GRADE: B+

I’m 26. I’m single. At this point in my life I’m not thinking about kids as a short-term possibility (*knock on wood*). But as I’m entering the twilight of my 20’s, it’s definitely something I’m beginning to mull over and how it will factor into my life…eventually. Hundreds, thousands of movies over the years have portrayed or dissected the challenges and joy that having children brings to one’s life – either through raunchy comedy (Knocked Up) or serious drama (Kramer vs. Kramer). But there are rare breeds of films that are able to tap into these cinematic elements in a way that makes you laugh, shed a tear and think about the importance of the people in your life. Friends With Kids is one of those films.

First off, I want to give a serious round of applause to Jennifer Westfeldt, who wrote, starred in and directed the film (her directorial debut). For someone who has been on the radar over the past decade on television (24, Grey’s Anatomy), it’s really great and impressive to see such a thoughtful, endearing first attempt at being an auteur.

This film has a gimmick to it. Two lifelong BFFs, Julie (Westfeldt) and Jason (Adam Scott), reject the notion that people must get married or be in a committed romantic relationship to have a child; inspired by the seemingly unpleasant marriages their friends have, Ben and Missy (Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig) and Alex and Leslie (Chris O’dowd and Maya Rudolph). So they decide the most logical option would be to have a baby together, as friends, so they can skip out on all the complicated bullshit/baggage that comes with being in a relationship, and just enjoy the fruits of parenthood…and have sex with other people. But this gimmick is executed in such a clever, funny and “real” way, that it seems entirely plausible and sucks you directly into the story and ensuing (inevitable) complications that would arise with such an arrangement.

The marketing for this film is playing it off as more of a comedy than it actually is. No doubt, there are some really funny elements, characters and lines that are consistent throughout this story. Especially when looking at the comedic talent involved. But the comedy acts as sort of the hard-candy shell coating the deeper dramatic underpinnings (milk chocolate) that the film delves into. Divorce, unhappiness, physical insecurities, sex. All things that are in the forefront most adult’s lives as they’re in (or out of) a relationship. And it’s something that I think will resonate true with a lot of couples out there. That being the “realness” of the arguments and the “realness” of the humor.

All the cast was great. Chris O’dowd stole the show when he was on screen, as the super horny “bro” husband. His banter with Maya Rudolph was a comedic highlight. I do feel like Kristen Wiig was a little wasted. She’s got SO much talent and range, but her character doesn’t have much screen time, and when she does, it’s to facilitate Jon Hamm’s character’s rants and douchebaggery. Ed Burns and Megan Fox provide some nice supporting performances as well as Julie and Jason’s respective BF and GF that stir up shenanigans within the group. But the performances in this film all rely on Westfeldt and Scott. Their chemistry together is impeccable. And the dramatic bursts of emotion they have to portray when the going gets tough is really impressive to watch. Particularly Adam Scott, who I believe gives a breakout dramatic performance. There’s a couple speeches he gives (one out of anger, and another out of love/desperation) that maybe would have given him some awards recognition if the film wasn’t being released in March. He’s THAT good.

Friends With Kids isn’t a great film by any means. And I didn’t LOL as much as I would have liked. But it’s a thoroughly enjoyable dramatic-comedy that will make you laugh, tug at your heart stings, and surely make you want to kiss your significant other as soon as the credits roll. Fuck, I need a girlfriend.

What Should You Do? For sure check it out.

GRADE: B

This will probably be one of the shortest reviews that I’ve ever written, because there’s really not much to be said. Project X is what it is: a party comedy bursting at the seams with profanity, nudity, dick jokes and the ever-cliche’ high school theme of nerds wanting to be cool. The comparisons to Superbad are just, simply for the friendship dynamic of the main characters, but it doesn’t come close to the memorable substance that McLovin’ & Co. provided moviegoers back in 2007. Project X, is however, an entertaining comedy that will make you want to party as soon as the credits roll.

