(3 People gave this 3.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

It seems that the concert movie is the latest craze.  I’ve seen Michael Jackson’s “This Is It” and also The Black Eyed Peas at the movie theater in concert movie form.  Last year there was Justin Beiber’s concert film, and previous entries into this category included Miley Cyrus (or was it Hannah Montana??) and The Jonas Brothers.  Well “Glee:  The 3D Concert Movie” is the latest and greatest concert movie.  And, even better, it’s in 3D.  (That was sarcasm.  The 3D was not necessary)

“Glee” is like a non-Disneyfied version of “High School Musical”.  Non-Disneyfied because the students in the Glee Club at William McKinley High aren’t concerned with basketball games or which college to apply to or the Spring Musical (don’t get me wrong, I love the “HSM” movies.  They are positive and fun).  Instead, they deal with issues including:  teenage pregnancy, being gay, bullying, love triangles, drinking, and sex, none of which would ever come up in any “High School Musical” movie.

“Glee:  The 3D Concert Movie” was the best part of “Glee” – the performances, with none of the drama, just singing and dancing.   In between the musical numbers, we see behind-the-scenes footage of the cast preparing for the show.  And, since this is “Glee” in concert, not the stars of “Glee” in concert, the actors are always in character, which was clever and made for some fun moments.  For example, Rachel Berry is told that Barbara Streisand (her idol) will be in the audience for that show (she wasn’t really), and in true Rachel Berry style, she proceeds to freak out.

The performance that was filmed for the movie was a show in East Rutherford, New Jersey.  In addition to the behind-the-scenes footage we meet three individuals from the area who share stories about how “Glee” inspired their lives.  We also meet fans who scream and shout and cheer for their favorite characters, including an adorable little Asian boy who idolizes Blaine from the Warblers (the all-male a capella group from another school, Dalton Academy).  He even dresses as a mini Warbler and sings and dances to Warbler tunes.  Too cute!

Included in the performances are “Don’t Stop Believin’”, the unofficial “Glee” anthem, “I’m a Slave 4 U” (a somewhat raunchy performance which would make the real Britney proud), “Fat Bottomed Girls” (a very fun rock version of the song, complete with Puck playing guitar), “P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)” (Artie sang in his wheelchair while Mike did the dancing, complete with copious crotch-grabbing), “Valerie” (a very fun performance by Santana with Brittany and Mike dancing), “Firework” (the wonderful Katy Perry song performed energetically by Rachel), “Forget You”  (does Gwyneth Paltrow just show up anywhere someone hands her a microphone??), “I Want to Hold Your Hand” (a great performance by Kurt, not as sad as the version in the TV episode), and “Born This Way”, where just like in the episode, everyone wears their identifying T-shirts.  [Click here for the complete song list and cast]

The only negatives about “Glee:  The 3D Concert Movie” were that for most of the songs, they didn’t perform the entire song.  I know on the TV show they sometimes don’t perform the whole song, but on the soundtracks they always do.  So I wasn’t sure why they cut parts of the songs out for the concert.  Also, the two best characters from “Glee” were not included in the concert at all:  the ultra-dreamy, totally awesome Spanish teacher/Glee Club director, Mr. Schuester, and everyone’s favorite cheerleading coach that we love to hate, Sue Sylvester.  (Supposedly, Sue will be included in the DVD version of the concert movie).  I also could have done with less of the fans throughout the show.  I think it’s fine before the concert starts, to interview the fans, but during the show, it kind of took away from the performances.

If you go see “Glee:  The 3D Concert Movie”, see it with a fellow fan (as I did).  You’ll have fun together and you will have a hard time staying in your seat (I did my fair share of bopping around in my seat during the performance!!)

Smurfs in the City – It’s Smurf-tastic!

In the latest TV to big screen adaptation, the Smurfs invade New York and turn a family’s life upside down.

A bit of history: the Smurfs are blue creatures who are three apples tall. They live in mushroom houses in a hidden forest. There are 100 Smurfs in the village, 99 male Smurfs and one lone female Smurf, Smurfette. The Smurfs are all named after their character traits: Clumsy is accident-prone, Baker bakes, Brainy is smart, Vanity is vain, and so on.

The leader of the Smurfs is Papa Smurf, who is old and wise. The Smurfs are constantly being attacked by an evil wizard named Gargamel, who I thought wanted to eat the Smurfs, but in the movie he wanted to steal their essence and use it for evil deeds.

