So, I’m 27. Just that fact alone had me wondering if I could relate to This is 40, the newest film from Judd Apatow about a couple dealing with change. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie worked … more or less. Anyone who watched Knocked Up will remember Pete and Debbie (Paul Rudd and Apatow’s actual wife Leslie Mann, respectively), the brother-in-law and sister of Katherine Heigl’s character (I should note now that neither Heigl nor Seth Rogen show up in the sequel). This is 40 looks at Pete and Debbie five years later, focusing on their struggles to keep their identities and sanity as they turn 40 while also dealing with financial issues.

Above everything, I appreciate that  This is 40 was very clear that these two love each other. They might fight and be angry and be unsure in their marriage, but they do love each other. More so, it avoids the cliches of marriage as this horrible prison and the wife as a rigid harpy. Mann’s character in Knocked Up came off so tightly wound that she did lean toward the harpy trope, but here she’s much more realistic in her frustrations, her interests and her relationships with her husband and kids. Most of the laughs from the movie came not from mocking marriage or their lives but them looking at the ridiculousness of their lives and laughing at themselves … and as someone who’s been in the same relationship for over 7 years, I can definitely relate to the absurdity that comes with that. One of the funnier moments was when the couple discussed casually how they had each fantasized of killing the other. The scene could have been too macabre or disturbing, but these two play it just right. Even the grosser jokes are downplayed compared to Apatow’s other movies … and the only female nudity avoids being super sexualized, which was refreshing.

The run-time is a little long and considering the whole movie is supposed to take place over the span of a week, the pacing of the film was way off. Because Mann’s character specifically mentions that the big party that everything is leading to is a week away, it would have been helpful to put date markers up occasionally. There were also some story threads that were wrapped up either too neatly or too suddenly. Like Rudd’s Wanderlust and Jason Segel’s Five Year Engagement from earlier this year, This is 40 could have used some editing and refining pace-wise (although This is 40 is the most successful of the three).

After a while, the multitude of side characters and story threads weigh down the movie. Segel himself is reprising his supporting role from Knocked Up, but I barely remembered his character from the first film and didn’t find him very engaging except for his short rivalry with Chris O’Dowd toward the end of this movie. Apatow’s real life daughters reprise their roles as the kids and they were both very funny and believable as modern youths (with teenager Maude Apatow obsessed with her iPad and with Lost on her iPad in particular). And as a nice surprise, I liked Megan Fox as Mann’s sexy employee. Fox has strong comedic timing and I laughed at a lot of her lines, but it’s pretty clear she’s getting type-cast as the promiscuous young thing. I’d like to see her in practically any other role and see if she could pull it off.

All in all, This is 40 doesn’t make either protagonist the “bad guy” in the situation even if the situation is messed up. It waxes and wanes a bit too long and could have used more focus, but I enjoyed it and related to it more than I expected. If you’re looking for a kids-free date night movie, I’d recommend it.

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B000TZJBPQ” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YSV8LmZoL._SL160_.jpg” width=”112″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B004ZJZQ60″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KWHBJplvL._SL160_.jpg” width=”124″]

In the 16th century, