“Words get us nowhere.  It’s time for action.”

The H-Bomb:  Is that right, Carlos?  Time for action?  That’s why your life story offers so many words and so little action?  Oh, but I’m jumping ahead of myself, aren’t I?  “Carlos” tells the true story of Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, or, as the world would come to know him, Carlos the Jackal (though he’s never actually called the Jackal in the film).

Kicking off with a disclaimer saying that it should be regarded as “historical fiction”, the film covers Carlos’ entire career as a political terrorist for the Palestinian cause, from his early days fighting for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Red Army Faction in Europe, to his rise to fame/infamy, to later in his life, when he’s living in hiding and struggling, in vain, to stay relevant.

Of all the killings, bombings, and kidnappings that he orchestrated, the most notable, and the one that the film spends a great deal of time on, is when Carlos and his crew take hostages at the OPEC headquarters in 1975, though the real mission is to assassinate a certain official.  It all goes pretty wrong, leaving three dead, but Carlos, through careful maneuvering, is able to elude capture.

That single episode shows entirely who Carlos the Jackal was.  They could’ve made the movie solely about that incident, and they would have had a pretty taut thriller.  A kind of “Dog Day Afternoon” on a global political scale.  But instead they just made it one part in the larger story of Carlos.  They went for a full blown epic, one that was set in many countries and spoken in just as many languages.  They went for huge, and huge is what they got.  Too huge, as the end result is bloated, drawn out, and, at times, a tad flat.

“Carlos”, directed by Olivier Assayas, exists in two forms: as a nearly six hour long, three part mini-series, and as a two hour long theatrical film.  I watched the mini-series, and it’s worth mentioning that it should be viewed as a mini-series, meaning it should be taken in one segment at a time.  By trying to watch the whole thing in one shebang, you would only be dooming yourself to hate it.

The film that “Carlos” immediately reminded me of was Steven Soderbergh’s two-parter “Che”, not just in its sheer length, but in it’s style (documentary style), and it’s tone (understated).  There is also, of course, the connection of the subject matter, since Che and Carlos both considered themselves “revolutionaries.”  In fact, portraits of Che Guevera hang on the walls of the many safe houses and flats that Carlos stays in throughout the film.  Like “Che”, I found “Carlos” interesting to a point, but also tedious in spots and overall just lacking any true insight into who its protagonist was.

That is my real problem, I didn’t feel like I knew any more about Carlos the Jackal after the film than before it.  As played by Edgar Ramirez, Carlos was a calculating, strategic thinker who was perhaps a glory hound,  but sincerely committed to his cause.  But why?  Why did a Venezuelan care so much about Palestine,  so much as to dedicate his entire life as a terrorist to it?  Why was violence the only solution for him?  We never get answers to any of these questions.

Instead, we only see his actions.  Carlos shooting people.  Carlos tossing bombs into storefronts.  And Carlos talking.  Oh, we get a lot of him talking.  Talk, talk, talk.  Of his grandiose ideas.  Of how deeply committed he is to the cause.  Of how he dreams of uniting revolutionaries to the world over.  We get to hear over and over again about his philosophies, but not about what drove him.

And he talks about these ideas of his with so, so many people.  “Carlos” is a film with a cast of millions.  There are so many players, in fact, that when they come on screen, we’re shown little subtitles to tell us who the hell they are.  It’s all for naught, as trying to keep all these people straight is utterly futile.  And that new characters keep on being introduced, right up until the very end, really doesn’t help matters either.

As a polemic, director Assayas keeps it objective and doesn’t judge Carlos.  He’s neither a good guy or a bad guy.  Neither romanticized nor demonized.  Instead, his words and actions are depicted in a clinical, matter-of-fact fashion, leaving it up to us to decide whether he was a terrorist or a freedom fighter.  I lean towards terrorist, myself, but that’s just me.  He certainly was cold blooded, with zero remorse.  I did laugh out loud when he claims to have “a great respect for human life,” though I don’t think I was supposed to.

“Carlos” does benefit significantly from a powerful performance by Ramirez.  He really put all of himself into the role, and is indeed terrific.  He pulls a De Niro in “Raging Bull” in how his figure morphs over time.  The youthful Carlos dons many looks and disguises as he bounces around Europe and the Middle East, while the older incarnation, who was a drinker, is puffier and sports the requisite beer belly.  The film’s faults aside, he is riveting to watch, and manages to hold the film together when nothing else does.

Overall, “Carlos” is not a bad film, as the subject matter is inherently interesting and it was never really boring, per se, just monotonous and long winded in places.  I would expect a biopic that’s six hours long to have a fully developed lead character.  But the Carlos we get here is underwritten, and, as a result, the entire film, while striving for greatness and importance (much like Carlos himself), is under-whelming.

Happy Feet 2 starts off on a happy foot (pun intended!) with a grand opening montage of dancing and singing penguins. This film had us tapping our feet and singing to surprisingly cross generational selection of songs covered in the film. Mumbles (voiced by Elijah Wood) is now an adult penguin with a family of his own. His wife Gloria (Pink) is one of the most beautiful female penguins with an amazing voice who tries to foster a more positive relationship between Mumbles and their little penguin, Erik (EG Daly) who finds himself without “happy feet” and rather clumsy.

The message is the same, don’t be afraid to be different, and always put your friends and family first. However, the story bounces back and forth between the penguins plight of being trapped by newly formed avalanches, and their reliance on other penguin tribes, and a krill’s quest for independence and evolution. Bill the Krill (Matt Damon) and Will the Krill (Brad Pitt) added some of my favorite parts, with witty dialogue and fun bantering. The addition of these new characters and a puffin named Sven (Hank Azaria) certainly mixed things up a bit. However Sven’s accent left my 7 year old asking, “What did he say? He sounds weird!”

The music was fun, the energy was cool, and overall I was surprised that I liked the sequel just as much as the original, especially in 3D.

Warning:  If you haven’t read the books, these reviews may contain spoilers!  Also, the vampires sparkle in the sunlight, so . . . yea, there’s that.

A ho-hum review for a ho-hum biopic.

The H-Bomb:  To call J. Edgar Hoover one of the most controversial figures of the 20th Century is almost an understatement.  He is the man who more or less created the Federal Bureau of Investigation as we know it today, and ran it with an iron fist for nearly fifty years, right up until the time of his death.  He was also considered a control freak who often abused his power to ruin the reputations, careers, and lives of many, many people.  You would think that the life of such an individual would make for one dynamic biopic, but in the overly-understated hands of producer/director Clint Eastwood, you would be mistaken.

The film, told in non-linear fashion, basically covers the highlights of Hoover’s career;  from his early days hunting and deporting anarchist radicals, to his introducing of scientific methods, such as fingerprinting, into criminal investigations, to his heading up the investigation of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, to his attempt to bring down Martin Luther King.  Along the way we get glimpses of his contentious relationship with Bobby Kennedy, his aversion to the opposite sex, his Norman Bates-like relationship with his mother, as well as his longtime “partnership” with his “confidant” Clyde Tolson.

Occasionally, we are treated to some interesting factoids, like how he came to be addressed as J. Edgar, and how he dreamed of an America where everyone’s information would be registered and available at a moments notice, in the name of stopping crime, but most of the speculative behind-the-scenes stuff seems to arrive at one single conclusion, that Hoover was insecure.  He was insecure in the extreme, maybe because he was maybe gay, maybe because his demanding mother expected too much from him, who’s to say?  Sadly, if you’re looking for any real insight into this most fascinating of historical figures, there is very little to be found.  They go as far as to show him trying on his mother’s nightgown after she dies, but they don’t even touch on what might have been contained in his infamous secret files.

Aside from failing to give us a sense of who J. Edgar was, aside from what we could already surmise, Mr. Eastwood’s film also falls short as entertainment.  Every would be dramatic event from his life, from an early bombing, to the Kennedy assassination, to pretty much everything else is treated in such a matter-of-fact way that they have little to no emotional impact whatsoever.  Eastwood has always been on the low key side as a filmmaker, but here his approach is so leisurely, he keeps the whole film limping along at the same “so what” tempo, that he renders it all dramatically inert.  Even the scene in which the skeleton of Lindbergh’s baby is found, which should be inherently upsetting, is ineffectual due to the indifferent storytelling.

That’s not to say that “J. Edgar” is without any virtues.  The film certainly looks great, thanks to Tom Stern’s artfully shadowy cinematography and the handsome production design by James Murakami, which makes Hoover’s F.B.I. office, where the film spends a good portion of its 137 minutes, look appropriately closed off and claustrophobic.  It conveys, far more effectively than the script does, how Hoover is involved with, yet weirdly disconnected to, many of the important events going on around him.