While the Smurfs are rehearsing for the Blue Moon Festival, Gargamel discovers the secret location of the Smurf village. The Smurfs escape, but six of them wind up sliding through a portal and end up in New York City. Azrael chases Clumsy (Anton Yelchin) as he takes cover in a big white box. That box belongs to Patrick Winslow (Neil Patrick Harris), who was just promoted to vice president of marketing for Anjelou, a cosmetics company run by the very bossy Odile (Sofía Vergara).

Odile tasks Patrick with designing a major advertising campaign for a new line of cosmetics, and the assignment is due in two days. Unfortunately, this conflicts with Grace Winslow’s (Jayma Mays) sonogram appointment, as she and Patrick are expecting their first child.

The Smurfs end up in the Winslow’s apartment and take them by surprise. Once everyone becomes acquainted, Patrick begrudgingly allows the blue creatures to stay at their apartment until they are able to get back home. Side note: the five other Smurfs that landed in NYC are: Smurfette (Katy Perry), Brainy (Fred Armisen), Gutsy (Alan Cumming), Grouchy (George Lopez), and Papa Smurf (Jonathan Winters).

Papa Smurf devises a plan to get the Smurfs back to their village, but first he needs to find a stargazer. . . makes sense. Most of the Smurfs (all except Clumsy) end up accosting Patrick at his office the next day, because they think he may have a stargazer there. They helpfully try to assist Patrick with his assignment, which really annoys Patrick and provides the audience with a few laughs.

Hank Azaria evilly played Gargamel as a nasty yet funny wizard who enjoyed emerging from the steam (that came out of the grates in the city streets) because “it was fun”. Also, he was not very nice to his cat Azrael. He would make Azrael venture into the unknown to see if it was safe, and then he would ask “Are you dead??”. It was pretty funny.

The animation was well done. As far as the 3D effects go, I don’t think they were necessary, although the Smurfs were so cute!! I want some. This is definitely a kids movie, as there were a TON of kids at the screening I attended. Fans of the 80′s cartoon will enjoy the movie, and especially the credits which are peppered with images of the Smurfs from the original cartoons. And, be warned, you WILL walk out of the theater singing, or at least humming, the “Smurfs” theme song!!

Please, no stone throwing, from either side!

The H-Bomb: Some time ago, I mentioned my strong aversion to discussing politics. So why, you may ask, in the hell would I be reviewing a film set against the backdrop of the hottest of all political hot potatoes, the Israel/Palestine conflict? Well, that is a good question that I do not have a good answer for. Guess you could say I’m just crazy like that. So, for this review, I shall do all the ducking, dodging, tiptoeing, and tap dancing that I can around this uber-touchy subject, and try my best to just stick to the story, characters, and what have you without pissing off anyone on either side of this never ending geopolitical cluster fuck.

“Miral” is the story (based on a semi-autobiographical book by Rula Jebreal, who also scripted) of a young Palestinian woman named Miral (you don‘t say!), who is named after a red flower that grows on the side of the road, in case you care. Miral grows up in an all girls school/orphanage, and comes of age during the First Intifada (Palestinian Uprising). At least, that’s what “Miral” eventually becomes about. For roughly the first half of the film, it actually follows the lives of three other women spanning a period of four decades.

The first being Hind Husseini (Hiam Abbass), who founded the orphanage shortly after the Arab-Israeli war in 1948, after encountering a large group of children who are without a home or family after the fighting. Her main goal with the orphanage is to focus on education, in hopes of steering the children away from violence and giving them the chance at having peaceful, productive lives. She’s certainly not indifferent to what’s happening around her, she simply recognizes bloodshed for the solution that it’s not.

The second woman the story follows is Nadia (Yasmine Al Massri), who runs away from home after being sexually abused by her stepfather, finds work as a belly dancer, becomes an alcoholic, and gets herself thrown in prison for six months after assaulting an Israeli woman on a bus. The third is Fatima (Ruba Blal), Nadia’s cellmate in prison who is serving three life sentences for planting a bomb in a movie theater (playing Polanski’s “Repulsion”). Fatima and Nadia become close friends, and one day during a visitation, Fatima introduces Nadia to her brother, Jamal (Alexander Siddig), whose views are more moderate than his sister’s. Jamal takes Nadia in after she’s released, and soon after they are married.

Five years later, Jamal and Nadia are unhappily married, her drinking is worse than ever, and they have a young daughter, Miral (who finally appears 45 minutes into a 105 minute long film). After a tragic incident, Jamal takes Miral to Hind’s orphanage to live and be educated. Jumping ahead another ten years, the aforementioned Intifada has started, and Miral, who has started a relationship with a resistance leader, is torn between abiding by Hind’s teaching, or joining the inevitably violent uprising. Which path will she choose?

I’ll just come right out and state my main problem with “Miral”, what truly hinders it from being as good as it could’ve been. It’s not that it shows the Israeli-Palestine debacle from a Palestinian point of view- this film does not demonize Israel the way some would have you believe- it’s that it picked the wrong Palestinian as its ultimate protagonist. While Miral does witness a number of interesting things going on around her, she herself is not a particularly interesting character. In fact, when really thinking back on it, I’m amazed at how easily led and influenced she is by others. Her decision on whether or not to become a terrorist constantly changes, depending on who she’s talking to. Sweet Jesus, does this girl not have a mind of her own?

The character that this film should’ve been about is Hind Husseini, who seemed like a far more influential and fascinating person. I wanted to know more about her orphanage. I would’ve liked to see the trials and tribulations of running that place, amid all that chaos, as I think it would have made for a far more compelling narrative. But, alas, the film only brushes over much of this, which is a shame, since Abbass is fantastic in the role, giving Hind strength, integrity, and compassion, and she could’ve carried the whole film easily.

In fact, there are many things, like the stories of Nadia and Fatima, that seem to be brushed over in a hurry in order to get to Miral, who, as stated, isn’t much of a character when all is said and done. Perhaps director Julian Schnabel could’ve allowed the film to be longer, to give these vastly more interesting aspects time to develop, or perhaps, as I suggested, Miral just shouldn’t be there at all.

Schnabel, who previously made “Before Night Falls” and “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”, two terrific films, is also a painter, and as such, the film is strikingly photographed and beautiful to look at. The vibrant images pop off the screen, and that alone makes the film worth seeing. Mr. Schnabel is truly an artist, that cannot be denied.

Where I think he falters is in the storytelling, not just in the whole Miral situation, but in how the film will transition from one time period to another. The film will leap ahead years at a time in a very abrupt manner, and this can be confusing in spots. The most obvious example being that Miral, when we finally see her, isn’t so much introduced as she’s just there all of the sudden. Watch the film and you’ll see what I mean.

Another beef I have with Schnabel is how the conflict is depicted. Now, he himself is Jewish, and has said in interviews that his sympathies go both ways, and again, I have no problem with the story being told from the Palestinian perspective, but I didn’t always find his depiction of certain Israeli actions to be entirely fair. We see a house get bulldozed in an Arab neighborhood, we see Miral being beaten during an Israeli interrogation, as well as how Israeli Soldiers can be less than polite when searching people at checkpoints. What we don’t see, and what we’re not told, is why Israel may feel it’s necessary to do these things, thus Schnabel fails to give these events their proper context. Also, in all TWO violent acts by Palestinians shown, one in which a bomb doesn’t go off, another in which a non-human target is blown up, the violence seems completely whitewashed by Schnabel and Jebreal.

Schnabel closes the film by trying to reach out to both sides, but considering what I just laid out, that seems like him wanting to have his cake and eat it, too. Casting Vanessa Redgrave in a cameo at the beginning I don’t think helps his chances of reaching both sides, either. I mean, the whole “Zionist Hoodlums” thing… probably not the best idea. Just sayin’.

However, if there is another reason to see “Miral”, aside of how aesthetically gorgeous it is, it’s the cast, which uniformly, is terrific- as an aside, I counted four actors from Spielberg’s “Munich“ in here. Abbass I’ve already talked about, her performance was Oscar worthy, plain and simple. Frieda Pinto (“Slumdog Millionaire”) fairs very well as the adult Miral (once you get over that she’s an Indian playing Palestinian), it’s just too bad she didn’t have a better character to work with. Siddig, as Miral’s father, is the other big standout. He plays him as being understated and kind, and emerges alongside Hind as the most sympathetic character.

Willem Dafoe also shows up early on as an American Army Colonel who is an old friend of Hind. There’s a hint of a possible romance between them, but Dafoe vanishes from the film entirely before it has a chance to develop. It’s always nice to see Willem Dafoe, and he does fine, but his character is of no consequence to the overall film, and it seems as if the part was only written in to give Dafoe, or any recognizable American actor, a role in the movie.

Long story short (too late), “Miral” does have numerous flaws, and I have been hard on it, but for me, the positives outweigh the negatives. It’s not as important as it seems to think it is, and it focuses on the wrong lead character, but it is at times moving and provocative, coming from a point of view often considered taboo. It took balls to make this film, considering how riled up people on both sides can get, and I do recommend seeing it. Just go into it with an open mind.

