Willy Nilly Silly and Purely Enjoyable "Winnie the Pooh"

With almost everything in theaters right now being loud, long, and lame, Winnie the Pooh serves as a breath of fresh air.  Simpler and more heartfelt than the other big kids movie of the summer, Cars 2, this film follows the classic yellow bear on a silly little journey that barely takes more than an hour.  Narrated nicely by John Cleese, we delve into the imagination of Christopher Robin told through a storybook where the words literally jump off the page and affect the characters in their adventure.
The movie starts with a hungry Pooh Bear who is out of honey, or hunny, resulting in a hilarious song involving a beat coming from his rumbling tummy that actually made me laugh out loud.  Pooh meets with Eeyore, who lost his tail, or tael, and the whole gang including Tigger, Rabbit, Owl, C.R., Kanga, Roo, and Piglet, try to help him find a new one for the reward of a pot of honey.  Of course Pooh loves the idea, but he, along with everyone else, cannot come up with a fully successful idea.  Then when Pooh seeks Christopher later in the day, he sees a note on his door that is supposed to say that he will "be back soon" but none of the animals can read properly, nor can C.R. write correctly, and think a monster called "The Backson" has taken him.  Thus a new adventure begins.
Throughout the film Pooh dreams of honey as usual, coming across a bit like a drug addict, but you know...it's for kids.  He's just a cute little bear and that's really all that can be said.  I'd feel foolish saying it's smart compared to the dross of the summer like Transformers, which it absolutely is story-wise, but the animals are pretty dumb with spelling and all that but hey, it's Winnie the Pooh.  It's adorable and it's a classic.  The couple of songs by Zooey Deschanel add to the delightfulness.  It's unfortunate that "Somewhere Only We Know" by Keane, which was featured in the trailer, did not make it into the movie, but it's a very minor loss.  I'd see any movie with that song in the preview.  Anyway, what're you waiting for?  Grab a kid and satisfy your hunger by checking out Winnie the Pooh.

"Captain America" Can't Win This War

With The Avengers coming out a few months short of a year, Marvel had to squeeze out its final superhero movie, ironically with it being the First Avenger.  Captain America: The First Avenger stars Chris Evans, who we have already seen as The Human Torch in the dreadful Fantastic Four movies and takes us back to World War II, which has been portrayed 100 different ways in 100 different films.  Evans' character starts off as the scrawny Steve Rogers with pretty impressive special effects putting the burly actor's face on a tiny body.  All he wants to do is join the army, but he is constantly rejected due to his size.  Eventually, a doctor planning on creating a super soldier grants him access into the U.S. army to see his potential.  Dr. Erskine, played by the always delightful Stanley Tucci, chooses Rogers for his experiment because he believes that a lanky man will truly appreciate the gift of strength.  Thus, Captain America is born with the help of Tony Stark's dad.  It all comes together, doesn't it?
On the Nazi side of WWII, we find Johann Schmidt, or the Red Skull, played by Hugo Weaving, who also experienced the work of Dr. Erskine, but since Schmidt is evil, he just became more evil...or something.  The power source behind all of this isn't really explained, but it brings out the good or evil in a person and multiplies it by a significant amount.  This guy is looking to take over the whole world, but Captain America will have none of that.
The action is lacking besides a few cool shield tosses and some dull motorcycle jumps, which is a shame because the film starts off pretty promising.  Most of it is simply too corny.  I didn't care for the tiresome "chemistry" between Rogers and Peggy Carter and their final scene is exhausting.  Plus the ending, as heroic as it is intended to be, ends up being too ridiculous to care for.  How does Captain America look so young in the trailer for The Avengers (which can be seen after the credits) taking place in present day when he is running around looking 30 in the 1940s?  You'll find out and probably be dissatisfied.
The acting isn't bad despite all the cheesyness, but that's obviously not enough in an action flick.  Tommy Lee Jones as the Colonel may be the best part.  Although The Avengers could be a total bust since it is attempting to pack so many superheroes with their big egos into one film, the trailer at the end looks decent.  At this point, however, I don't really care much about Marvel.  At least we'll have a break until the aforementioned blockbuster, as well as The Amazing Spider-Man, both coming out next summer.  Hopefully they are amazing.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" Works Its Magic on Muggles