Solid production values aside, the film is also aided by the efforts of a game cast.  The casting of Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover may be questionable, but he puts in a commendable performance, nonetheless.  He’s been bucking for an Oscar for a while now, and this is unlikely to win him one, but still, he shows here that he’s got what it takes to someday nab that little gold statue.  His old man make-up is a little distracting, at first, but it’s not nearly as embarrassing as the layers of crap they piled onto Armie Hammer when he had to portray the elder, post-stroke Clyde Tolson.  Good God, that was just a travesty.

As for Hammer’s performance, he’s terrific, actually, despite the laughable Mummy make-up.  His Tolson is sympathetic as Hoover’s foil/maybe (most likely) lover, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see his name come up when the Oscar Nominations are announced.  Naomi Watts fairs well as Hoover’s loyal, lifelong personal secretary, and actually manages to make a strong impression, despite not getting a whole lot, script-wise, to work with.  As for Judi Dench, as the mother who would rather see her son dead than become a “daffy,” she’s good, in her typical scary, Judi Dench way.  It’s just that Clint makes the mistake of showing her in close up, which makes the old age make-up on the other characters look all the more phony in comparison.

Though the actors all bring their A game, they are let down by Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black’s superficial screenplay, which shows us plenty of J. Edgar doing what J. Edgar did, but again, fails to show what made the man tick.  He was an unhappy, insecure little man who wanted power and glory, who hated to dance as much as he hated the Reds.  Okay… but why?  “J. Edgar” is a bit of Oscar Bait that certainly has the look and feel of an important picture, but none of the substance.

It’s as if Eastwood was trying to play it safe with this one, as a character as rich as Hoover most definitely lived a more interesting life than the one depicted here.  Perhaps a director with more teeth was needed to give this film the bite it needed.  As it is, “J. Edgar” is toothless, flat, and just never nearly as captivating as it should be.  It’s certainly not terrible, or even bad, but it’s not good, either.  It’s a false start to the awards season, and most definitely worth skipping in theaters.  I wouldn’t even recommend renting it.  Honestly, this is one that can wait for cable.

“Sometimes when I look out these little windows, I get the feeling there’s something out there looking back at us.”

The H-Bomb: Okay, just to get it out of the way, since I know it’s what we’re all thinking about: “Apollo 18” is exactly what the trailers make it look like… yet another “found footage” horror film. It’s “Paranormal Activity” in space, “Blair Witch” on the moon… whatever. This sub-genre of horror is getting old for some people, for others, it was never that interesting to begin with. Me, I don’t really mind the whole faux-documentary style all that much, truthfully. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all about the story, and whether it was scary (“Paranormal Activity”) or not scary (“Diary of the Dead”).

So is “Apollo 18” a scary film? It has its moments, but I’ll get more into that in a minute. The story is presented as a what-if conspiracy theory, the kind Fox Mulder would cook up. What if we did send another manned mission to the moon after Apollo 17? What if we actually found something there (aside from dirt and rocks)? If we did, why is it we never heard anything about it? D.O.D. cover up, dumbass! At least, that’s what the movie… erm… I mean, that’s what the ninety something minutes of film cobbled together from eighty four hours of raw footage anonymously uploaded onto some crackpot website would have us believe.

Three astronauts are assembled for a top secret mission to set up motion cameras and listening devices on the south pole of the Moon. They’re told it has something to do with spying on the Ruskies, and since the Department of Defense is heading up the operation, they don’t really question it. Two of the astronauts touch down on the Moon while the third remains in orbit, and at first everything goes smoothly, but then, and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this, shit happens. Things go bump in the night. Equipment is being messed with. They find footprints that aren’t theirs, which lead them to something that shouldn’t be there. Something cripples their lunar module so it can’t take off, they lose radio contact with Houston (No! No! I am not going to say it!), and… did that rock just move by itself?

Yes, the astronauts realize that things are definitely not right with this mission, and now they must figure not only how to survive whatever the fuck is out there, but how to get the hell off this rock. All the thrills, chills, and mayhem are caught with the same kind of low grade shaky cam that made people barf at “Blair Witch” some twelve years ago. I must admit, when I first heard about this film a while back, my curiosity was piqued. A “Paranormal Activity” style flick in space… this could be cool. To the film’s credit, it actually uses the location to great effect. It really gives us a sense of hopelessness the characters must be feeling when bad things start happening. What could be worse than getting into a jam in outer space, where there is absolutely no one to help?

