THE LEGO MOVIE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller
Year: 2014
Cast: Will Arnett, Elizabeth Banks, Alison Brie
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG

It's obvious that a group of intelligent individuals sat down and came up with the idea for The Lego Movie. That shows in the screenplay. It's also obvious that moviegoers were very receptive to their style of filmmaking. That shows in the notably high Rotten Tomatoes score of 96%. And when you throw in cutting edge animation and notable voiceovers, the end result is a kids' movie that deserves a spot on the DVD shelf.

With that being said, it’s important to recognize the fact that I wasn’t blown out of my seat by this movie. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good flick, but through my eyes, it wasn’t as great as it was cracked up to be. I suppose that I was predisposed to it’s alleged excellence, and in turn, I was let down at it’s, for lack of a better term, mediocracy.

We’re thrown into the life of Emmet, a guy who strives to be “normal” and no different than “average” because, as it’s taken, the society revolves around this expectation of people. When he’s mistaken for the “most extraordinary person in the world”, he sets out on the adventure of his life to “save the world” with a multitude of friends including the funniest character in the whole movie, Batman.

As it sounds, The Lego Movie is creative. It stretches boundaries of animation that make us think, and along the way, it incorporates some genuinely funny moments that make it a memorable (enough) moviegoing experience. It really isn’t a hilariously comedic film, to my dismay, but it delivers time after time and it, overall, is worthy of your family’s viewing. Something to consider too, is that even if you don’t love it, the kids will. It’s charisma is simply too much to shy away from at a young age.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

BLUE JASMINE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Woody Allen
Year: 2013
Cast: Cate Blanchett
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        From scene one of Blue Jasmine, I got the notion that this movie was going to be a lot of talking. This dictated that I was going to have to conquer my viewing with a cup of coffee in hand; so I did. Here's the report: Blue Jasmine is a solid entry into this year's Academy Awards. It's an engrossing movie that harbors exceptional characters and an even better cast to bring these characters to life. With all this in mind, I also took note of the fact that it's probably the unhappiest film of the year.

        Jasmine—played by Cate Blanchett—is a total mess. She takes Xanax to prevent herself from having nervous breakdowns on a daily basis because she decided lithium wouldn't do the trick. She drinks vodka and martinis at two o'clock in the afternoon, she lies, and she takes advantage of everyone around her to support the image she builds for herself in her head. She comes to San Francisco to stay with her sister and her two kids for awhile until she "gets back on her feet", though she, nor her sister, are sure this will ever happen. But by the tone of the movie, it's clear that this is not all there is to the story, so, while the whole process of this is happening, the movie zooms in on her life years before, when she was married to Hal (played with exuberance by Alec Baldwin), a hotshot businessman whose credibility becomes a risk for his job and family.

        This story parallel that the screenplay creates makes for an engaging, worthwhile moviegoing experience. The scenes that depict her relationship with her husband seamlessly flow into present day, which creates a sense of understanding for the main character whose flaws and shortcomings are all a result of her shipwreck of a marriage. There's a gap of time between these linear tellings that are, brilliantly, left to the viewer to depict. We aren't spoon fed the exact happenings and circumstances that made her so unstable, but we have a clue, and, to be sure, sympathy is had. It's not that we like Jasmine, or root for her, but we have an understanding for her that we feel no one else does. That's what makes this motion picture so moving.

        On top of that, what comes with the well-crafted film is a cast of seemingly veteran actors that make this a believable, upsettingly realistic movie. Cate Blanchett isn't nominated for an Oscar because of her stand-out performance or ability to take control of the screen. She's nominated for Best Actress because of her mere ability to encompass the dynamic character that is Jasmine. To begin with, she looks the part. Moreover, she commits every small action with even the slightest detail to embrace this character for what she is. In part, this is what makes Blue Jasmine such a convincing movie.

        The wonderful thing is, she's not the only one carrying weight; we have Alec Baldwin who gives a lively, incredible performance as Hal. The smooth, quick-to-think nature of his character is brought to life all too well. We start to, as audience members, fall subject to his charisma, well aware of his wrongdoings that Jasmine fell victim to. Then we have Sally Hawkins (who is nominated for Best Supporting Actress), Andrew Dice Clay, Louis C.K., and Bobby Canavale who contribute their best efforts to spice up this film; that's exactly what they did.

        And throughout the proceedings there is a evocative, unique soundtrack that consists of songs like "Blue Moon" from 1934 and "Back O'Town Blues" from the same time. These vintage songs that play over what's happening benefit the screenplay greatly by helping make more vivid what we are feeling as we watch what happens to the characters on-screen. There were a lot of films that came out this Oscar season, and some used music notably well. Take, for example, The Wolf of Wall Street. Others, like Dallas Buyers Club, the opposite. I'm glad to report that this insightful, artistic film is in the former category.

        Conclusively, I'd honestly say that Blue Jasmine is one of the best films of the year. However, it's elongated, talkative style of storytelling will most likely turn some viewers off, which is one of the reasons I think it wasn't nominated for Best Picture. With that being said, I'd like to point out that this movie has an admirable maturity about it. There isn't the slightest bit of sugarcoating, and, as a result, this movie isn't superficial in the least bit. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE NUT JOB

Cole's Rating: ★★

Director: Peter Lepeniotis
Year: 2014
Cast: Will Arnett, Brendan Fraser, Liam Neeson
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG


       Before seeing The Nut Job, know this: it's been done before. Animals commit acts of theft in order to secure food for their survival during the winter. What's new? There isn't the slightest difference between this and the 2006 animated film, Over the Hedge, except maybe the voiceovers, which I found to below average here. Ultimately, The Nut Job doesn't have a lot of things going for it. I suppose its charisma may be on its side, but I wouldn't say that it's enough to justify a trip to the movies.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Ben Stiller
Year: 2013
Cast: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig
Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG

I’ve endured years of watching Ben Stiller on the big screen. I’ve chuckled at his decent romantic comedies, I’ve enjoyed his voice work in animated films, and I’ve winced at the ones that needed work, but The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is his first movie that blew me out of my seat. To people who haven’t seen this motion picture, it is, understandably, nearly impossible to fathom the beauty of what inhabits the silver screen. Stiller made a movie that is utterly genuine. As an audience member, I haven’t been moved by the honesty of people and their actions as greatly as I was here since I saw Silver Linings Playbook. 