Let me start off by saying that I have never been a huge Harry Potter fan.  I tried reading the books as a child, but just couldn't get into them.  I gave the movies a shot when they came out so I would not be completely out of the loop.  The first two, as well as the fourth were quite entertaining.  The rest, however, (with an exception of the third, which was well done cinematically) put me to sleep since I could not keep up with the story line.  After some quick explanation prior to my viewing of the final installment, I was ready to just get it over with and see the film for critiquing reasons as opposed to a couple hours of entertainment.  Boy, was I wrong.  Even without knowing every little detail that the avid and even semi-interested fans picked up on that led to an understanding of the plot, I still found myself very intrigued.  I would lean over to my girlfriend every few minutes asking "That's the Chamber of Secrets, right?!", "Wait, wait, who's that guy?", "Is Snape Harry's dad?!"  So obviously you can tell I was a little confused, but I was still roped into the adventure because it incorporated things I recognized from the better films.  Everything comes full circle.  I should clarify that this is more of a review for those who couldn't care less about the popular wizard, but for those of you who do love him, which I can guarantee is most of you, congratulations, I award 10 points for Gryffindor!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 wraps up the phenomenon that has lasted years in written form and on the screen.  We follow Harry and his friends, as well as enemies, through the latter half of the seventh book all the way to the final showdown.  For those of you who have read the books, you don't need any explanation of what unfolds on screen.  You can enjoy it visually or complain a bit here and there about things left out.  As for those like me who don't know a thing, I also don't want to give away details since I may not entirely understand them, but I'm sure you know it all comes down to this: Harry vs. Voldemort.  Good vs. Evil.  We've heard and seen similar stories, but none as magical as this.  You must understand that to hear me talk about Harry Potter like this is a big deal.  I've ripped on it so hard in the past, but Deathly Hallows - Part 2 is a fine piece of cinema whether you're a wand-wielding wannabe or not.  The acting is the best I've seen in all the films, and the characters have grown in a believable fashion.  The visuals are stunning, which will keep your eyes open (thank God, because it's been a while) and on the screen throughout even if you do get a little lost like I did.
I doubt I have to recommend this to anyone because it's shattering box office records and you'll most likely see it no matter what.  But if you're skeptical like I was, thinking you should just go at 11:00 a.m. on a Sunday to get it over with while there's no crowd, don't be so pessimistic.  Harry will cast a spell on you and leave you wanting more, but like the posters and billboards keep reminding you, "It All Ends."

"Horrible Bosses" Doesn't Kill With Laughs, But Still Works

With a cast involving the Arrested Development star Jason Bateman, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's wild card Charlie Day, and SNL funny man Jason Sudeikis, what more could you ask for in the new comedy Horrible Bosses?  Well, you could ask for more laughs.  The movie certainly has a decent amount of them, but not as much as one would expect from such a hilarious trio.  There are enough to keep you chuckling along and an occasional laugh out loud moment here and there, but it would have been nice to see these comedians really push themselves.  Nevertheless, the characters are so appealing that one can easily be entertained throughout their ridiculous plan to kill their horrible bosses.
That's the premise.  Bateman's character Nick is abused by Harken, played by Kevin Spacey as one of the biggest a-holes I've ever seen on screen.  Charlie Day's newly engaged Dale is sexually harassed by an incredibly alluring Jennifer Aniston, sporting bangs and a new hair color (this situation doesn't seem so bad and Dale's buds let him know that multiple times).  Lastly, the somewhat sex addict character of Kurt, played by Sudeikis, has a new coke head tool of a boss, Colin Farrell with a hairpiece, that shows no respect for anyone.  The decision to kill them doesn't come easy at first, and neither does following through with the plan, but when they seek the help of a man named Motherf***er Jones, hilariously played by Jamie Foxx, things start to get crazy.
Things obviously go wrong, which allows the comedy to take place, and this permits Charlie Day to act like his Sunny character Charlie Kelly.  Thus, his performance is not much different from the way he behaves on the show, but that's what is so lovable about him.  He certainly deserves more time on the big screen.  Bateman is his usual self, which is always satisfying, but I'm looking forward to see him act like Ryan Reynolds in The Change-Up.  Sudeikis is funny as well, but not as raunchy as he was in Hall Pass.  That movie is nowhere near as good as Horrible Bosses, but transferring that degree of nastiness to this film would have added to the number of crackup moments.  As for the bosses, Spacey plays the perfect anti-christ that no one wants to deal with in the workplace, and Farrell is just as unbearable, but in a good way.  Jennifer Aniston is a great reason to see it too, considering the absurdly dirty words coming out of her mouth that prove she can play something other than a Rachel-like role.
Overall, Horrible Bosses is no original Hangover, but ten times better than the sequel.  It has enough laughs to maintain a smile on your face and the characters are what really keep you engrossed in the film.  Get your dose of comedy since the rest of this month seems action packed with Harry Potter and Captain America.