The story also kept me fascinated as I wondered what exactly this extra terrestrial threat could be. I’ve always had a soft spot for this kind of Sci-Fi horror, because I always imagine the possibilities, and in that sense, I was solidly engaged. But for me, the big letdown was when it was revealed what the aliens are. Don’t fret, I won’t spoil it, but it’s one of those revelations that’s going to make you go, “Really, movie? Really? That’s the best you could do?” It’s underwhelming bordering on downright lame.

Aside from the sense of mystery and claustrophobia the film creates, it never really rises to the level of scary. There are a few jump scares that work, but they’re just that, jump scares, which these days are just considered cheap. What could also be considered cheap is that the movie tries, through title cards and what have you, oh so hard, to sell us on the notion that this is real documentary footage. Sorry, some moviegoers (with learning disabilities) may have fallen for that back in ’99, but these days, come on! The fact that it has an actual music score, as well as cinematic transition effects, doesn’t help sell the “reality” angle, either.

The performances were surprisingly strong, given that’s an area where found footage flicks usually falter. Good acting does go a long way in making me care about the characters and their pickle, and here, I cared. While, again, I didn’t find it all that scary, it did have a strong atmosphere and an overall creepiness throughout. Also, the director and the script did a good job of keeping us guessing as to whether or not the astronauts will escape their predicament right up to the very end.

When all is said and done, “Apollo 18” is most definitely not a great movie, just an okay one. It had me going for a while with its decent build up, but as stated, once we actually see the aliens, it’s a letdown. Fans of this kind of horror flick won’t be blown away, but they won’t be disappointed, either. Should you drop ten bucks to see it on the big screen? Probably not. For both quality and aesthetic reasons, “Apollo 18” is probably best seen on the small screen.

The H-Bomb: When I think of the big shot, or elite, horror film directors; the Cravens, the Hoopers, the Romeros, I recall the few great films that they’ve made, then I remember how sadly uneven they tend to be. For every good film Wes Craven puts out, he makes at least two crappy ones. Most of Tobe Hooper’s resume, post-“Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, just makes me want to cry, and all of George A. Romero’s more recent efforts have been borderline torturous to sit through.

Of all of the old school “Masters of Horror,” the one I’ve personally always found to be the most reliable is John Carpenter. His seminal “Halloween” is considered one of the greatest horror movies ever made, and rightly so, with “The Thing” and “The Fog” being almost equally as incredible. “In the Mouth of Madness” is a worthwhile bit of Bin Booty, and even some of his non-scary efforts (“Escape from New York”, “Big Trouble in Little China”) can be a helluva lot of fun. Yeah, he’s got a few misfires, (“Escape from L.A.”, “Village of the Damned”), but unlike most other directors who specialize in this particular genre, Carpenter’s hits outnumber his misses.

So which category does his most recent offering, “The Ward”, fall into? Hit or miss? Well… neither, really. His first feature length film in a decade (since 2001’s “Ghosts of Mars”) is certainly not bad, but it isn’t all that good, either. It’s one of those rare cases of one of his films just landing somewhere in the middle for me.

The story, set in the 1960’s, centers around a young woman named Kristen (Amber Heard), who after burning down a farmhouse, is sent to a remote mental hospital in the Pacific Northwest. She’s put in an isolated ward with only four other girls, run by a Ratched-like nurse, guarded at night by a surly orderly, and overseen by Dr. Stringer (Jared Harris), who seems like a nice, if slightly shady, fellow.

Pretty much off the bat, Kristen senses that there is something wrong about this place. She suspects that someone has been sneaking into her room at night, and she’s certain she’s seen a girl wandering the halls at night. She tries to ask the staff about this, but they simply stonewall her questions and tell her to take her meds. She then goes to her fellow patients, but they’re all nuts, and therefore not all that helpful.

There are definitely secrets being kept all over this place, and Kristen’s suspicions that all is not right at this quaint little funny farm are only amplified when the other girls start to disappear one by one. With some digging, Kristen comes to believe that the halls of the institution are being haunted by the ghost of a former patient named Alice, and now it’s up to her to find out who this Alice is, what happened to her, and what she wants.

As a bonafide fan of Carpenter, I am, to a degree, happy that he’s finally put out another film, so he at least won’t be going out on the abysmal “Ghosts of Mars”. However, I’m also a little disappointed that his first movie in ten years is really nothing more than an average, run of the mill ghost story. It has an eerie setting, and a handful of reasonably creepy moments, but overall, it’s nothing that hasn’t been done before in better movies. Imagine “Girl, Interrupted” with a ghost thrown into the mix, and you get the basic idea. As far as horror movies set in insane asylums go, it’s far superior to that Halle Berry abomination “Gothika”, but doesn’t even come close to the super spooky “Session 9”.