In The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Walter is a humbled Life Magazine worker that faces a generational difficulty when a young hotshot comes in, takes control, and transforms the company into an online program. This results in the firing of many devoted, “old-fashioned” employees. Walter’s job, for the last print issue of Life, is to find a missing negative (photo) that would prevail as the cover photo. He embarks upon a journey, a real one, that allows him to break free of his obsessive daydreams (to which he has fallen subject to over the course of his life). 

Along with a simple, yet intricate screenplay and astounding visuals, Ben Stiller is what makes this film so candid. His character is so believable because it feels like he’s effortlessly playing himself on screen. In short, he comes off as a veteran actor here, capable of encasing any role and making it as personable as possible. As a director, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is, for the most part, a job well done. Though there is a sense of unsteadiness in the mood of the film as it progresses, and it feels like he hasn’t quite identified what makes his style of shooting his own. In a 114 minute vehicle, there is a large amount of visionary techniques that aren’t exercised to their fullest potential.


       Moreover, despite this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty clocks in as the third best movie of the year for me. Taking in all of what it has to offer: mesmerizing cinematography, an incredible story of self-discovery and real-world encounters, exceptional performances, and an overall highly thought-provoking film, it’s fair to say that this exquisite, brilliant piece of art is the strongest chapter in Stiller’s book thus far.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ABOUT TIME

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Richard Curtis

Year: 2013

Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: R

        Time travel flicks sometimes give me a headache. They are interesting and involving, but they also make you think too much. When About Time (the film I'm reviewing) ended, I was satisfied with it. At the same time though, I was mulling over many of the scenes in my mind. What began as a love story between two people eventually turned into one man's journey through adult life. As I viewed this London-based product from the director of the publicly treasured Love Actually, I couldn't help but over analyze the concept of the main character going back into the past and even in the smallest moments, changing things when vaulting back into present day. Trust me, when you see this thing it will drive you nuts because it never quite gets that part right. Therefore, in order to enjoy what's on screen, you have to not look too deep into the whole time travel concept. You basically have to enrapture yourself in the heartwarming vibes from the characters in it as well as the fact that it didn't deserve an R rating (a couple of cuss words shouldn't keep this from being a family film). You also have to believe that time travel isn't totally necessary when it comes to living a full and happy life. Those are my rules when taking in what I believe to be one of the best films of 2013.

        Resembling a sort of toned-down version (sans violence and escapist entertainment) of time travel oddities like The Butterfly Effect, Back to the Future, and, to an extent, Groundhog Day, About Time chronicles a young man's adult endeavors through the art of human transportation. The lead character being Tim Lake (played by a future Hugh Grant in Domhnall Gleeson, son of acclaimed actor Brendan Gleeson), is told on his 21st birthday that all the men in his family can travel back in time (it isn't explained why this is possible but there might as well have some mystery involved). Bill Nighy, perfect in his role as Lake's father, explains to him that all he has to do is venture into a dark space, squeeze his hands, and boom, he goes to the exact moment that he imagined in his mind. For me, the centralized and loving relationship between Tim and his father puts this thing over the top (in a good way). It sells the whole exercise formidably. Added to that, 75% of About Time, has a forwarding narration by said lead. It initially feels out of place only to emerge as a touching follicle toward wrapping things up.

        Now to be frank, I was initially put off by the fact that Tim wanted to do this to, you know, just get a girl to go out with him. But as the movie unfurled, he helps people on the side (friends and his sister to name a few) and builds a sort of solid foundation for a family dynamic. Let me put it this way, this movie is only a little over two hours long. However, there is an epicness that inhabits the proceedings and you get more than what you bargained for. I felt like I had been in the theater for over three hours, but believe me, I wasn't bored. Of note, though, you might have to ignore the fact that no one ages a lick in this exercise (it spans somewhere between 7-10 years I'm thinking). It's a minor oversight and shouldn't keep you from enjoying it.

        Also of note is the gist of Tim's time traveling plights becoming a little muddled when it comes to the workings of the plot. Thankfully, this is masked by a cast that delivers acting in the first class department. This is especially evident in Rachel McAdams as Mary, the object of Tim's affections. As expected, McAdams is effortlessly charming and fancy free. Two words describe her: glowing, radiant, eye twinkling (that's three words, oops). Along with the previously mentioned Billy Nighy, she adds leverage to the extreme likability factor embedded in About Time's character makeup.

        When you put it all together, About Time is a great holiday film, a serviceable date movie, and even possibly something you can take the whole family to (ignore the R rating, trust me). It's breeziness is accompanied by the affable people in it. In scene after scene you sense that they deserve the utmost level of happiness. And that for me, is the reason why I recommend this motion picture so highly. If you cry easily during romantic comedies (this one is more like a dramedy) then bring a slew of handkerchiefs. To put it mildly, there is no doubt that About Time is a keeper. If you haven't seen it, it's "about time" you get to the multiplex!

-Written by Jesse Burleson

LAST VEGAS

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Jon Turteltaub

Year: 2013

Cast: Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Kevin Kline, Morgan Freeman

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        About a week before viewing this uneven flick concerning the exploitation of senior citizens hosting a bachelor party (in Las Vegas, where else), I saw its four stars (check that, four Oscar winners) promoting their film on a high end news station (The TODAY Show I believe). They looked grumpy and didn't really want to be there. But I thought to myself, maybe these guys aren't too confident about the product they are selling and they're just you know, going through the motions. I don't blame them. Besides the fact that this exercise becomes a tad darker and deeper emotionally toward its conclusion (the trailer is misleading), it's still disposable and somewhat hard to sit through. Last Vegas (the film I'm reviewing and talking about) brings together actors Robert De Niro, Kevin Kline, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Douglas. These guys are all screen legends and there are two reasons why they might have decided to appear in this individualistic cringe fest. One reason could be that they had never been on screen before and the opportunity although mediocre, presented itself. Another reason could be that they got paid handsomely. Anyway you slice it, they dent their reputations as actors ever so slightly. In the end, I think that, considering each of their track records, it's commonplace that they'll probably recover. I did, as a critic, but only after "Vegas" was almost saved by a solemn, feasible second half. There is some moral cleansing between a father and son along with a believable love triangle that lends itself to a 58 year friendship. Yes, this movie boasts itself as a comedy. However, it fails as one with jokes that are bland, lightweight, and familiar. And the overall theme got annoying as well (they're old, we get it). The fact that Last Vegas changes gears (by becoming mildly dramatic) almost makes it recommendable. I heavily stress the "almost" part.