As I just said, the premise of Project X follows the same formula of most high school comedies: nerds want to be cool and get laid. It’s Thomas’ 17th birthday ,and his BF “Costa” pushes him to take advantage of his parents leaving for the weekend to throw an epic party to become high school legends. The differentiator that sets PX from other high school comedies is that it utilizes the ever-growing “found footage” genre (most-recently used in Chronicle), where Costa’s nerd minion documents the entire day with a video camera. Thomas doesn’t want to throw a rager as he wants to respect his parent’s house, but Costa pulls some shenanigans that inevitably creates the biggest party of all-time. Costa is easily the best character in the film (played by Oliver Cooper). He’s a complete douchebag, but in the funniest form; always spouting off profanity-laced speeches on the importance of sex and making “their mark” as their high school careers come to a close.

There is a lot of crazy shit that happens at this party. Little people getting locked in ovens, a drug dealer setting the entire neighborhood on fire with a flame-thrower, BMWs getting driven into the pool, as well as non-stop hot chicks taking their clothes off and almost every form of drug imaginable being consumed. This film is pretty much the biggest nightmare that any parent could fathom. But again, that’s not a bad thing. The film also features an amazing soundtrack, which I downloaded immediately from iTunes after I walked out of the theater. A master playlist of party tracks.

So, like I said at the beginning, my shortest review ever. Because again, not much to say. Project X is a funny, entertaining romp, but other than that there’s not really much to sink your teeth into if you’re looking for anything more.

What Should You Do? Check it out if you have a free Saturday afternoon, otherwise wait for the DVD.

GRADE: A-

A couple times a year we get a haunted house horror film, or some variation of it. Over the past few years the Paranormal Activity franchise has successfully put a unique stamp on the genre with their “found footage” formula. In addition, we have a constant onslaught of average to below-average “BOO!” flicks that quickly fade from memory, like The Haunting in Connecticut or Mirrors. However, once and a while there comes a ghost tale that is clever, genuinely creepy and features a great story. The Woman in Black, starring Daniel Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role, is one of those films.

I think the main reason why it delivers such effective scares is it’s backdrop. A lot of today’s haunting flicks are set in the present. And while Paranormal Activity is the unusual exception, most flicks that feature a modern setting are unable to, at least for me, effectively make a genuine case for “this could actually happen.” But The Woman in Black takes place in early 20th Century England, where Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) must journey to a small countryside town to finish up the legal (he’s an assistant attorney) estate logistics for someone who has just passed away (in mysterious fashion), leaving his young son behind in London.

There aren’t many people in this town. The skies are constantly a bleak, ugly grey; oozing imminent dread from the clouds above. These people don’t have much access to the outside world. Sure there’s a couple phones here and there, but they don’t like any outsiders, as there’s a deadly, “haunting” secrect that has terrorized their community for years, resulting in the many deaths of loved ones. And it doesn’t take too long for Kipps to stick his nose where it doesn’t belong and the villagers do everything the can to get him the hell out of there so he stops (unintentionally) causing death.

Trying to be as spoiler-free as possible, so let’s get to the juicy part. Was it scary? Yes! I pride myself on being able to not be scared from films, but The Woman in Black provides the goods in terms of jumps and gasps. You’ll be covering your mouth saying “NO. NO. NO.” during several parts in this film. In fact, one of the aspects that made it stand out more than most other ghost tales is it’s consistent amount of scares. The usual horror formula is there to be a short build up to a scare, the climax of the scare, and then 15 minutes of bull-shit exposition. In this film, there’s about a 30 minute stretch where Kipps goes to investigate the house where the the haunting originated from, and it’s non-stop jumptastic-ness. He’s by himself, in the dark, for 30 minutes getting the shit kicked out of him by ghosts. My fondest memory of this sequence? The muthafuckin’ rocking chair! Lastly, the scares don’t rely on blood and guts. It’s a PG-13 film, so the pacing and suspense is everything, and it’s well done all around.

And let’s give great credit to Mr. Radcliffe for a wonderful performance, who holds the entire film on his shoulders and really delivers. Any lingering effects of Harry Potter melt away after the first few minutes; mainly because he’s not wearing those damn glasses! The cinematography is fantastic, and the ghostly effects are impressviely executed. Also a quick shout out to Ciarán Hinds, who plays a village native and acts as Kipp’s guide while he tries to unravel the mystery. Really great character actor and he and Radcliffe display great chemistry with each other.

Overall The Woman in Black is just a really good story and features impressive execution in all the aspects of filmmaking. It’s also the first genuinely creepy ghost tale that I’ve seen in some time.