"Cars 2" is Fast and Furious, But Not Pixar Worthy

Well I never thought the day would come, but Pixar has finally come out with a movie that is not perfect.  Whenever I discuss the superb studio, people normally say that Cars is either the only film from Pixar that they haven't seen or they haven't enjoyed.  It even has the lowest overall rating on Rotten Tomatoes with 74% which isn't bad, but not exactly up to par with the rest of the animation studio's work.  Now, unfortunately, the sequel has become the most poorly reviewed film for John Lasseter and Co. to date.  Let me add on to the criticism.
Unlike most people I've talked to about the first Cars, I am a fan of the homey and nostalgic picture set in fictional Radiator Springs.  Even if I were not, I'd have to learn after building remote control versions of the main characters at the Disney Store for 7 months.  Cars 2, however, abandons this idea of a simpler time and the town in general and focuses almost entirely on action and gadgetry.  The opening sequence follows a new character, Finn McMissile, voiced by Michael Caine, who is actually very cool and probably the best part about the film.  We watch him on a Bond-like mission that is basically what the real secret agent would do in a sports car given the situation.  It has missiles (obviously), bombs, guns, and can even turn into a submarine.  This was all highly entertaining, but no Pixar movie has ever started off like a typical Hollywood action flick.  The rest of the film is no different.
Lightning McQueen and Mater are still best buds, although they get into a fight when McQueen is just about to win the first race of the World Grand Prix headed by Miles Axlerod, who has come up with an alternative fuel for cars, and Mater distracts him while accidentally caught up in a secret mission.  Thus, Mater becomes a spy because he is assumed to be a dumb tow truck undercover.  Now the film focuses solely on Mater along with the new characters McMissile and Holly Shiftwell.
I don't understand why Larry the Cable Guy would ever be cast in a Pixar film, let alone any film for that matter, but he is one of the main reasons why Cars isn't as well reviewed as Toy Story or any of its predecessors.  It is hugely popular though and probably attracts those living in the midwest.  Nevertheless, the character of Mater may touch the audience's heart at times but he comes across as too stupid.
Cars 2 works as a spy/action movie and would most likely be appreciated a lot more if it were from a different animation studio that can never seem to accomplish the acclaim that Pixar receives, but the fact that it lacks the impression of its other works is what makes it mediocre.  At least these cars don't transform though.  It concludes with a message like the others do, but it simply does not have the same effect.  You'll probably be entertained, but won't care for the characters like you did in last summer's Toy Story 3.  Luckily, there is an animated short involving Woody and the gang before Cars 2.  That alone is worth the price of admission.

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" Has It All...Except a Shred of Intelligence

Audiences have learned not to expect a genuine thought from director Michael Bay who is obviously known for his intense action sequences, loud explosions, and busty actresses, well...models, but Transformers: Dark of the Moon is just plain stupid.  Similar to X-Men: First Class, the plot revolves around changing historical events, this time dealing with the 1969 moon landing as opposed to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The movie begins by trying to explain something important about the alien robot race while rushing through moments pertaining to what Michael Bay says the moon landing was all about.  Just like the first two movies, Transformers 3 starts off ridiculous, but pretty entertaining despite its stupidity, then becomes almost unbearable.
Even though Sam Witwicky, played by the over-enthused Shia LaBeouf (man, that's a lot of vowels), and his girlfriend Mikaela from the previous films seemed perfectly fine, they have clearly gone their separate ways due to the dispute between Bay and Megan Fox off camera.  Without much explanation, in comes Carly Miller played by Victoria's Secret supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whitely.  I don't know how Sam manages to score with these beauties but more power to you pal.  She's certainly easy to look at and actually not a bad actress when you consider the role she's performing.  Meeting her on screen as well as the scene involving Sam receiving the Medal of Honor from Obama are quite entertaining.  Then the "plot" begins to unravel.
I never thought I'd be confused by something as simpleminded as a Michael Bay movie, but I guess it's because I expect movies to make sense.  It takes a while to figure out what everyone is fighting over and what it does, but when you do it doesn't really matter.  Something that teleports weapons and machines from space to Earth in order to rebuild Cybertron, thus making humans the Transformers' slaves even though they're killing them War of the Worlds style.  Again, doesn't make sense, but whatever.
This installment in the franchise has all the action you would presume, but the real entertainment comes from the reputation-ruining small roles from people like John Turturro, Patrick Dempsey, and John Malkovich.  Turturro behaves the same way as he did in the other films, Dempsey is a complete jerk, and Malkovich is a riot.  Ken Jeong, however, who also shows up in the movie is utterly unbearable.  I don't know what people see in him, but he is literally unwatchable.  Alan Tudyk, better known as "Steve the Pirate" from Dodgeball delivers his share of humor, on the other hand, and should be used more often in actual comedies.
Although Bay feels the need to try and make his movies funny, they're all about the action.  The final battle in Chicago, which is at least 45 minutes long but only needs to be about 5, just seems like Bay sat around a toy box with Transformer action figures causing a ruckus.  It's all unnecessary and the damage inflicted on the city did the same to my brain cells.  Slow motion robots fighting and Shia repeatedly shouting "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!" is not what I call a movie.  What else can you expect from Michael Bay though?  It's my own fault that I went to go see it.  It honestly could be better though if it wasn't so long.  Either way, save your money but more importantly your time, but even more importantly your smarty brain intelgencey...whoops, I mean intelligence.