Another aspect of “The Ward” that will surely disappoint fans of the director is the fact that he did not write the music score for it. Carpenter, in his heyday, was just as brilliant a composer as he was a filmmaker, and his music perfectly established the mood and tone for his films. His scores have always been highly distinctive, and since “The Ward” lacks a Carpenter score, it just doesn’t quite feel like a Carpenter film.

The plot itself is fairly intriguing, though, as stated, you’ve seen it all before. The mystery as to whether the ghost is real, or only exists in the “crazy” lead character’s head, could have been interesting, had that angle been more fully developed and explored. There actually are a couple of gory scenes, but people who thirst for blood and guts will, in all likelihood, be underwhelmed, since this really isn’t that kind of horror flick. There’s a twist at the end that I can honestly say I didn’t see coming, but I actually groaned out loud at how unoriginal it was. It’s an ending revelation that is blatantly ripped off of one film in particular, but since naming this film would give the twist away completely, it shall go unnamed (Hint: it starred John Cusack).

Among the performances, Heard and Harris come off the best, each delivering commendable turns. Everyone else, mainly the various girls in the psych ward, play varying degrees of crazy, and none of them really stand out. Again, just imagine the supporting characters from “Girl, Interrupted” and you get the gist.

It may sound as though I didn’t like “The Ward”, but that’s not exactly true. I most definitely didn’t dislike it. It’s simply that I was really hoping, after a decade’s absence, that Carpenter would really come back with a vengeance. But he didn’t. He came back with a film that was merely alright. And since he isn’t getting any younger, and only has so many films left in him, I really wanted more than “alright” from him. But “The Ward” is not a bad film. Not in the slightest. I say it makes for a perfectly decent rental around Halloween time, just don’t expect anything more than that.

Limacher Low Down: I will be honest; I was expecting quite a bit of thrills and chills from this movie, and I was unfortunately let down. “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” does offer a few scares and good plot development, but I wanted MORE than good, I wanted GREAT!  The previews makes it look like this is going to be scary from beginning to end, yet I didn’t get that feeling. I figured with Guillermo del Toro as the producer and co-writer there would be more intensity. This movie definitely has a niche audience, but I am NOT a part of that niche.

It starts out as your classic “haunted mansion” tale. The owner is being haunted by something and is willing to do whatever he can to appease those who are “haunting” his house. This is a really good set up of what to expect, and both the visual and audio of the scene really helps to raise the tension for the audience.  You got a good sense of an enjoyable ride, and I was looking forward to strapping in for the long trip! Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was lack luster as compared to the opening scene.

Now present day, we see a little girl, Sally (Bailee Madison), on a plane going to an unknown destination. Meanwhile her father, Alex (Guy Pearce), is going over some business while his girlfriend, Kim (Katie Holmes) waits as well. Sally arrives and we find out Alex is her father, and Kim is meeting Sally for the first time. Alex, Kim, and Sally arrive at the house that we saw at the beginning of the film, and absed on the opening scene, we have high hopes of horror. Sally quickly shows disgust for her father, Kim, and the house in which they will be living. Alex is restoring the house in an attempt to get his name out there, and Kim is his interior designer.

Sally, disturbed by everything, starts to hear voices that know her name and tell her they are her friends. This raises many questions, and some of which we really don’t get answered, ever. The next morning, Sally is walking around the grounds when she discovers an unknown basement to the house.  As she is attempting to get a closer look; the groundskeeper, Harris (Jack Thompson) snatches her away and lets her know of the perils that may befall her around the mansion. Alex and Kim run over to talk to both Harris and Sally, yet get side-tracked when they discover the unknown basement. Finding the entrance, they come across something hundreds of years old.  Harris quickly ushers everyone out and seemingly knows more than he is letting on. This scene is important for development, but didn’t really offer much to the audience. We saw the basement in the opening scene, and we know that something is down there.

After the discovery of the basement, the movie quickly develops. Sally learns that the voices are malicious, and she tries to warn her father. But, Alex, too naĂŻve to listen to his own daughter and the frightened tone in her voice, puts his head down and ignores her pleas. Kim, wrestling with what to do and who to listen to adds a different dynamic to the movie, which was rather unexpected. The scares start happening, but not in the way I was hoping. We finally see what is terrorizing Sally.  It wasn’t overly terrifying.  When all is said and done I was left just sitting in my seat going, REALLY? The movie has subtle nuances that make it better than an average “horror” movie, but it didn’t deliver the way I was hoping.