        Containing a scene which almost caused me to walk out of the multiplex (the four 70+ plus year olds judge a bikini contest poolside) and directed by a guy who furthered Nicolas Cage's action star career with the National Treasure movies, Last Vegas examines four best friends (since childhood) who have somewhat grown apart and live in different parts of the country. When Malibu hotshot Billy (played by slickster Michael Douglas who in almost everything he's in, has to get with a woman half his age) decides to get engaged, he calls his buddies to get together in Las Vegas for the typical male debauchery. Paddy (played by Robert De Niro who is in just about every movie out in 2013) is a widower who lives alone in New Jersey. Then there's Morgan Freeman's character Archie, who had a mild stroke and is being taken care of by his overbearing son. Finally, we have Florida resident Sam. He's played by Kevin Kline who with shades of his comedic brilliance in the past, gives the flick's strongest performance. Kline's character has been given the OK to cheat on his wife (by his wife) so he enthusiastically tags along.

  

        Last Vegas, despite what you might have heard from other critics, didn't remind me of The Hangover (not in the slightest expect for the whole location aspect). That film was outrageously funny and edgy. Plus, there isn't much of a sense of danger going on here like there was with the characters in The Hangover. "Vegas," with its automated sense of situational comedy, made me chuckle a couple of times here and there. But in a way, it wasn't that amusing because the jokes were constantly aimed at the adage of old age. The filmmakers seemed to want to shovel this notion down my throat. After a while, I was a little put off and felt internally bloated (no pun intended).

  

        Honestly, I can name a ton of films that are worse than Last Vegas. But there's gotta be something more challenging or more rewarding than this considering the talent involved. Its strong points: the title (Last Vegas just roles off the tongue, why not), the cast, and the somewhat interesting premise taken to task. Its weak points: the way this vehicle stereotypes people of a certain age, the jokes that fall flat more than 50% of the time, and the fact that all the funny parts happen to be in the trailer (I'm sure it was a blatant marketing tool to get people into the theater). So to end this review, I'll leave you, the moviegoer, with this piece of sage advice: if you choose to attend a showing of Last Vegas, make sure that it's not the "last" time you'll hit the theater in 2013 (that's a nice way of saying that there are other, better films out there).

-Written by Jesse Burleson

DON JON

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Year: 2013
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Julianne Moore, Tony Danza
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

        As I recall, the last Joseph Gordon-Hewitt movie I saw was Looper. With a little prosthetic make up and a slight voice alteration, he willfully imitates Bruce Willis. Now, in his directorial debut (not the first film he's directed but this is the first that's not a short), he looks and acts slightly more like a young Robert De Niro (sans make up, its gotta be the smirk and the mannerisms). Don Jon (the flick I'm reviewing) is a quirky little movie that is interesting and amusing (not to mention foul-mouthed, crass, and overly sexual). To Gordon-Levitt's credit, it works because of him. His direction is swift, sassy, and for the first half, unique in the way it dictates the rhythms of the actors/cuts through music and narration. Along with the solid directorial effort he shows here, he's also become a fully accomplished actor that specializes in creating different and interesting (multi-layered) characters.

        Muscle-chested, full of road rage tendencies and cleanliness habits, his Jon Martello, Jr. is a study of one man's inability to formulate a relationship (with a woman) because he would rather watch pornographic material on the Internet. He's an unwealthy playboy (that's why his two best friends call him quote unquote, "Don Jon"), a ladies man, and a churchgoing type all rolled up into one. He's proud of his clean apartment and, I guess, doesn't cook (that explains why he mostly eats at his parent's house). As I said earlier, Martello, Jr. has a bit of a temper from time to time and probably gets it from his dad (Jon Sr. played by Tony Danza who sheds his Who's The Boss character's image by spewing a ton of profanity). His sister doesn't talk and basically is on her phone all the time. Then there's Jon Jr.'s mother who wants so bad for him to be in a relationship, get married, and have kids. Basically for most of the proceedings, Don Jon details three things: Gordon-Levitt's (Martello, Jr.) unusual relationship with his family (he and his dad love to rock the wife beaters at the dinner table), his obsession with watching pornographic movies, and his pursuit of a "dime" of a girl that he meets at a dance club (Scarlett Johansson giving a solid performance as Barbara Sugarman (she gets the Jersey accent down pat)). And if you've only seen the trailer, this movie as a whole can be a little misleading as it gets closer to its conclusion. Don Jon ventured down a different path than I initially thought it would. The reason: a supporting role played by Julianne Moore (Esther) kinda changes things up a bit. She plays a sulking widow who befriends Gordon-Levitt's character giving him insight into his admitted condition.

        All and all, Don Jon is fun for most of the way. It is the type of film that will cause you to laugh nervously because you feel guilty for enjoying it. Its only fault may be the way it ends things so abruptly and without a enough of a satisfying conclusion (the flick went from music video mayhem to a rom com indie look). I will recommend it, however, for Joseph Gordon-Levitt alone. He is able to nail down any character he plays and with a slight nudge from outside forces (any male cast member from Jersey Shore comes to mind), he creates Martello, Jr. completely out of thin air. He's a darn good actor and his future A-list status is fully assured. As for Don Jon, it may turn off certain types of moviegoers. If you are of the easily offended, I would advise against seeing it (the innuendo is off the charts). If you don't mind your jaw dropping from time to time with the occasional guilty chuckle or snort, Don Jon might be the "Don" Perignon of sex comedies.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE FAMILY

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Luc Besson
Year: 2013
Cast: Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones
Genre: Action/Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        On a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, I decided to take in a screening of the aptly titled, The Family. As I viewed this hollow, shallow, and tired exercise in modern filmmaking, I asked myself a simple yet loaded question: does Robert De Niro really need to be in another mob fest? My answer: an emphatic no. With characters that have not an ounce of human compassion and scenes of unnecessarily brutal violence (I'm sure even mobsters exhibit a small ounce of decent human behavior unlike the cast in this dreck), this thing actually still wants you to laugh with it as well. So, is it a black comedy? Oh no. It's too dumbfounded to be that. Fargo is a black comedy. Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy. The Family couldn't tie their shoes, that's for darn sure. Truth be told, I don't really know what kind of film this is. I have no idea what it tries to be. The most shocking thing is that every rote scene turns extremely dark toward the last half. Therefore, I figured there was no point in having any of the characters try to extract laughs from the audience in the first place. This is a film you see once and that's it. I have no doubt in my mind that its box office status will drop like a heavy stone in a deep body of water.