What Should You Do? Def check it out.

In this weeks’ edition of The MashCast, Matthew, Mike and I discuss some of the films that we saw last week, including: Flowers of War, Haywire, Man on a Ledge and Red Tails. We also discuss a HUGE Dark Knight Rises spoiler per an interview with a member of the cast, where she let a bomb drop about the identity of her character. Last on the docket, the new trailer for the Keanu Reeves documentary Side by Side, which tackles the ongoing debate about the technological revolution/transition of film-to-digital filmmaking.

Click play below to listen and be sure to leave your comments after the break, as well ast on Twitter: #MashCast.

Download audio file (Episode-3_-_Dont-Google-That_.mp3)

What Do You Think? Discuss.

GRADE: A-

Lars von Trier is bat shit crazy. But sometimes great art comes from people just like him. Vincent van Gogh did cut off his ear after all. Now, Melancholia is no ‘Starry Night,’ but it’s arguably Lars von Trier’s masterpiece. Considering his preview of upcoming work and his past films, this is without question his best. As a huge fan of Antichrist, this one felt like a follow-up in some ways. It deals with strong emotional moments in the context of atmospheric and drawn out scenes.

There is a definite similarity to another 2011 film that works much like a piece of art  – The Tree of Life. Both use limited dialogue and stunning cinematography to put you in uncomfortable situations as a viewer. But Melancholia is a touch more direct in its message. The film uses a massive planet called Melancholia as a direct metaphor for the devastating emotional turmoil that many of the characters, specifically Kirsten Dunst, in the film experience.

Make no mistake about it, this is Kirsten Dunst’s film. It’s her shining moment. It’s nice to see her take an engaging role, much like her recent turn as Katie Marks in All Good Things. Don’t be surprised if she gets some awards nominations after Melancholia. She accents the film’s mood with misery and internal pain that rarely seeps to the surface – but when it does, you feel her pain. She is surrounded by hate. Her family is devastating her. It’s hard to imagine more negative people in a movie this year. But the whole film isn’t just focused on her. It’s split in two parts. One is titled after her character and the other for Charlotte Gainsbourg’s Claire. The final hour of the film really showcases Gainsbourg’s powerful emotion. Dunst still commands the screen when she is present, but Gainsbourg makes the most of her opportunities. This is a film led by performances.

But Melancholia is not just an emotional drama. It’s an atmospheric disaster movie. The apocalyptic doom that constantly hovers around the plot is absolutely a direct metaphor for the characters in the film. They respond to it. Each character experiences it differently. Dunst with curiosity and neglect, Gainsbourg with denial and ultimately fear, and Keifer Sutherland (who shines in the background) with awe and naivety. A certain piece of equipment in the film, created by Sutherland’s character, keeps you right in the thick of things as an observer, experiencing the unpredictable planet’s arrival as it happens in real time.

Melancholia leads with a jaw-dropping holy shit prologue. It jumps to the end by showing the amazing collision of planets. It’s smart they lead with this, as it would be ill-advised to ever leave the characters once we connect with them. It’s like opening Tree of Life with the creation sequence – the two feel identical in visual style. It’s definitely a what-the-fuck moment, though. And the film is full of those moments. It’s not the same WTF as Antichrist, but it presents it in a more emotional way. What the fuck? Why are these people so spiteful? What the fuck? Why is she peeing on that golf course? What the fuck? Why is Alex Skarsgard so damn charming!? There’s plenty more.

It’s not a perfect film. While I enjoyed it thoroughly, it’s a polarizing movie – one that some audiences will surely despise. A couple behind me while exiting the theater hated it with such ferocity they wanted a refund. Melancholia is poisonous to the soul. It will make you hate life and feel like crap for hours. It provides little redemption in its darkness. But we need films like this sometimes. It’s unwavering shower of guilt. We know so little about Dunst’s character that it’s hard to connect at times, but we can just sense the sadness. We see the hate and we feel it. It’s not Blue Valentine sad, which has some moments of pure joy, it’s bottom of the barrel sad. And at just over two hours, it feels like a four hour film thanks to its pace. But beautiful cinematography, detailed visual effects and great performances make it a film you should see.

