Larry Crowne (A)

Few comedies are as charming or as tender as Larry Crowne.

With the help of writer Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), Tom Hanks (That Thing You Do!) succeeds as the author, director, and star of a drama about a middle-aged divorced man (named, you guessed it: Larry Crowne) returning to college after being laid-off from his long-time retail job.

The film starts off rather poorly, with the lack of a consistant tone. The buisnessmen firing Crowne do so in such an unproffessional manner—in refferring to Larry’s lack of an education, oneman blurts out “Who would have thought I’d be premoted before you?!”—that the movie feels almost like a typical comedy with exaggerrated reactions from everyone. However, other scenes use a more quiet, tender mood. By the half-way mark, though, the picture stands firmly in the latter category, and that is a good thing—the audience might not roar with laughter like they did inTropic Thunder, but they care far more about the characters and are far more invested in the story.

Much of the reason the film succeeds is due to the excellent acting. Hanks, who has been nominated for 5 acting Oscars (including wins for Philidelphia andForrest Gump), does his usual mild-mannered, out-of-place routine, but he does it as well as ever (and without the dim-witted tone he showed in The Terminal). Julia Roberts, as an alcoholic proffessor going through a messy divorce, has almost as large a role, and succeeds in giving her character character (pardon the expression) without becoming too irritating—we see the hurt this woman has, and we see how her anger is misguided. More surprising, though, is the fact that even the smallest of supporting roles is done with perfect skill. Talent and effort is showcased by Wilmer Valderrama, Rami Malek, George Takei, and Cedric the Entertainer. With the third largest role in the movie (and a great role to play), Gugu Mbatha-Raw, best known as the female star of TV’s Undercovers, shines in what is hopefully the start of a great film carreer.

Of course, all of this acting talent would be trivial if it were not for such a touching, tender story to go with it. Larry Crowne tackles big issues without boring or berrating the audience, and it resolves them with a bittersweet, satisfying, and surprisingly moving conclusion, of which Hanks and award-winning Cinematographer Philppe Rousselot (Big Fish; Sherlock Holmes) give a soothing style and appearance that underscores the messages.

Few movies are as sweet and as thoughtful as Larry Crowne.

Horrible Bosses (F)

Horrible Bosses is such a bizarrely sickening film it is uncomfortable writing a review about it, seeing as I must open with the words "rape is not funny."

Three average Joes (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, and Jason Sudekis) become fed up with their abusive employers (Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston) and decide to kill them. Jamie Foxx, Lindsey Sloane, and Ioan Gruffud have small roles. The picture is directed by Seth Gordon (Freakinomics, Four Christmases).

This is bound to disturb some viewers, but is also an interesting concept that appeals to all of us. Haven't there been authority figures who are total jerks that we really want dead? In this subject, Horrible Bosses acts like a typical dark comedy: presenting a disturbing premise and connecting it to our most primal urges so that we find it both revolting and appealing.

The movie can be funny at times, and the acting is great (especially Farrell, who is funny and yet sad as a sadistic crackhead). Still, this does nothing to fix the fact that this is a bad movie.

However, when the film gets to the subject of rape, they have lost that approach. The issue is not presented as something taboo--it is treated like just another slapstick comedy routine. The reason is that the sexual predator is a women.

Dale (Charlie Day) is miserable at work because his boss (Jennifer Aniston) keeps making inappropriate comments and gropes him. She then reveals that she drugged him unconscious and raped him and then blackmails him with the photos.

I ask for a second for us to consider what the movie would be like if it was the other way around--if the victim was female and the perpetrator was male. Would it be presented in a movie as normal slapstick comedy? Of course not. And if the movie came out with it in there, people would be furious.

Physorg reports that of reported sexual assaults nearly 6% are done by females, and that this number is likely inaccurate because people are embarrassed to report a sexual assault by a woman. This movie contributes to this problem. It presents sexual assault by a woman on a man to be not serious and in fact something for the victim to be ashamed of. Now, obviously people will point out that the victim is planning to kill the perpetrator. This is presented as ridiculously silly--that it really is nothing that deserves a large reaction. Actually, while murder is obviously not a good choice, it should definitely be reported.

Another problematic aspect of the film is that for most of the movies, the three protagonists are in a bar getting tipsy. The attitude is "oh the silly things men do when they are drunk." Sure, murder is presented as shocking, but the tone is that we all think about that things when we get drunk.

Yes, many people get drunk on a regular basis. But it isn't healthy. The movie is contributing to the myth that over-drinking is harmless. It is not. And it is very irresponsible to say it is.

Horrible Bosses's unhealthy and offensive jokes squash out any humor the film might have had.

3-D Report: June

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

Green Lantern

Overall, the visuals in Green Lantern are amazing. This could have so easily seen stupid or reused old tricks, but instead this comic book epic is brought to screen with an enthralling look that is neither disconnected the real world nor underwhelming. Also, the cinematography uses a broad color spectrum, unlike, say, The Green Hornet which gave everything a green tone and passed it off as "artistic." However, Director Martin Campbell has been making movies for a while and thus has some difficulty adapting to a 3-D format. The movie is converted (a good thing, since Campbell's style is not meant for bulky 3-D cameras), but as is often the case with the process the images are occasionally out-of-focus. Furthermore, Campbell is unable to maximize the 3-D opportunities--as a result the movie is simply in 3-D and does not use the format to enhance the story-telling or action-sequences beyond giving it an extra dimension.