        Taking place in a small town near France and based on the 2010 novel called Badfellas (wow, there's an original title!) by Tonino Benacquista, The Family is about De Niro's mafia boss character (Giovanni Maznoni), his wife (Maggie played by Michelle Pfeiffer who, I guess, gives this flick's strongest performance), and their two children (newcomer John D'Leo and Glee star Dianna Agron). Based on previous events in which Maznoni snitches on a crime kingpin thereby sending said person to prison, De Niro's clan (now going under the last name Blake) goes into a witness protection program. They end up living near Normandy, France and are being watched and/or supervised by an FBI agent named Robert Stansfield (played by Tommy Lee Jones, who deserves better). As I stated earlier, The Family undercuts scenes of brutal beatings with moderate sitcom humor until it goes into deeper, darker territory. To say that this picture is uneven is a gigantic understatement. The fact that it references De Niro's 1990 acting triumph Goodfellas is insulting and it turns The Family into a parody rather than a real movie.

        All in all, I guess what boggles my mind is why Martin Scorsese agreed to produce a mafia vehicle directed by the guy who wrote The Transporter flicks (Luc Beeson, who always seems to bring a slick, empty look to the proceedings). What's even more puzzling is the fact that Tommy Lee Jones (Stansfield) signed on to play such a nothing role as the sad sack who watches over De Niro's character. Ultimately, The Family is an uninspired mess. It's an out-of-place popcorn flick (the violent bloodbath toward the film's conclusion reminded me of one of the Die Hard films) and a startlingly un-human mix of mob comedy and fledgling drama. Yes, the acting is decent and the direction is numbingly serviceable. But by the time the final credits roll, you'll realize how disposable it is. In its 112 minute running time, all the events that took place could easily recycle themselves many times over. Translation: there is no need to see this, whatsoever. As I walked out the theater, I realized that I'm fortunate to not be a part of a "family" like this.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CROOKLYN

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Spike Lee
Year: 1994
Cast: Delroy Lindo, Alfre Woodard, Zelda Harris
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        The closing credits of Spike Lee's 1994 film Crooklyn state that what we saw was a work of fiction. They also state that Crooklyn had more than one writer, and those writers (Lee and his real life brother and sister) drew some of their inspiration from their own lives growing up in a low-rent Brooklyn neighborhood. If this is the case, and the film is not exactly a true story, then after a recent viewing, I started to wonder for what reason it was made. Now granted, Spike Lee always has good intentions. And most of the time he gets energetic performances from his cast. However, in Crooklyn's case, the material he is saddled with (the story and the monotonous, yet accurate script) is entirely lightweight, and it doesn't have the strength to fill a two hour-plus exercise. Whatever conflicts that occur between the characters (characters that fade in and out of the proceedings) are never fully realized and resolved. The one event or tragedy that occurs toward the film's conclusion does not fully beef up any dramatic momentum and most of the scenes involving the main family depicted feel tedious and in serious need of editing. In essence, Crooklyn would have been more effective as a side plot of Lee's family childhood included in a TV special/documentary about his life as a director. What came out in 1994, though, is an authentic, yet unnecessary portrayal of a family of 5 kids (four boys, one girl) living in Brooklyn, NY in the summer of 1973.

        Using many unknown child actors and casting himself as a neighborhood glue sniffing junkie, Lee shoots a film that follows the lives of the fictional family, the Carmichaels. They consists of a hard working school teacher (an always tough-as-nails Alfre Woodard), her calming, hard-up musician husband (with this film and Lee's Clockers, Delroy Lindo is now one of my true acting heroes), and their five children (the film slowly begins to put its main focus on the only daughter in group being Troy, played with confidence by Zelda Harris). Although they are the main tenants of the building they are living in, they are struggling to make ends meet (financially) and Carolyn Carmichael (Woodard), being the sole provider, puts a strain on the family dynamic. She and Woody Carmichael (Lindo) fight and argue because he is not able to make any money playing his music (he's a piano player and composer). Crooklyn, also in the smallest detail, takes a look at some of the other people that live on the same block as the Carmichaels. They are side characters that don't get a lot of screen time to establish themselves, let alone add to the workings of the plot (a plot that's very thin skinned). As I stated a couple sentences ago, watching this exercise, you begin to realize that the young Troy becomes the focal point of the movie in general. It's not entirely known upfront, but by the last twenty minutes or so, you understand why. By then it's too late because too much running time is passed and not enough has happened. If the whole entire film focused on this little girl, I think it might've worked. I stress the word might've.

        When it's all said and done, this is a harmless motion picture that seemed close to Lee's heart. I don't think it's a bad film by any means. I just feel that the subject matter wasn't deep enough or potent enough to engage with an audience seeking entertainment value or, for lack of a better word, excitement. Yes, the period detail is pretty solid with the soundtrack being comprised of some 70's classics and a few rap tunes. The opening credit sequence is excellent, depicting a normal routine of childhood antics (double dutch jump rope, tag, street races, etc.) on a hot summer day in NYC. And the closing credits are a delight leading with an intro by Soul Train creator Don Cornelius followed by a dance sequence on said TV show. But, in between, the movie glides by without really saying anything or provoking any deep meaning. So my high end analysis is this: instead of watching people's lives on screen, the only way to really embrace this film is by being in that place and time and actually inhabiting some form of their existence. If you lived in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood back in 1973, this flick might be your cup of tea. If you didn't, decided to take in a viewing, and wanted to immerse yourself in the world of Crooklyn, by hook or "crook", you'll ultimately feel cheated based upon what you just saw.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

YOU'RE NEXT

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Adam Wingard
Year: 2011
Cast: Sharni Vinson, Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen
Genre: Comedy/Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

