the-top nature of Ferrell's most famous characters, but he may also be the actor's most fully-formed creation. Allen likes the cautious nature of his job and enjoys filing paperwork. He's prone to outbursts of enthusiasm, such as telling his coworkers to "have a great day" every morning at 9:15 and buying random gifts for Terry. It doesn't bother him that he has to carry a wooden gun, and he's wise enough to call for an MRI after an explosion knocks him on his back. It's refreshing to see Ferrell play a character so normal on the surface, which makes it funnier when each random tic and non sequitur fly out of his mouth, especially when he bemoans his "plain" wife, played by the ravishing Eva Mendes, or ventures to remember his dark collegiate past. Allen isn't as instantly memorable as Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby, but Ferrell fills him with enough character and quirk to make it one of his best-realized roles.

McKay's gift as a director is to fill his movies with a cast of great supporting actors, and then step back and let them play. Wahlberg's intensity is used to great comedic effect here, and the actor elicits some big laughs as we learn more about Terry's life away from the force and his haunted past as the Yankee Clipper (he shot Derek Jeter). Comedians Rob Riggle and Damon Wayans, as two competing cops, bring wit to roles that could have been easily forgettable, and Jackson and Johnson perfectly parody their own macho personas. Keaton, just weeks after stealing "Toy Story 3" as Ken, reminds us once again how much we've missed his presence on screen, eschewing the tendency to play the loud-mouthed captain and, instead, portraying a mild-mannered father figure with a proclivity for quoting the music group TLC.

McKay has a wonderful knack for bringing absurdity to the big screen, both in big comedic moments (Terry and Allen's first car chase) and small expository scenes (the explanation of events that took place in Allen's stolen Prius will make you never hear the words "soup kitchen" the same way again). He's a nimble comedic mind, able to let his actors improvise to great effect and also able to deliver a great sight gag. One visual joke, featuring Jackson and Johnson's characters, made me laugh long into the next scenes.

If "The Other Guys" feels like it meanders in some spots, it's only because the action-comedy conventions require it to pause for plot updates, although the movie rarely stops delivering big laughs throughout its nearly two-hour run time. For the most part, every joke lands squarely, and the film moves forward with energy and confidence."The Other Guys" isn't really much more than a clever buddy comedy, but it never pretends to be anything more than that. The key criterion to its success is that it be funny. And while Ferrell and McKay have been at this game for quite a while, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that they haven't grown old, and that "The Other Guys" can stand proudly and idiotically beside "Anchorman," "Step Brothers" and "Talladega Nights" as a testament to one of cinema's great current comedic collaborations.

Originally published in the 8/8 edition of The Source.