What Should You Do? See it. Bring Prozac.

GRADE: D

Let me preface this review with a little disclaimer. Colombiana provided me with my first big screen credit. As a production assistant for the Chicago leg of the film’s international shoot, I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to be a part of a major motion picture. As an independent filmmaker myself, it’s important to get a chance to see the big boys work and pad the resume. But today, I speak as a movie fan and critic, not as a member of the film’s crew. Trust me, any bias I once had for Colombiana (for instance, people worked hard regardless of the final product and it should be respected regardless) has left the building after my experience with this film.

In order to best describe Colombiana, I will provide a scene from the film. Around 20 minutes in, young Cataleya reaches Chicago in her escape from her parents’ murderer, who just so happens to have an all-star parkour team for henchmen. She meets up with uncle Emilio (Cliff Curtis), who she asks to help her become a “kiyyer.” Next thing we know, she is reluctantly signing up to go to school. When she refuses to go, Emilio has a lesson to teach. You see, in order to be a great hitman you need to understand the world you live in – which we all know you learn in grade school. All I could think of was a hitman that recited the story of Lewis & Clark during murders. Anyway, to prove this point, Emilio takes his hat off, opens fire in a busy public area until a car crashes into a fire hydrant most likely because the innocent driver was killed. He continues to explain as the bystanders panic and the police approach. When the sound of police cars appears to be at the scene, Emilio places his hat back on his head and calmly walks away with young Cat. Nobody chases him. Nobody cares. Nobody does anything. This is the absurdity of Colombiana.

Before I continue, we should remember the director of this film also helmed the absolute trash that is Transporter 3. So don’t expect too much. And producer/writer Luc Besson hasn’t given us much since his glory days of Leon and The Fifth Element. Taken was good, but that was apparently a fluke. So, the talent behind this film isn’t extensive and they approached it with one thing in mind – sensory overload. It’s like the movie that post-1998 Tony Scott would have made if he got a concussion on top of the one he probably already has. It’s all style and no substance. But some people want that. There is an audience for everything and the Transporter franchise has proven this type of movie has a crowd.

The over-saturated look of Colombiana reminds us its not trying to be anything but a B-movie with extensive action set pieces. Those action sequences are the shining light in this dark abyss of entertainment. It’s like Scarface on speed. In fact, there are moments (and locations) that had me looking around the corner for Tony Montana. If you want a movie with action scenes that are more thought-out than the story itself, this is your film. Let me elaborate with some mild spoilers – though it’s tough to spoil Colombiana.

In the previously mentioned 10-year-old’s parkour escape, it should be noted that everybody else in the scene inexplicably knows parkour as well. I also love how the big, bad Marco (Jordi Molla) yells at his henchmen not to kill the girl, but then fires his gun into the sewer she jumped into. This is of course followed by a frenzy of machine gun fire. I could go on forever about every single one of these scenes, but I won’t. Skip to insane final firefight, in which Saldana fires a bazooka, dual-wields sub-machine guns, pistols and puts her pet pitbulls in the escape vehicle of main villain Don Luis. It all begs the question, why would you go through all this killing only to let your dogs kill the one man you have been after all along. Is there no satisfaction anymore in watching him die? I mean, her punchline is, “Eat.”

There are a million problems with Colombiana. It’s not a film worth your money unless you happen to love movies that star Jason Statham. Of course, Statham is at least fun to watch. Zoe Saldana’s sex appeal is palpable, but it is so forced that it just comes off as pitiful. For instance, the entire audience joined in laughter as Saldana did a little booty dance around her apartment after a successful hit.

Ultimately, Colombiana might be fun to watch at home someday, but it’s definitely not worth the price of a movie ticket. While we didn’t expect it to be the height of cinema, it is still disappointing. And this comes from a guy who tends to enjoy movies that revel in their own absurdity and let the bullets fly. Everything is forced, from the sexuality to the action to the numerous times Zoe Saldana cries. Skip this one. Someday it will be on TV when you can’t find anything else to watch and you’ll think, “Well, it wasn’t that bad.” Compared to most television today, you’ll be right.

 What Should You Do? Do I really have to say it?