       With smidgens of background music straight out of a 1980's John Hughes film and villains with a penchant for killing defenseless human beings by way of crossbows, You're Next exhibits a new and fresh perspective on the horror/slasher genre. Now I'm saying this based on my observation of the movie's second half. The last 45 minutes surprised me and I consider them very effective. The first half, well, it resembles one of the weaker Friday the 13th sequels coupled with residue from the meaningless pile of junk that is The Strangers (2008) ("Next" plays like a wiser, more intelligent version of the said movie). At 96 fast paced minutes, You're Next isn't monumentally scary. In fact, it's a horror flick that plays more like a thriller. Does that make it less palatable? No way. Truth be told, this is an exercise that delivers a couple of nifty twists and turns that help it rise above the ordinary. Now I can't reveal these twists (nor would I want to) but I do know this: I couldn't recommend "Next" without them. I also can't divulge who the character is that turns out to be the reluctant heroine. If you choose to take in a viewing, you'll find out for yourself that this person is a true survivalist that kinda came out of nowhere. And as the perceptive critic that I always try to be, I initially didn't pick up on it.

        Harboring actors/actresses that I've never seen in a film before and taking place in I figured the middle of nowhere (of course), You're Next has a premise that goes like this: a rich family consisting of a husband, wife, and four children (all with significant others) venture out to a remote vacation home (it's not revealed where but I found out that filming took place in Columbia, Missouri) for a sort of rekindling (the vibe I get is that they haven't seen each other in quite some time). This family doesn't know it yet, but they are being watched and are to be eventually hunted down by henchman wearing creepy masks that resemble, I guess, bunny rabbits. What begins from that moment on is a relentless rush of terror that doesn't let up. If you like the sight of blood, "Next" will not disappoint. After I left the theater, I wondered, budget wise, how much money was shelled out for all those gallons of red dye corn syrup.

        Despite that fact that this flick works, there is still something that kinda irked me about You're Next: once this thing comes to a close, there is a gaping hole evident in the storyline that concerns the antagonists' motivations. It seems like the script wasn't thought out too much, but instead invented to entertain, despite the fact that moviegoers passionate about strong writing will discover the apparent flaw.

      When it's all said and done, though, You're Next has some decent acting (much better than your standard horror fare with virtual unknowns in the cast), satisfying direction for most of the way (there are some scenes with a sizable amount of jittery camerawork that I could've done without), and an effective 180 degree turn in terms of what you thought you knew about some of the characters. Then there's the ending. It's been done a few times before with other films of this nature. It's equally disturbing and funny. Overall, this is not a horror classic that's going to set the world on fire, but it succeeds in trying to add a spark to what I believe to be a tired, over-the-hill genre of filmmaking. Regardless, this gets a recommendation from me and it's the "next" movie you should take in during these dog days of August.

-Written by Jesse Burleson & Cole Pollyea

WE'RE THE MILLERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Rawson Marshall Thurber
Year: 2013
Cast: Jason Sudeikis, Jennifer Aniston, Emma Roberts
Genre: Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        In terms of summer movies, August always seems to be the month when the most inferior products are put out. We're the Millers (the film I'm reviewing) is no exception. Masquerading as a laugh out loud comedy and coming off as only mildly amusing, this movie tells the story of David Burke (played by Jason Sudeikis who channels his inner Vince Vaughn), a "man child" pot dealer who, after trying to help a young homeless girl in distress, gets robbed of all his drugs and money (his bosses drugs/money as well). He then becomes indebted to his wealthy drug lord/longtime college friend Brad Gurdlinger (played by Ed Helms who, with a certain goofiness, give the film's best performance) for at least $40,000. In order for David to save his own life, he must get across the Mexican border and do a massive drug deal for Brad. If he succeeds in this task, he will pocket $100,000 for himself, his debt will be forgiven, and he'll go on to live another day. One problem: being searched for drugs at the border. Brad's solution: hire a fake family to make it look less suspicious while smuggling the merchandise back into the states. Helm's character states that it is just a smidge of pot (yeah right). In hindsight, this sounds like an interesting premise for a movie. It's just too bad that We're the Millers fails to satisfy. Yeah, it does seem original enough, but in the end, what you get is a borderline lousy road comedy that may force you to chuckle a few times here and there. Why? Because you probably paid $10 and felt obligated to get the most out your summer moviegoing experience (the audience that I sat with in the theater echoed this sentiment, you could tell).

       There are a few big misteps that latch on to "Millers". One is the fact that it's a drowned out laugh fest that tries way too hard to get someone to like it. Second, the film assumes that a bland comedic actor like Jason Sudeikis can carry a full length feature film in general (in certain segments of this monstrosity, he becomes massively unlikable). Third, Jennifer Aniston as the fake wife in the fake family can't pass in the film as an exotic dancer (there's a scene where she has to show off her moves to get out of danger/peril, but she can't dance and doesn't come off as flexible or, as the role requires, believable). Fourth, there is the constant use of ad-libbing/tired improvisation by the actors that takes hold of certain scenes thereby making them painfully worse. And finally, there is the obvious use of adding unnecessary character situations to keep the plot moving. An example would be a tarantula crawling up someone's pants and biting him in the "you know where". Trust me, this is not funny and it feels artificially simulated like everything else trying to pass off as pungent and laughable.

        One of the bright spots (along with Helms of course) is the addition of the fake son for David's fake family. His name is Kenny and he is played by the innocent looking, bright eyed British actor,Will Poulter. Does he give the greatest performance in world? Not exactly. But he looks and fits the part perfectly and becomes the only character you could root for, or even like (barely, mind you).

        In conclusion, We're the Millers comes off as crass, rude, and, for the most part, unfunny. With a lead actor that lacks solid comedic chops and a script that feels tired and all too familiar, it's an exercise you'd be better off staying away from (if you do choose to view this flick, avoid the outtakes at the end because they're even worse than the film itself). After this tired engine died, I thought to myself, "How glad I am that I don't live next door to 'The Millers'" (when you get to the end of the film, you'll understand).