The BETTER “No Strings Attached”

Dylan (Justin Timberlake) writes an internet blog.  Jamie (Mila Kunis, who wears amazing yet very high heels throughout this movie…walking around New York City!!!  How does she do that??) is a headhunter who lives and works in New York City.  She meets Dylan when she is working for GQ to hire a new manager, and Dylan is perfect for the job.  When he takes the position and agrees to move to NYC, Dylan and Jamie become close friends.  They watch movies together, go out to lunch together, and have fun together, just like friends do.

Since Dylan and Jamie are both single now, while watching a movie one night (I can’t remember the name, but it was a typical annoying Hollywood romance, starring Jason Segel and Rashida Jones.  It was funny because it was set in NYC but filmed in Los Angeles and that was painfully obvious) and enjoying a few beers, they both decide that they miss sex.  So they decide to do it.  They swear on an iPad bible app that it won’t ruin their friendship, and that it will be just this one time.

When they make it to the bedroom, the dialogue is very untypical yet hilarious!!  Dylan admits that he is grossed out by feet, so he wears socks.  ALL THE TIME (yes, even in bed).   He also has a tattoo of a lightning bolt, because when he was younger he wanted to be a superhero, and he is also a fan of the Harry Potter books!!  Of course, just this one time turns into many more times, until Jamie decides she wants to start dating again for real.  So they go back to being friends.

Jamie meets Parker (Bryan Greenberg), a child oncologist who seems perfect, but of course he turns out to be a jerk.  And Dylan has one date with a woman who is just way too into sniffing his armpits (weird!!).  When Jamie gets dumped by both Parker and her mother on Fourth of July weekend, Dylan invites her to come with him to Los Angeles to visit his family.

While, there, Jamie learns about Dylan’s obsession with Kris Kross’s song “Jump” when he was younger which leads to a fun scene.  They also have an incident at the Hollywood sign which ends in someone being lifted away by a helicopter. Also while there, things take a turn for the worse as Jamie overhears Dylan saying some not-so-nice things about her to his sister.  She decides to head back to NYC early, and from there things get rocky between the friends, because Jamie has feelings for Dylan.

I won’t say what happens next, although it’s not too hard to figure out.

There is a lot of talk about the similarity of “Friends with Benefits” to “No Strings Attached”.  Yes, they both had similar plots; however “Friends with Benefits” was WAY better.  I’m not just saying that because I’m a borderline obsessive Justin Timberlake fan.  The acting was better, there was actual chemistry between the lead actors, the story flowed much better, and overall it was just a lot funnier.  One of the scenes near the beginning was very clever, and the fun didn’t stop there!!  Also, the supporting characters were more fun in “Friends with Benefits”.  Tommy (Woody Harrelson) was hilarious as the gay sports writer for GQ, who kept trying to get Dylan to go out trolling for men with him.

Dylan’s sister Annie (Jenna Elfman), her son Sam (Nolan Gould), an aspiring magician whose tricks never really went right, and Dylan’s father (Richard Jenkins) gave great performances.  It was sad to see Dylan’s father suffering from Alzheimer’s.  Annie and Dylan had to keep explaining to their father why their mother was no longer there (divorce) or why he couldn’t go out on his boat (they sold it), yet it was funny when he decided he didn’t like pants anymore so he took them off (at the airport).  Jamie’s mother, Lorna (Patricia Clarkson, who also starred with Justin Timberlake in the SNL Digital Short “Motherlover”) was flaky yet funny.  Although mother and daughter didn’t have the greatest relationship, they still got along ok overall.

Overall, “Friends with Benefits” is a raunchy, hilarious comedy that will make your stomach hurt from laughing so hard.  This was another excellent movie from Will Gluck, who also directed one of my favorite movies from last year, “Easy A”.  (Fun Fact:  Emma Stone, who played the lead in “Easy A” has a small part in this movie as Dylan’s ex-girlfriend).   Please leave the kids at home for this one!!

Literally, from the ‘pages’ of A. A. Milne . . .

Swift shot:  Look, I am not heartless, despite what some may think, and I was hoping this would revive the inner toddler within me.  I took my toddler to this screening, first time since the failed attempt with the Igor screening where I had to remove him from the theater several times.  So, I was anxious about this one; the film earned one glowing mark of praise, my three year old loved it – it kept his attention throughout and he was never bored. Having said that, I think 3-5 is the ideal age to view this classic tale, retold in our modern, go go, now now era.  Any younger and you are gonna have a restless squirmer on your hands, any older and you are gonna have an incredibly bored six year old to contend with in a, somewhat, crowded theater.