“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” is formed from an early 70’s made for TV movie, and it still has that feel to it at the theater. The acting by Bailee Madison is something that really keeps you immersed throughout . . . as she more than holds her own. There are a few scares, and some laughs, but I doubt the laughter was del Toro’s intent in these scenes.  This one can be enjoyed by some, but others may leave a little disappointed by everything, and like myself, may get their hopes up a little too high. Overall, this film is decent for horror fans, but it might be one best saved for Blu Ray.

Wow, I was still in high school when that tag line was used by Domino’s Pizza. Random fact: The campaign was discontinued in 1993 due to the number of lawsuits rampant thanks to their careless drivers. Okay, history lesson is over. Well, maybe not. It appears that 30 Minutes or Less’s plot liberally borrows from a real event that happened in 2003, involving a pizza delivery man by the name of Brian Wells. Go ahead, look it up. It’s an interesting read, and for the non-squeamish, there’s video. Unlike real life, however, the film version doesn’t end quite the same, but is just as fantastic a spectacle.

In the opening sequence we are reminded why 30 minutes or less was a failed campaign for the pizza industry as we witness Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) breaking almost every known traffic law in order to deliver the goods on time. We soon learn that no matter how fast or how crazy he drives, punctuality continually eludes him. Outwitting a couple of ignorant kids and giving him a love interest is supposed to endear him to the audience, but I don’t think it worked. Nick comes off as a smarmy, fast talking (or should I say “fast mumbling”) self loathing jerk, who’s best line is a dig at his last movie — actually, his last non-animated movie. I have always said that Eisenberg is not leading man material. Much like Zombieland, which I enjoyed immensely, it’s the co-stars that make the movie. Eisenberg’s lack of onscreen charisma continues to be his downfall as Nick’s best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) steals each scene they are in, which says a lot, because I wasn’t too impressed with Ansari’s acting chops either.

Danny McBride channels Kenny Powers as Dwayne, jealous son of Remo Williams…I mean The Major, played by Fred Ward. Envious of his father’s riches, Dwayne, who sleeps ’til noon because he has big dreams, hatches a plan to rid him of the old man and inherit his money. He enlists the aid of his right hand man and best friend, Travis (Nick Swardson), who turns out to be an excellent lackey. McBride, Swardson, Ansari and Michael Pena, who plays a rough and tough lisping hit man, all had funny scenes which completely overshadows Eisenberg, who ends up just being a plot device to tie the story together.  [You can check out our interview with Pena for a slightly different role, here]

In the end, I didn’t care if Nick lived or not. “30 Minutes or Less” was enjoyable in spite of him. If there’s nothing better on at the movies this weekend, go and see this. You’ll laugh, but it won’t be the best comedy you’ve seen this year, I’d wager.

My big, fat ethnically stereotyped wedding!

The H-Bomb: Young, professional African Americans Sabrina (Paula Patton) and Jason (Laz Alonso) have been dating for a whopping six months and are madly in love. They’re soooo much in love that, when Sabrina breaks the news that she’s being promoted and transferred to China, Jason pops the question. A month later, they’re about to be married at Sabrina’s family home in Martha’s Vineyard. Suffice to say Sabrina’s parents, the Watsons (Angela Bassett, Brian Stokes Mitchell), are fairly well-to-do. Jason, on the other hand, comes from an urban, working class family. His mother, Mrs. Taylor (Loretta Devine), is a post office worker with a hot head and a big mouth who doesn’t appreciate not being introduced to Sabrina before the wedding.

So, Mrs. Taylor descends on the Watson’s home with her best friend, Shonda (Tasha Smith), Jason’s uncle Willie (Mike Epps), and his cousin Malcolm (DeRay David) in tow. As anyone could predict, the two families mix together about as well as oil and water. Mrs. Taylor makes little attempt to hide her contempt for Sabrina and her family, who she considers to be a bunch of snobs, and Mrs. Watson returns the favor, looking at the Taylors as rubes. What follows is roughly two hours of broad stereotypes, cliché characters, hit-or-miss humor, and ho-hum drama.

The most remarkable thing about “Jumping the Broom” is how completely unremarkable it is. There’s nothing here that hasn’t been done before, and it leaves next to no impression once it’s over. There are no real big laughs, just some scattered chuckles and a few amused smiles.