GRADE: A+

Nicolas Winding Refn is a polarizing director. Bronson is one of the best biopics I’ve ever seen, but many still have no idea it exists. Valhalla Rising is a methodical gore fest that many called boring and pointless. I fully expect some to complain that his latest, Drive, is slow and needs more action. Hopefully I’m wrong, because the movie I saw showed me a character unlike any I’ve ever seen and a movie full of surprises.

Ryan Gosling showcases his quiet charm in a movie that explores his character without dipping into exposition. Like Bronson and Valhalla Rising, Gosling even gets to fulfill what must be Winding Refn’s lifelong dream of bashing somebody’s face in. Any actor who stars in a Winding Refn film should consider himself lucky because few directors give their actors a character as memorable as his.

Drive reminds us of a modern-day Sergio Leone film. Leone had an uncanny ability to study the peaceful moments that boil to violent acts. Drive studies Ryan Gosling’s Driver’s evolution. He seems content with his life. He is good at what he does and has unbreakable rules. Of course, a woman enters his life and everything changes. But this change puts Gosling in a corner that he must fight his way out of. Those are some of the best characters  – ones forced to kill in order to survive. Gosling pulls it off masterfully.

There is a certain charm about Drive that few movies dare to explore. It has an 80s vibe from the opening credits, which scribble across the screen in pink cursive. It is a quiet movie that thrives on Gosling and Carey Mulligan staring deep into each other’s eyes only to climax in a subtle smile. Ron Perlman brings his reputation to a role that would typically be as generic as a Jerry Bruckheimer film. Above all else, Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks both bring powerful performances to characters that are extremely well-written and could earn one or both an Oscar nomination. Drive is so peaceful that is relies heavily on the actors, even though they rarely speak.

Drive will have you excited during moments of heightened violence and curious during pensive and thoughtful moments. While the extreme violence is highly memorable, the soundtrack is what many will carry with them for weeks. A small selection of songs chosen wisely by Winding Refn are both hilariously light-hearted and marvelously fitting. In the end, Drive is a film in which the director just knows what the hell he is doing and doesn’t care who likes it. Ironically, almost everybody has liked it so far and it deserves all the praise it gets.

What Should You Do? Absolutely see it.

GRADE: A

In a year overflowing with alien invasion movies, Attack The Block stands out in a galaxy of its own. Writer/Director Joe Cornish has whipped up a movie that shares the qualities that make Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz so entertaining while feeling totally original in a genre that is far from it.

The London-based invasion film stars a cast of unknowns who all command your attention at every moment. John Boyega leads the cast of inner city misfits that start off as unlikeable thugs and end up as heroes. Attack The Block has plenty to be happy about, but most of all it is this character progression that drives it above the rest. And much like Super 8, the band of friends all play a part in the group – there is even a pyrotechnics lover who uses fireworks to save the day at one point. As good as Super 8 is, Attack The Block at least makes us feel like these characters were designed for more than just a part to play.

The characters make the movie great, but there is so much more to Cornish’s masterpiece. First of all, the aliens are wholly original. At least, I’ve never seen any like them. Lurking in their own darkness, they are intense and scary. Their razor sharp teeth glow and they have a very specific reason for landing on Earth – a reason that feels more reasonable than any other alien movie prior.

The absolute best part of the movie is its soundtrack. Cornish worked with Basement Jaxx to compile a soundtrack that is bombastic and full of momentum. Even during moments where the main cast is simply walking down a street, the music drives the film forward and keeps you excited. In fact, I’ve had it playing consistently every day since the movie released.

It is difficult to find weaknesses in Attack The Block. The dialogue is sharp and even full of memorable one-liners. You may be talking like a “Blockhead” for weeks. The humor is witty and the story is focused. There is a strange absence of neighbors in this South London town, but to an extent you forget that other people should live there thanks to characters that require your attention. Attack The Block is the summer movie of the summer – if that makes any sense.

What Should You Do? If you’re lucky enough to have it showing in a theater near you. SEE IT.

GRADE: A-

In a summer loaded with R-rated comedies, one reigns above all else. 30 Minutes or Less earns all the typical words associated with R-rated comedy – dirty, raunchy, naughty, etc. But unlike many of its kind, 30 Minutes or Less succeeds because it isn’t just a 90-minute execution of a dirty joke. Instead, it’s a real movie.