-Written by Jesse Burleson

2 GUNS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Baltasar Kormákur
Year: 2013
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Denzel Washington, Bill Paxton
Genre: Action/Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        If I had the power to rename the film 2 Guns, I'd change it to "2000 Guns".  Every single frame is filled to the brim with them (all kinds too). Not only are the weapons in this flick used to kill people (obviously), they're also used for good old fashioned torture. Yeah, 2 Guns is a so called action comedy and it's completely out of control. As I viewed this bullet ridden, macho laden, testosterone filled, bloated mess of an exercise, I started to try and keep track of certain things. However, I lost count. I couldn't tell you how many times someone pointed a gun at someone else (complete with nasty threats too) and I couldn't, for the life of me, keep track of how many times a character said, "where's the money?" or "where's my money?" Added to that, I also had my head spinning trying to keep track of how many times the main characters weaseled their way out of trouble or certain death (I'm thinking a handful of Mexican standoffs went down during all this). One word basically describes 2 Guns: preposterous. It has a plot that is so muddled and so unbelievably elaborate at the same time. It has your standard buddy action cliches that run rampant all throughout. And it has the leads, Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg, trying to reinvent a now tired genre. They have a small sort of chemistry, but to be frank, we've seen it all before. And it has been done better countless times over.

        With three different sets of villains and virtually no one to trust (no one is safe in this film and the police are hardly anywhere to be found), 2 Guns tells the story of an undercover (possibly former) Naval Intelligence Officer (Michael Stigman played by Mark Wahlberg) and an undercover DEA agent (Robert Trench played by Denzel Washington with his typical flair) who pose as criminals (whatever) and rob a bank for two different reasons. Stigman is trying to get reinstated as an officer by delivering the money to his commanding superiors. This is to be done so that the Navy can illegally contribute to fund certain covert operations. Denzel's character, well he has to acquire the loot so he can have enough evidence to prosecute drug lord Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos) for money laundering (you have to view this movie in order for it to make sense and I would advise against viewing 2 Guns). This sets off a chain of events when the robbery goes afoul and Stigman and Trench blow their cover (not to the bad guys, but to each other). Here's the part of 2 Guns that really turns me off. The subsequent heroes that you're supposed to root for (Stigman and Trench) become more unlikable as the film glides by. By the end, you want them to be put in jail because they become almost as cold and ruthless as everyone else.

        To sum things up, there's no real reason to see this film unless you're a Denzel Washington fan. He's still the coolest dude in the room no matter what (he's even got a cool walk that is displayed in all his other movies). Wahlberg, well he's popping up in everything these days and his outright screen presence is beginning to annoy me. He needs to be a little pickier about his projects. On a slightly more positive note, I do suppose the film's eye candy, Paula Patton, might become a big star one day. And maybe it was fun to see Edward James Olmos and Bill Paxton take on villainous roles (Paxton overdoes it, though, as a ruthless bank owner with a painfully tired southern accent). But all in all, 2 Guns is "too much." It's not quite original enough to wow you (despite the endless pyrotechnics) and it's too mean-spirited for you to care about anyone involved. In the first half of the film, "Stig" (Wahlberg) says to Bobby (Washington), "did you miss me?" For me, that wouldn't be a difficult question to answer. Do I miss the good old days when buddy action movies mattered? Yes. Will I ever miss this flashy mashup of overindulgence? No way.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

NIGHT SHIFT

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Ron Howard
Year: 1982

Cast: Henry Winkler, Shelley Long, Michael Keaton

Genre: Comedy
MPAA Rating: R

        Sometimes a film critic has to go against the grain and denounce a movie that is mostly loved by other critics and audience members alike. For me (yes I'm that guy), that flick would be Night Shift. After an initial viewing, I found it very difficult to praise something that's supposed to be a comedy, but offers very few laughs. Harking back to the summer of 1982 when it was released, Night Shift must have shocked people by being about two dudes (polar opposites) who work in a morgue and on the side, become pimps harboring a prostitution ring. I say that because it was Ron Howard's directorial debut. You know, the cute little kid on The Andy Griffith Show and the nice guy/good ol' boy from Happy Days. Ronny I gotta say we hardly knew ya! For this to be his first foray into film making, he probably turned a few heads. And let me just put this right out there; Ron Howard is for many reasons, a solid force behind the camera. His direction in Night Shift is substantially good. The fault in this exercise lies entirely in the script. It's weak, lacks heft, and offers a few comic gags that mostly fall flat. Just imagine viewing something with great actors trying their best, but having nothing of real value coming out of their mouths. That's the main reason why I can't recommend this supposed 80's quote machine. It hurts because along with the competent and controlled direction, you have a soundtrack that is pretty darn good too (does a great job of piling on a jazzy, retro feel). Furthermore, I've never said this about a film until now, but the best scenes happen outside and on the streets of NYC (minimal dialogue I might add). Here's the problem though, the majority of what is on screen is strictly interior shots. As a result, Night Shift becomes bland and pedestrian with a plot that projects some painful loose ends.

        Being R rated (I'm thinking it has to do with the subject matter entirely) but having minimal bad language and almost no nudity, it seems like the director and his assistants thought they could get away with holding back. I, for one, believe that if a film has been saddled with an adult tag, it should stay loyal to that tag (it may not be Howard's fault. He made this before the MPAA got a hold of it). Anyway, this film tells the story of Chuck Lumley (played by Henry Winkler a.k.a. "the Fonz"). He's a nice guy, a total pushover, and a former stockbroker now working as an attendant in a New York City morgue. His job seems to suit him just fine until he is forced to switch his hours permanently working the quote unquote "night shift". While adjusting to his new work schedule, he is forced to partner up with a nervous oddball named Billy "Blaze" Blazejowski (played by Michael Keaton who's comedic talents are better utilized in his next film, Mr. Mom). Billy is an "idea man" who loves to record his thoughts and ambitions on a tape recorder (this plot point doesn't work, trust me). About halfway through the proceedings, Billy proposes to Chuck that they should use the morgue as sort of a location for soliciting prostitution. Winkler's character, reluctantly agrees to go through with it (I find it strange that he's ok with doing it even though he's not fully interested in making a buck on the side). The one benefit, I suppose, is that Chuck meets and becomes romantically involved with one of the prostitutes who's name is Belinda (Shelly Long). With all this information firmly in place, the film continues with your everyday series of high jinks moments. It doesn't surprise you or impress you because the screenplay from Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel seems to be written without enough research or depth of the subject matter. As stated earlier, this is Night Shift's one downfall and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