An Exquisite Evening with "Midnight in Paris"

It took a while for Midnight in Paris to reach worldwide release, but boy did I pick the perfect evening to finally see Woody Allen's latest film.  The theater contained a few scattered couples all over the age of twenty and most of them being much older except for two girls and a boy in the very back row who were roughly twelve years old.  What drove them to a Sony Pictures Classics film I do not know.  Maybe they thought the theater would be empty and they could goof off.  Maybe they were given an assignment to see the film for a history or literature class due to the glimpse into the lives of some of these subjects' most influential individuals.  No matter what the case, they would not keep their mouths shut, and in response neither would anyone else in the theater.  People shouted "Shut up!" and "Could you please be quiet?!" several times, but no one got up to have an employee come in and do something about the problem.  This can be explained by the fact that Woody Allen's imaginative storytelling and incredibly intriguing characters kept everyone in their seats despite the rude and annoying children behind them.
Midnight in Paris follows Owen Wilson, in a role that shows his real potential as an actor (not like foolish comedies such as Hall Pass), as Gil Pender, a Hollywood screenwriter who is dissatisfied with the focus of his career and wishes to branch out into writing novels.  While in Paris with his fiancee, Inez, played by a convincing but slightly annoying Rachel McAdams, Gil begins to feel distant from his significant other who has absolutely no interest in his feelings or ideas, so he separates from Inez and her family to explore the beautiful city at night.  On one drunken evening while looking for his hotel, Gil is invited into an old looking car and escorted to a party.  Here he meets a man named Scott Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda.  At first he just assumes this to be a coincidence even though the man playing piano at the party seems to have written the music himself.  Then he is led to a pub where the group encounters none other than Ernest Hemingway.  Gil goes along with everything, since his dream is to live in 1920s Paris, and asks Hemingway to take a look at his novel, which instead is passed along to Gertrude Stein.
Gil makes an attempt at bringing his fiancee along for the adventure the next night, but she leaves after waiting impatiently (certainly no Wedding Crashers chemistry here).  Then the clock strikes twelve and Gil enters the old fashioned car on his own.  While in the company of Gertrude Stein, he meets more significant people of the time such as Pablo Picasso and his mistress, Adriana, played by the beautiful Marion Cotillard.  Gil takes a liking to her and spends more and more time with her throughout his visits to the past, but soon learns that he is not alone in the quest for another time.
Woody Allen explores the recurring argument of which period in time was most remarkable and how people constantly chase after a different age or wish for a better era.  With advancements in technology taking away every mystery about every detail one could think of, even something as simple as when a movie or album came out, people tend to stop thinking on their own and just go to their Mac or Blackberry for the answer.  However, even those who lived in what some may say was the Golden Age believe otherwise and look back on the generation before them with jealousy.  Allen's characters portray a genuine struggle for another time as well as the complete opposite opinion, in addition to the enthusiasm evident in particular periods (especially Adrien Brody's hysterical rendering of Salvador Dali).  Inez and her parents, who seem to have no similarities with Gil, are the typical rich and spoiled Beverly Hills family who, along with Inez's friend Paul, think they know everything about the past, but don't truly care about what they think they know.  Some standout scenes include Gil proving Paul completely wrong.
As technically cluttered as our generation may be, it's impossible to travel back to a time deemed more noteworthy or "golden."  However, if one can find someone with the same passion that exists today, life can be a lot more enjoyable.  I doubt the twelve-year-olds got any of this out of the film, but it's clear that they should have been next door watching The Hangover: Part II.  I hate to sound like Inez's snotty parents, but a little culture could do them some good.