Like I said, the racial stereotypes run amok. The Taylors love their greens, and their sweet potato pie, and their chicken (wince). The Ebonics flows freely from their lips. Jason’s uncle and cousin both look at this wedding as a big opportunity to hit on women. There’s the requisite “Barack and Michelle” joke, and, what proves to be a major bone of contention between the two families, Mrs. Taylor wants Sabrina to “jump the broom,” a tradition for black weddings, while Sabrina does not.

Much of the conflict in the film stems from the fact that these two families belong to two different economic classes, with Mrs. Taylor resenting a family that she believes turned its back on its heritage, and resenting her son for wanting to be a part of that family. This is the one aspect of the film that is fairly interesting, but mainly serves as an excuse to show stereotypical black blacks colliding with “white-washed” rich blacks and make endless jokes about it. It’s not remotely offensive, but it’s pretty obvious.

Another problem that I had with the film was that I just didn’t buy into most of it. I didn’t buy that Sabrina and Jason are so insanely enamored with each other, despite the movie trying so hard to convince me that they are. I didn’t buy that Mrs. Taylor would be as blatantly rude and hostile to this family as she is. She is a guest in their home, after all, you think she would have the decency to at least try to mask her disdain for them. And I especially didn’t buy into the happy ending that the movie tries to shove down our throats.

The movie also goes the “Valentine’s Day” route by making it ensemble oriented, instead of keeping the main focus on the couple and their dueling mamas. As a result, we get several side characters and subplots that are entirely extraneous. These include a white wedding planner (Julie Bowen), who’s a complete fish out of water, a bridesmaid who is having an affair with the wedding chef, and the bride’s college age cousin who develops a crush on Shonda, who’s twice his age. None of this crap was needed and only tacked extra minutes onto the film’s running time.

Then there are the dramatic elements, which are laid on pretty thick in the second half. We find out, that despite the picture perfect facade, Sabrina’s family is anything but, and a major, life changing twist is revealed. Thing is, I don’t believe in these characters, as stated, and I really don’t care enough about them to give two Goddamns about their problems. And like with “Valentine’s Day”, anytime there’s a serious scene, they bring on the sad, “Full House” piano music… ugghh!

A major asset the film has is its cast. All the actors, down to the most minor supporting players, are fine. Patton and Alonso are individually quite good as the would be bride and groom, but together they lacked chemistry. I just didn’t feel them as a couple. Bassett displays her usual chops as the mother of the bride, who despite a snooty exterior, comes off as being a perfectly decent person. Epps brings his share of funny moments as Jason’s swinger uncle, but when we’re told toward the end that the two have a father/son like bond, it comes out of the blue because the movie never gave us that impression earlier.

The best performance, and the best reason to see “Jumping the Broom“, is Loretta Devine. She completely walks away with the movie, leaving everyone else in the dust. At first she seems like yet another stereotype in the mix, but the screenwriters actually decided to make her a little deeper than the typical, assertive black mama. At first we think she resents Sabrina and her family because of their money and lifestyle, but, it’s really about her son. It turns out she’s an incredibly overbearing mother and can’t stand to let her son go to any woman. It’s this that not only makes her funny, but sympathetic, even when she does something unbelievably cruel late in the second act. Again, if I were to recommend this, it would be because of Devine’s performance.

I know I’ve been hard on “Jumping the Broom”, but it’s not a bad film, it’s just an incredibly average one. It’s relatively painless to sit through, but despite a few performances to spice up the mix, it’s all pretty bland, and in a couple of years will be forgotten completely. I guess this is what the studio considers “counter programming” to “Thor”, but my advice is, if you’re going to shell out your hard earned dollars to see a movie this weekend, then go see “Thor”, and save “Jumping the Broom” for Netflix… that is, if you must see it at all.

Same shit, different decade!

The H-Bomb: The original “Scream” came seemingly from out of nowhere back in ’96, my Freshman year of high school, and almost overnight became all the rage. I remember it like it was yesterday. “Scream” was the movie everyone was talking about, and for good reason. Yeah, it was another slasher with teens getting sliced and diced, but it was different. It was intelligently written, with memorable, likable characters, an involving whodunit plot, and it was not only a slasher movie but a dissection of the slasher genre. Most importantly, it pulled the entire horror genre out of Hollywood’s leper colony and made it respectable again. Respectable, and popular.