        There were indeed, a couple of things to ponder while taken in the events in its 1 hour and 46 minute running time. For instance, why when Chuck gets busted by the cops and thrown in jail (for being a pimp of course), does Long's character not even bother to see him or help bail him out? It's established early on that she is in love with him and wants to be with him. Second, why when Billy and Chuck are out on bail and looking at some serious jail time, do they literally get off scott free? I mean, in reality, if you're a pimp and you run a prostitution ring, you should probably go to jail for a while. Finally, of perpetual annoyance and occurring with many films I've seen over the years, you have another flick in the long list of pictures that gives us a superficial ending wrapping everything up in a nice neat bow tie (yup, everyone is friends and everything is back to normal). What I can't seem to understand is how Winkler's character within almost less than a minute, forgives "Blaze" (Keaton) and becomes his best buddy. It just feels hypocritical being that he attacks Keaton, tells him he's gonna kill him, and let's him know constantly that he ruined his life. Then as the flick concludes projecting a poignant shot of Keaton, Long, and Winkler walking through Times Square, you feel cheated or tricked into the realm of numbing acceptance. Again, I feel the actors are just doing what they're told and I can't fault them.  

        All in all, you have a vehicle where the script manipulates the cast so that they ultimately have to cater to its demands. They basically become puppets. Every performance and speaking voice is decent but you sense that even they (the cast) didn't know how the finished project would look like. Basically, if you dig a lightweight comedy that will make you chuckle once or twice, then Night Shift is for you. If you want to view a memorable, quotable, and un-tamable risk taker, then don't look here. In the past 30 years, Ron Howard has been successful even to this day. His films are beloved and cherished many times over (for a strange reason, this one is too). Part of me though, wishes he could take back this "night". In one of  this film's pivotal scenes, Keaton's Billy "Blaze" says, "is this a great country or what?" Great country, yes, great film, not so much.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Night Shift is, from a critical standpoint, not much to marvel at. It's script feels tired, naive, and hesitant. Plot holes are often, and character motivations are confused a lot. The movie, for being a comedy with an outrageous plot description, has not nearly enough laughs. Ron Howard does what he can, along with the cast and music, but with this weak script, only so much can happen. If nothing else, watch this film for Michael Keaton, his character is the funniest thing here, and one of the few things that makes it watchable.

GROWN UPS 2

Cole's Rating: BOMB

Director: Dennis Dugan
Year: 2013
Cast: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade
Genre: Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Just recently, Adam Sandler decided to “expand” upon his career with the sequel to Grown Ups, a movie I enjoyed, despite the fact that it wasn’t a great film. He follows up Bedtime Stories, Just Go With It, Jack and Jill, and That’s My Boy, a few of his latest movies that happen to be just awful, with a movie that’s even worse than The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Woah! I never thought I’d be saying that within a year of film production. But all things considered—including the above mentioned list of films that provoke laughs at their very title—I can’t say that I’m surprised. He’s fallen a long way since 50 First Dates and The Wedding Singer, and so have his usual cameos and distasteful crude humor that have ruined so many of his movies and qualify as “usual Sandler material”... But not this one. No, actually, those factors only contributed. The very idea of a sequel to a movie that had nowhere to go from, like Grown Ups, shot itself in the head. Why can’t we just leave good movies alone? 

        That’s the question I asked—but actually, it went more like this: why am I sitting here right now, in theaters? I’d much rather spend (not waste) my time watching a movie in limited release, but I guess I could thank the theater that I sat in cracking up at deer urine, fake poop, bad acting, and most of all, another Happy Madison Production, for the cause of these movies to keep getting made. Around this point in the review is when I’d be talking about the plot of the movie, and what goes on. I wouldn’t be able to give a plot summary (there wasn’t one; it was just a compilation of gag scenes), but I can disclose what goes on: crude humor too inappropriate for kids, and atrocious attempts at humor that try too hard for adults, so hard to the point where I wanted to tell them to take a break, grab a Snickers bar, and take an Aleve. So who’s this for? Well, it’s for under-demanding teenage moviegoers, or maybe even some adults (let’s hope not). Or maybe it’s for the cast’s paycheck, there wasn’t much passion here. After all, I did spend seven bucks on my ticket.

        And when the copy of Grown Ups 2 hits Best Buy, it’ll be twenty bucks or more. Just recently, Redbox upped their prices to a buck and twenty cents per day for a movie. And on Blu-Ray, it’ll be a buck and fifty cents. Xfinity On Demand: five bucks, or six if you want it on HD. My television at home only plays HD well, and I don’t believe I’m alone. My point is, people are getting payed for this garbage. I saw that it had 5% critical recommendation on Rotten Tomatoes, and I knew what I was going into, but hey, I went there for laughs and a good time with my family. I got both of those things, but in the form of mockery at how horrible Grown Ups 2 was, and is, and always will be. Don’t give in and drop cash to see it in any form. Stay far away from it, quite frankly. It may make you never want to watch a movie again, so don't be surprised if you never hear from me after this.

        Oh, and I almost forgot. Taylor Lautner, go home.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

AMERICAN GRAFFITI

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: George Lucas
Year: 1973
Cast: Richard Dreyfuss, Ron Howard, Charles Martin Smith
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG

        Identifying itself as one of the most iconic films of the 70’s, American Graffiti is incredibly deserving of that label. The most memorable thing about it is how successfully it captures the scene of teenage life in its time, the 60's. Back then, it seems as if all kids had to do was drive cars, chase girls, and wait for the night to end—or for the next day to begin. The ragtag group consisted of tough guys, nerds, lovers, and people that are indecisive. With all of these characters in mind, it can be tough to care about a few, but as you’ll realize when the movie ends, you grew to knew a lot of these people. Whether or not you choose to like them is up to you as a person, but George Lucas may as well have made this in 3D because he’s throwing these characters—and their lives—right at you.