Now, it’s not a “real” movie by some standards. It doesn’t sink into emotional moments or explore the backstory of its main character. Instead, it has a beginning, middle and end that actually feels like a journey and a progression. Nearly every character in this movie is established as a legitimate scumbag. But like most solid films, those same characters evolve and have a purpose that serves the good of the story as it comes to a close.

More importantly, 30 Minutes or Less is funny as shit! Every minute is loaded with a joke that might have you laughing so hard you’ll miss the next one. Danny McBride and Nick Swardson play the perfect bumble-fuck pair of losers that they seem born to portray on screen. Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari are the unlikely friends that dish out blow after blow to each other with the chemistry of lifelong buddies. Yet, it’s Michael Pena’s hilarious turn as Chango, the slightly offbeat hitman, that really steals the show. Everybody in the movie plays to their strengths and director Ruben Fleischer proves that Zombieland was no joke by making each character genuine and fun to watch.

30 Minutes or Less owes much of its entertainment value to its breakneck pace. Even during the rare moments it slows down, there is a sense of desperation to the scene. This is mostly due to Jesse Eisenberg’s personality, which is somewhere between a man overdosing on speed and a nerd at Comic-Con trying to ask Harrison Ford what it’s like to be so cool. The movie comes in at only 83 minutes, which is the perfect length for a fast-paced comedy like this. I imagine there is plenty of footage that will make the DVD/Blu-ray and I’m glad they left it there. Every time 30 Minutes or Less shows a sign of slowing down, it turns on a dime and keeps moving forward.

My only warning is masked in a compliment: If you are uncomfortable with realistic dialogue filled with vulgarities and insults, do not see this movie. Few movies have the balls to let characters talk like real 16-35 year-olds. We cuss. We insult. We are mean, abrasive and unsanitary (if that even applies here). So are the men of 30 Minutes or Less and it just makes it that much better.

What Should You Do? Definitely see this movie and bring all your buddies with you.

GRADE: B-

As the genre continues its annual evolution of itself, “torture porn” has changed dramatically since the original Final Destination. Now, everybody is expendable and the violence has reached epic proportions. But much like the Saw franchise, Final Destination tried too hard to be the same and different with each installment. It took them a while to figure it out, but Final Destination 5 may be the first time they got it right in over a decade.

The latest torture porn delight makes the most of charismatic performances and in-your-face 3D. While the performances make it easy to watch, the 3D is a tricky subject. I am a huge supporter of 3D. I have a 3D TV and I always choose the 3D showing in theaters. For the most part, it just enhances my experience and makes it more engaging. But obviously some movies just do it wrong. Final Destination 5 utilized the in-your-face tactics of 3D masterfully. Certain moments are infinitely more tense and shocking in this format. Unfortunately, the movie wastes the true wonder of 3D by keeping a shallow depth of field that rarely gives us a sense of depth.

In the end, this movie is about having a good time at the expense of others. If you can loosen up and just enjoy a movie in the context of its purpose, Final Destination 5 is an awesome time. There are tension-filled moments of anticipation and others that surprise you. Each one elicited a huge response from our audience and clearly hit its target market. We know these are not realistic deaths, but they find a way to make them so bizarrely plausible that you can’t help thinking about your surroundings a bit. This is why Final Destination is more fun than Saw or Shark Night or Piranha.

The fifth installment of this series is ultimately pointless and serves no good in the great scheme of filmmaking. While that’s not the point, let’s not forget that Final Destination 5 is still a bad movie. It’s just not good cinema. It’s fun and loose and allows moviegoers that want a release to get just that. You’ll laugh and you’ll wince without ever really having to think. There’s a certain self-awareness that is evident in every performance on screen and every audience member in attendance that lets you embrace this kind of movie.

If there is one reason to go see this movie besides the obviously awesome deaths, its ending is amazing. I have to give Steven Quale credit there. For a movie whose opening credit sequence is a boring Jackass-style 3D whore-out, it ends with a bang. Fans of the franchise will want to give it a standing ovation, but it does raise questions about the future of the franchise. This movie will likely make a ton of money, so the only doubt remaining is the direction of Final Destination 6.

What Should You Do? Check out a matinee.