Exactly a year later “Scream 2” was bestowed upon us. With the ghost face mask and the “killer phone voice” already cultural icons, the sequel wasn’t quite as fresh as the original, and had its moments of pure silliness, but it was still entertaining and people still went to see it in droves and talk about it ad nauseam. Then, they decided to wait a couple of years before making a third one, and in that time we were treated to the likes of “I Know What You Did Last Summer”, “Urban Legend”, “The Faculty”, “Halloween: H20”, and a whole host of other Scream-spired flicks. So when “Scream 3” finally hit the theaters in early 2000… no one cared. In fact, people were sick of “Scream” and all things “Scream” related. It was obvious that it was time to close the book on the ironic, self-referencing horror sub-genre that screenwriter Kevin Williamson created.

Now we arrive at 2011, eleven years after this series was deemed irrelevant, and we now have “Scre4m”. This time, Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to her hometown of Woodsboro as part of a book tour to promote a memoir she has written about her experiences from the first three films. She barely has time to get reacquainted with old friends Sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), who are now married, when news hits that more teens are being murdered by a killer in a ghost face costume. What a shocker.

As someone in the movie actually says, Sydney should be in the “Final Destination” movies, because death seems to follow her everywhere she goes. But this time the killer seems not only focused on Sydney, but also on Sydney’s young cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts), and all of her dopey high school friends. Can anyone see where this is going? Yep, for better AND worse, “Scre4m” is more of the same. More bloody kills, more cat-and-mouse plotting, and a twist reveal towards the end that I had figured out long before the movie got to it.

I liked that this is a throwback to the “self-aware” horror movies of the mid/late 90’s. The movie even addresses in the opening reel that it’s a style of horror flick that has long since passed in favor of torture porn and the stream of remakes and reboots that seems to have no end. In fact, that is the angle that the killer in “Scre4m” is taking, that they are “remaking” the murders of the original Woodsboro massacre, except, like a true remake, they are doing it bigger and bloodier. Why just stab somebody, when you can stab them, then throw them off a roof onto a news van? Why only hear about the murders, when you can actually see them on the Internet?

Yes, one of Williamson’s ways of trying to keep his idea relevant for today’s audience (picky lot that they are) is to work streaming video into the story. Streaming video, and texting, and Facebook, and Twitter… these things are mentioned often throughout the story, but they just serve to remind us that “Scream” is something from a bygone era. The original was a product of its time, this one is a trip down memory lane. It was a game attempt to make it fresh, Mr. Williamson, but it just didn’t fly.

Another area where Williamson faltered was in the character department. In the first two films, the characters were interesting, unique, and to an extent, real. Here, the exact opposite is true. Hayden Panettiere’s annoying BFF made me yearn for Rose McGowan, Nico Tortorella’s asshole boyfriend character can’t hold a closed fist to Skeet Ulrich, and the two movie geek characters are just dull when compared to Jamie Kennedy from the first film and Timothy Olyphant from the second. As for the two doltish deputies (Adam Brody and Anthony Anderson), they were just there to pad out the running time, get a few chuckles with their banter, and then die bloody deaths.

Just to give an example of the dip in writing quality when it comes to the characters; the film opens with a . . . “twist” (eye roll). The thing was, I couldn’t see a difference between the “fake” characters and the “real” ones, writing wise. They ALL sounded like artificial movie people. Sad but true, Williamson’s writing just lacks that kind of sharpness that made the earlier films so good.

Director Wes Craven is back, surely hoping to rebound from that epic shit storm that was “My Soul to Take”, and… yeah, this is a better film, but… one can hardly call that a rave. He keeps things moving, never letting the movie drag, and his action scenes are well staged (loved that forehead stabbing) and would’ve been exciting except it’s all just so familiar by now. The idea of somebody trying to “remake” the events of the first movie is clever, but it’s not enough to spice up this rather stale dish. The blood caked final act actually is pretty entertaining, but… much like the film itself, it’s too little, too late. Too bad.

All that stated, I did not dislike “Scre4m”. I actually did enjoy it in a retro kind of way. I partially grew up with “Scream” (it was my 90’s) and I enjoyed seeing Dewey and Gale and Sydney again. It was like visiting old friends. But, to do that all I would have to do is pop the original movie into my DVD player. I really don’t see why a fourth film was needed, especially a decade later. It’s watchable, but it gives us nothing new, and despite references to “Saw” and “Shaun of the Dead”, it’s all just so 90’s.