I have always loved the Winnie the Pooh characters, and Disney always does a great job with everything they touch – save a few exceptions, of course.  But, what I really loved about this film was how the story was told, it is subtle that the story is actually a fiction based on some stuffed animals in a child’s room.  Then we see an aged storybook, with Milne’s name on the front and John Cleese’s voice takes us to the Hundred Acre Wood, where we are introduced to a slumbering Pooh bear.  How Cleese wakes him was imaginative and, dare I say, had a modern “touch” that I can see being tied into some merchandising gold soon.

From there we meet the rest of the gang one by one residing in the Hundred Acre Wood, with all the wonderful characters we have grown to enjoy since the mid-twenties.  I was shocked to see that no less than eleven writers are credited on this film, including Milne, of course.  Each character managed to add something unique to the story, and they were genuinely portrayed as I remember them.  Eeyore was always my favorite, but the first runner up has to go to Owl, voiced by Craig Ferguson – the know-it-all who really knows nothing at all, not much of a stretch for him, really.

Because of a very simple misunderstanding, the kind a very small child might make, the friends all find themselves on an adventure which starts out by trying to find Eeyore’s missing tael.  But as Christopher Robin soon goes missing, the gang is convinced there is a terrible monster lurking in the Wood that has captured him.  I won’t spoil anything, because you need to go into this one knowing nothing to keep your adult mind entertained.

What I really enjoyed was how the story was being told as if it were a story book world, as the image above displays, the letters from the story are actually incorporated into the film, a rather novel concept, wouldn’t you agree?  Oh, bother; I can’t avoid puns anymore than Pooh can avoid honey.

After seeing this film, you MUST stay seated after the incredibly colorful end credits, there is a predictable yet wonderfully handled coda. If you miss it the first time, I am sure you will see it when you are back soon.  I hope Disney will keep up their quality work and keep making these kinds of films, to paraphrase a line from my favorite film, to let us be little again.

And, the short about Loch Ness before the film – - – the less said about that, the better.  I didn’t care for it, and while the message was clearly that it was ok to cry, I felt there was another anti big business, even theme park, theme strewn throughout.  Disney needs to tread gently there, wouldn’t you agree?  Still, for a child of three to five, this is a winner, and if you come out of this one NOT craving Huny, or Hunny, or Honney, or any variation of the wonderful golden goo – I’d call you a big fibber.  And, if you do get some honey, won’t you please share it with your favorite, willy, nilly, silly old bear?

“Hobo Stops Begging, Demands Change!”

The H-Bomb: Do I really even have to say anything, here? The title says it all, people. It’s about a Hobo who goes on a blood thirsty, berserker rampage with… a shotgun. The end.

Okay, there actually is a little more to it than that- and by that I mean a LITTLE more. It’s about a bum named… Hobo (Rutger Hauer), who arrives in Hope City, a literal Hell-on-Earth that is over ridden with crime and ruled by the vicious gangster, Drake (Brian Downey) and his two psycho sons, Slick (Gregory Smith), and Ivan (Nick Bateman). All the poor Hobo wants to do is start his own lawn mowing business, but fate has other ideas. After being cut up by Drake‘s sons, and witnessing all the chaos and violence around him, the Hobo is finally pushed over the edge. He’s fed up, pissed off, mad as a bull, and decides to clean up the streets himself… with a shotgun.

From there our vigilante vagrant goes around dispensing his brand of buckshot justice to any and all evildoers; robbers, pimps, pedophile Santy Clauses. Even “Bumfight” video makers aren’t above his wrath. You do the crime, you will be sucking on the business end of this Hobo’s shotgun in no time. Before too long, the gun toting bum sets his sights on Drake, and the corrupt Police Captain who protects him, but not before Drake dispatches a couple of demon knights in black armor to take out the Hobo first. Will our hero with the bad B.O. prevail…?

Going back to my opening H-Bomb, “Hobo with a Shotgun”, for better or worse, is exactly the kind of movie you would expect it to be. It’s a shamelessly over-the-top, blood-caked, completely un-P.C., and hysterically fun exploitation homage that we’ve been seeing a lot of, lately. Point of fact, this was actually one of the fake trailers shown on the Canadian release of Tarantino/Rodriguez experiment “Grindhouse”, and it gained so much popularity via YouTube hits that it was expanded into the feature film it is today.