One might think that the 3-D makes the movie be a few shades darker, but that is in fact the actual color scheme--the 3-D version has been adequately lightened.

Cars 2

CGI-animated movies do not use a camera and thus can be designed for 3-D much easier. As a result, they are usually the best looking 3-D.

Cars 2 is at the top-end of the spectrum for 3-D movies, but for an animated one is relatively unimpressive. The 3-D is focused and the colors are right, but the film uses few angles that would maximize the use of the format.

Also, Pixar (the studio behind Cars) makes sure not to ever use 3-D as a gimmick. The result is that it never interrupts the story and serves only as a subtle improvement to the viewing experience. The downside is that there is far less evidence for why you paid extra for a 3-D ticket.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Michael Bay is famous for giving us amazing, explosion-filled, mind-blowing action films. The third episode in Transformers, however, was the first time the director used 3-D, a technique he had been hesitant to do. Bay made the daring choice to shoot most of Dark of the Moon with 3-D cameras rather than converting. The cameras often yield better results, but are so cumbersome it seemed unlikely to work with Bay's constantly moving camera style, and furthermore has poor compatibility with IMAX.

Amazingly, Bay manages to make visually the best live-action 3-D film of all time other than Avatar. The details are amazing, the backgrounds are digitally blurred, the lighting is perfect, and the added dimension gives a whole new sense of scale the mayhem. Even more impressive, Bay shot the thing for under $200 million: A feat that recent 2-D pictures like Prince of Persia and Iron Man 2 could not accomplish even with shorter running times. The movie itself is not quite as incredible, but there are no complaints about the visuals.

Oddly, there were only two 3-D releases in June, so this concludes this month's list. As a final note I will mention that there are reports that many theaters are projecting 3-D films wrong (such as by using a dimmer bulb) which makes the image darker. Sure, some 3-D films are actually darker than their 2-D counterparts, but it is often worth considering that your local theater is playing it wrong and its not the fault of the actual movie. It could be worse trying out your next 3-D experience at another theater as an experiment.

Cars 2 (A-)

With the reputation Pixar has built up, it is understandable that adults will go to Cars 2 expecting another Up. Due to this, it is imperative to say, just like every other reviewer has, that no one should delude themselves into thinking Cars 2 is of that quality.

However, it is being very unfair to judge a movie based on how it compares to the studio or director's previous pictures. Cars 2 is not like Up, but that is because Cars 2 does not aspire to be Up. This is not meant to be a groundbreaking achievement which is certain to make everyone cry. This is meant to be a fun action comedy for children which anyone can enjoy. At that, Cars 2 succeeds. And, frankly, that is in many ways a good thing. Do you think children really liked silent montages of lonely robots trash compacting, or elderly men mourning the death of their spouse, or toys being abandoned by children who have forgotten the fun they had together because that is what happens when you grow up or you turn your back on your American Girl doll for one second little kid hahahahahahaha. As much as we deny it, Pixar has become less and less a studio that makes movies kids' will like, or even should see. Cars 2 gives a movie that everyone will enjoy, especially children. If that means some toilet humor and no deep messages, so be it.

The Cars universe is a world without humans, but with anthropomorphized vehicles (planes, helicopters, boats, and of course cars) that eat, sleep, make friends, kiss, and generally act like people. Racing superstar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) enters the World Grand Prix, a race sponsored by Sir Miles Axelrod (Eddie Izzard) in order to promote alternative fuel sources. McQueen's competition against the cocky Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro) is upset by the antics of Tow Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), McQueen's naive and easily confused best friend. When an American spy-car gives an important picture to Mater, MI6 agents Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) and Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) recruit the goofy tow truck to combat a crime syndicate's scheme to sabotage the race.

The main character of the original Cars was McQueen, but this time he takes a back-seat to Mater. The genre is also switched, from a small-town nostalgia trip to a adrenaline filled mash-up of Speed Racer and James Bond. The first change results in some undeveloped characters and a lot slapstick humor, the latter results in way more violence than should be in a G-rated movie (the MPAA received many complaints from angry parents saying their very young children were distraught while seeing the film).

The morals are not astoundingly deep, but they are nice, encouraging, and great for a family outing. The characters are kind and truly feel bad when they hurt each other. The environmentalist message is too heavy-handed, but is fortunately the only political issue discussed.

One of the best parts of the movie is that despite having cars for characters, the movie offers a genuine spy movie, not a parody. Director John Lasseter (Toy Story 1 and 2, A Bug's Life) uses automobiles to enhance the excitement instead of mocking it. The non-stop action is going to be thrilling for people of all ages (except for some toddlers), and Finn McMissile is so cool he deserves a spin-off movie. The 3-D illusion definitely improves the experience.

Cars 2 is best for children, but it is fun for everyone.