        Richard Dreyfuss plays Curt, a boy who attempts to decide if he’s going to leave his life in the small town behind to go to college with Steve (played by Ron Howard), or stay behind and become something of a low-life, like their car-racing pal John Milner (played by Paul Le Mat). Something to learn about around these parts is that “if you had a car, you were in”, said my grandfather, a lifelong lover of the movie, and a teenager around the time the movie was set in. Toad, played by Charles Martin Smith, never had the privilege to own a car (in addition to the fact that he had several other things going against him). So when Steve lends him his car for the night, he’s ecstatic. He drives around in attempt to pick up a girl and take her for a ride. It’s not hard to keep up with what’s going on with these characters, but sometimes they are made out so unappealing that it’s hard to care. About halfway through, I decided that I can’t give the film higher than three stars (a basic recommendation) because it didn’t have the ability to keep me interested in what was happening. However, Toad stole the show for me, and I sincerely enjoyed seeing him on screen as far as the predicaments he got himself into, as did Milner, who picked up a young teen girl by accident. 

        Most of the characters’ situations are used to the film’s comedic and dramatic benefit; there are few scenes that go unnoticed and un-utilized. I’m sure that you’ll laugh out loud at one point in the movie, whether it be at intentional comedic dialogue, someone’s pity (don’t worry, I’m not judging you), or just remembering how it was as a kid. I wasn’t around during that time, and maybe that’s why I didn’t laugh as much as most people did (though I do believe it's in addition to the other mentioned reason, which was the lack of highly interesting material). That’s exactly why American Graffiti is a cult classic.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: The legend of American Graffiti goes like this: George Lucas stated that he took on the challenge of directing a nostalgic 60's (events take place in 1962) car-cruising movie to show his bud Francis Ford Coppola (yes the guy who directed The Godfather) that he could do more than just sci-fi material. The result is a threaded masterpiece that never hits a false note. It's about fancy automobiles, driving around at night, hanging out with your buddies, and looking into the lives of some neat and ambitious high schoolers. Look out for a young Harrison Ford and famed director Ron Howard (Opie Taylor grows up). Also, stay for the closing credits. Along with 1970's M.A.S.H., they've been copied many times over. Basically this movie is pure, unabashed brilliance. And Lucas is your tour guide through his vast cinematic canvas of Northern California.

THE HEAT

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Paul Feig
Year: 2013
Cast: Melissa McCarthy, Sandra Bullock, Marlon Wayans
Genre: Action/Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        In 2011, Paul Feig directed what I like to call the first true, raunchy "chick flick" in Bridesmaids. It was original and funny with a great cast of characters. Melissa McCarthy was so memorable in it that she received an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actress. Cut to 2013, and we have Feig reuniting with her again (she's like a movie star now) for The Heat (right off the bat, can't the title be a little more original?). He in turn decides to pair her with America's sweetheart, Sandra Bullock. The result: an uneven and rather excruciating buddy cop movie (don't we have enough of those already?) that has its moments, but has to rely on a barrage of profanity to convince the audience that it's, I guess, comedic. Because this film doesn't have a large cast, McCarthy and Bullock are relied on to carry the full 2 hour running time. There in lies the problem. Bullock, I can handle, but in truth, McCarthy's act in a short period of two years has almost gotten tired by this point. She has resorted to giving the same performance in everything she appears in (I also wonder, is it in her contract to have her husband do a cameo in all her films?). In Bridesmaids, she was extremely likable. In The Heat, she's almost intolerable. If you've seen This Is 40, Identity Thief, The Hangover III, and of course the aforementioned, get ready to experience more of the same. My advice to her is this: you can only play hostile for so long. Did anyone say typecast?

        So without further ado, I'll go over the gist of this 2013 summer release (probably should have been put out in August where bad summer films exist, oh well). It's about two separate personalities (an FBI agent and a detective) who are forced to work together (there's an original idea) to take down a Russian mobster in the city of Boston (is it me or is Beantown being used for every cop movie lately?). Bullock's character is special agent Sarah Ashburn. She's taking the assignment to get promoted. Melissa McCarthy's character is detective Shannon Mullins. She's on board with Asburn because well, she's quote unquote "the best cop in the precinct" (that scares the heck out of me). This whole mess is brought to you from the mind of screenwriter Katie Dippold. I read somewhere that she wanted The Heat to garner its inspiration from films like Lethal Weapon and Running Scared. Well after attending a 11:15 AM screening yesterday, I'm forced to choose the latter (this is not a good thing). Like I mentioned earlier, bad language (f-bombs mainly) is in the majority of what comes out of the actor's mouths. The ratio is probably 4:1 (where four represents profane language, and one represents non-profane language). You think I'm kidding; I'm not.

        Oh, there's a lot of shenanigans going on in this abomination. For instance, in a buddy cop movie, you have to have villains. In The Heat, we've seen countless versions of them in other flicks of the same genre. The thing that bugs me is that not only are these ones not menacing, they don't even look like the bad guys. The main antagonist in this flick, is a high end drug dealer. He looks like someone who works at Abercrombie and Fitch. Then there is the old adage where the villains wait and wait to cause harm to the stars in the movie (basically they let them live and off everybody else). Oh yeah, they (the bad guys) gotta explain things too. Remember Bullock and McCarthy's characters can't die because without them, how could things continue? (again we've seen this nonsense all too often). Finally, I don't get the relationship between Bullock and McCarthy in general. They go at each other's throats throughout the entire proceedings but somehow by osmosis, become best buds in the end. It no doubt feels strained and forced. It's not the actors fault mind you, it's the manipulation of the script. And I'm gonna put it out there front and center, if I starred alongside Melissa McCarthy (aka detective Shannon Mullins) in this movie, I'd avoid her like the plague. Just sayin'.

        To be fair, The Heat does have a few funny gags here and there (the scene with McCarthy putting a knife back in Bullock's leg is a riot. And maybe throw in the sequences where they get drunk together) but I've come to expect better things from the leads and the director. McCarthy can act, there's no doubt about it. But she needs to expand her repertoire a bit. Bullock, she could probably get away with doing movies like this forever (but why would she want to?). Director Paul Feig, well, he made the mistake of following the clever Bridesmaids with a recycled, cliched, and all too familiar vehicle. The Heat is as disposable as leftover green beans. It's gonna make a ton of money and probably wow a few moviegoers (gosh, I hope not). If you've seen the trailer, all the funny parts are in it. You've been warned, so save yourself ten bucks by watching it on YouTube. I'm gonna sum up my review by following one cop term with another: The Heat becomes "The Bust". "The Big Bust", that is.

-Written by Jesse Burleson