If you’re a lover of this kind of 70’s styled, ballsy, B-movie trash flick, then you will get more than what you bargained for out of this. This thing doesn’t just spill blood by the buckets, it literally sprays it out in geysers, with some death scenes that are gory, grisly, grotesque, and awesomely inventive. Wanna see what a baseball bat covered with razorblades can do to a stomach, watch this movie. Wanna see a foot explode when a mallet hits it, watch this movie. Wanna see one of the most creative decapitations ever… watch this fuckin’ movie! Yeah, the effects are kind of shoddy looking in places, but who gives an ass‘s rat? It’s all part of the fucked up charm.

Fans of grindhouse cinema will also find little nods to past movies throughout, such as a John Carpenter-esque music score in places, and, what many should love, another music score at the beginning that’s inappropriately harmonious and deliberately similar to the theme of “Cannibal Holocaust”- I laugh whenever I think of the CH theme, because it is so fucking inappropriate for that movie.

The main reason to see “Hobo with a Shotgun” is to watch Rutger Hauer’s deliriously deranged take on the title character. With his weird accent and crazy-eyed stare, he is absolutely batshit fucking bonkers, but incredibly sympathetic at the same time. He is a maniac with a heart of gold, a nut job with a conscience, and I just loved him. And it’s not that he’s just totally off the wall, the movie actually gives him a chance to shine and show off some real chops, like the monologue he delivers to a bunch of newborn infants in a hospital… priceless.

Now, this flick definitely is not for everyone. Even though it’s obvious to me how a movie like this should be taken, there are some dense-headed dingbats out there in idiotville who just don’t get it. “The effects suck! The acting sucks! The story doesn’t make sense! This is offensive!” *Sigh* I can’t argue with people like that. If they don’t get it, they don’t get it, and frankly, prudes like them can’t be reached. Some will be offended by the violence, like the scene where a busload of school children are torched alive. Just remember, it’s not meant to be taken seriously and react accordingly, if you can.

My point being, if you hated movies like “Grindhouse” and “Drive Angry”, then why would you even consider watching one called “Hobo with a Shotgun”? The title should be a big tip off that it ain’t gonna be Merchant-Ivory material, and that you’ll hands down fucking despise it. So the only smart move on your part would be to avoid this one entirely.

For those of you who can jive with this latter day drive-in pic’s wacky and wild vibe, then this is one you must definitely not pass up. It’s not high art, nor does it pretend to be. It’s purely mindless fun for the macabre at heart. Junk food for the soul. Shit, that’s why I liked it, at least. It makes for a perfect double-bill with “Drive Angry”, and is an absolute must own for the gorehound set.

I’ve said it before and I’m not afraid to say it again – Hollywood has pretty much run out of ideas.  Most films that are released are either sequels or remakes or book adaptations or hybrids of other movies.  I’m going to say that “Monte Carlo” is a mix of “Big Business” and “White Chicks”.  I’ve seen comparisons between “Monte Carlo” and “Model Behavior” but I disagree because the switcheroo in “Model Behavior” was intentional, while in “Monte Carlo” it was accidental.  (Don’t know what “Model Behavior” is??  Check it out on imdb, here)

Grace (Selena Gomez) has just graduated from high school.  She’s been saving money for her dream trip to Paris for the past four years.  Now she is about to take her fabulous vacation with her best friend Emma (Katie Cassidy), a 20-year old waitress who wears “hoochie heels” and is dating local boy Owen (Cory Monteith from “Glee”).  Too bad Grace’s stepfather is insisting that Grace’s stepsister Meg (Leighton Meester, who was much less scary in this movie than in “The Roommate” thank goodness!!) join the girls on their vacation.  Grace and Meg aren’t very sisterly towards each other, and Grace and Emma pretty much resent Meg’s intrusion into their trip.

Once in Paris, the girls join a tour that truly is “whirlwind tour” of Paris.  They move through the Louvre so fast, I’m amazed they saw anything at all!!  (Anyone who’s been to the Louvre knows that you need a long time to really see everything there).  And as it always happens in the movies, the accommodations are not what they seem, as their room is dirty and small and ugly.  But hey, they do have their own bathroom (unlike the Griswolds).  On the second day of their tour the girls are left behind, stranded at the Eiffel Tower, unable to make it back to the tour or their crappy hotel room.  They then get in a tiff about the tour bus leaving and Grace feels terrible because she was the one who planned the whole trip and now it’s all ruined.  At this point, I got a little annoyed, because there are always tons of taxis near the Eiffel Tower, so I’m not sure why they didn’t just get in a taxi to rejoin the tour group, but they didn’t.  They ended up traipsing through the sudden rainstorm and popping into the lobby of a fancy hotel to dry off.

Also at the fancy hotel is Cordelia Winthrop Scott (Selena Gomez again), a spoiled British heiress who is a tabloid favorite due to her outrageous behavior.  She is angry because she is supposed to fly to Monte Carlo to do a charity event but she would rather go off and party.  While the girls are drying off in the bathroom, Cordelia enters and Emma and Meg are stunned by her striking resemblance to Grace (Grace is crying in a bathroom stall at the time and didn’t see Cordelia).  Once Cordelia is gone, the hotel workers mistake Grace for Cordelia and show her to her lavish suite, complete with a multitude of suitcases containing all kinds of fancy clothing, jewelry, and makeup galore.  So they decide to lie down on the posh bed and rest for a few minutes.  Next thing they know, it’s morning and they attempt to sneak out of the hotel, until the hotel employees inform “Cordelia” that her plane is ready to take her to Monte Carlo.  The girls decide to go along with it, and a case of mistaken identity has now become impersonation, as Grace now takes Cordelia’s place at the charity event in Monte Carlo.

Cordelia’s escort is Theo (Pierre Boulanger), whose father is in charge of the charity that is holding the event (the charity raises money to build schools for needy children).  At first Theo is unhappy that Cordelia is supposed to be there but then she grows on him (of course, because she is really Grace!!).  The girls thought they would only be in Monte Carlo briefly, but they discover they will be there for a few days, until the big charity auction, to which Cordelia is donating a multi-million dollar necklace (it was gorgeous and sparkly, all diamonds and sapphires!!).

Along the way, the three girls grow up and learn more about themselves and their relationships with each other and with the boys in their lives.  Since Emma did not leave Owen on such good terms, he decides to fly to Paris to surprise her.  And that’s where the “White Chicks” comparison comes in, as he sees the girls in the newspaper at the charity event (just like how the Wilson sisters discovered they were being impersonated) and knows where they are.  And since they’re in the newspaper, someone else spots the picture and discovers what is really going on.

My complaints about this movie were that the girls never appeared to return to their original crappy hotel to retrieve their belongings (wouldn’t they want their stuff??) and the lack of consistency in the character’s accents.  Emma’s Texas accent faded in and out, and when Grace was impersonating Cordelia her British accent faded in and out as well (although I’m not sure if that was intentional or not).  Oh, and they also kind of glorified identity theft, but they didn’t do it on purpose (not really) and they tried to help a charity, and they did come clean in the end.

Overall, “Monte Carlo” was a fun, fluffy, fantasy confection (not a dirty fantasy, but a happy, fairy-tale fantasy).  I probably would have done what those girls did if given the chance.  Who wouldn’t want to live like the rich and famous, even for only a few days??

How far will one teacher go to land a man??

Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) just finished the school year at John Adams Middle School (JAMS for short, it took me most of the movie to realize what JAMS stood for so I’m putting that out there up front).  Her fellow faculty members give her a lovely good-bye party and she heads home to her sugar daddy/fiance Mark (Nat Faxon).  Unfortunately, Mark ends the engagement and Elizabeth has no choice but to move into an apartment with a man she met on Craig’s List and resume teaching at JAMS.

Now more than ever, Miss Halsey just doesn’t care.  Instead of teaching, she shows school-related movies in class, including:  “Lean on Me”, “Dangerous Minds” and even “Scream” (hey it takes place in a school!!).  She drinks and sleeps during class and she smokes pot on the school grounds.  When she grades papers, she writes comments such as “Stupid”, “Wrong”, “So Stupid”, you get the gist.  Unfortunately, her classroom is right across the hall from Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch) who is kind of obnoxious, annoying, a real Little-Miss-Perfect.  Miss Squirrel is always pointing out Miss Halsey’s flaws and really, who likes that kind of person anyways??  (She also had an incident back in 2008 which I don’t think was ever fully explained but it seemed like some kind of meltdown).

When Miss Halsey meets Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake), the new school substitute, she thinks she sees her ticket out of JAMS.  Scott is rich and Elizabeth wants him to be her new sugar daddy.  Add gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel) into the mix and we have ourselves a love trapezoid (it’s a school movie, just go with it).  Both Miss Halsey and Miss Squirrel have the hots for Scott, but Russell only has eyes for Elizabeth.

When Elizabeth sees a picture of Scott’s ex, she thinks the best way to get him to notice her is to get a boob job.  So she begins collecting money for the procedure.  When fellow teacher Lynn tells her about a bonus that she can earn if her class scores the highest on the state exam, it’s game on for Miss Halsey!!  That’s when she becomes like a real teacher, because she has to beat Miss Squirrel (who usually wins the bonus) and get the money for her new boobs!!

The stand-outs in this movie were Kirk (Eric Stonestreet from”Modern Family”) and Lynn (Phyllis Smith from “The Office”).  It was funny to see Eric Stonestreet playing a butch, scooter-riding, school-official threatening character, a complete 180 from his character Cameron on “Modern Family”.  And I adored Phyllis Smith, she was so straight-laced it was cute to see her opposite Cameron Diaz’s ruthlessness in this movie.  I also liked John Michael Higgins as the earnest Principal Snur.  And of course, Thomas Lennon was awesome as always as the keeper of the statewide test.

I liked this movie because it didn’t sugar-coat anything.  In movies, we often see characters go through some life-changing event and they miraculously morph into some wonderful person.  Is real life like that??  Not really!!  SPOILER ALERT:  Elizabeth didn’t have an epiphany and donate all her hard-earned money to starving children in China.  Yes Miss Halsey was a little over-the-top, but so what?  She was funny and in the end, she got what she deserved (and so did Miss Squirrel).  We all know she is a bad teacher, but was she necessarily a bad person??  I don’t think so.

This movie is rated R for a reason.  This one is NOT for the kids.  Some examples of the adult content are:  many bare boobies, a scene where two characters dry hump each other, and bad language galore.

“I, Hal Jordan, do pledge allegiance to a lantern that I got from a dying purple alien in a swamp.”

The Berggren Bottom Line: This movie is the kind of ‘green’ movement I’m in to. No touchy-feely tree-hugging-hybrid-Subaru-driving here. Just muscle car and jet fighter energy vanquishing an easy-to-hate mega villain.

When I was growing up, Green Lantern was my second favorite superhero. I’m not sure what the Lantern had that I liked that made him second only to Superman, but I even learned how to fold a dollar bill into a ring that resembled his own. Now, I’m not totally versed in GL mythology. I only had about eight comic books that I amassed between 11 and 12, but then it happened. I started to like girls, so my Green Lantern interest faded. But I’ve always liked the Green Lantern.

Ironically, the Green Lantern movie had many reminders of the original Superman movie circa 1978 starring Christopher Reeve. I’m not sure if that was purposeful, but it worked. In the opening scenes, like Superman, Green Lantern opens up with visuals of outer space accompanied by narration. This was tactful and smart. It teed up the whole story for the novice and Dragon Con nerd fan alike. In addition, much of the background music had echoes of the Superman soundtrack. It was eerie—but fine by me.

Green Lantern was intense. The superhero genre lives somewhere between sci-fi and fantasy, and Lantern leaned toward the sci-fi. It even had slight hints of horror in how it depicted evil. It maintained vivid images of a dark and demonic-feeling throughout. In fact, I’d compare the darkness in it to that of the first Hellboy movie. The villain literally sucked the souls out of its victims feeding on their fear. And that’s what the story centered around.

So how do you kill a villain that feeds off fear? Don’t be afraid of course! Easy enough, right? That’s what Hal Jordan (Green Lantern) works to figure out: How to be fear free. Not an easy personal journey when dealing with personal demons as well. Defeating fear on the inside was the key to beating it on the outside.

All this combined in an effort to break away from your run-of-the-mill superhero movie. For me, it did it well enough to justify the price of theater admission. My main criticism is the pace. It started with action right away, but beyond that, it struggled to maintain a balance between sporadic action and drawn out character development. This drained the momentum. Sometimes it dragged on trying to develop too much, instead of giving a little more much-needed action.

I thought Ryan Reynolds did well as Green Lantern. I don’t know why, but there is something about him that I have liked since Blade 3. He’s rash, volatile, opinionated, and sarcastic, which made for a great Green Lantern discovering his responsibility. Although this is exactly the type of American attitude that my enlightened European family members love to hate, in the end those obnoxious Americans always save the day, right? So who can complain?

Lastly, I saw it in 3D. I’m not partial to 3D. About half way through my eyes start to get irritated. I personally don’t think it’s the future in movies. I just think it’s a quick, easy way for moviemakers to demand $12 a ticket. But the 3D didn’t bother me this time. It was fine and seemed to fit, like with Avatar. Oh yeah, don’t forget to stay past the credits for some sequel set-up.

So, in the words of my son who turned to me as soon Green Lantern ended, “That was awesome and loud!”

Parents: Like I said, this movie was intense. My son will be 9 in a month and I wondered if he would sleep okay that night. He did, but just a word of warning. There’s not too much bad language. Just really strong images of evil.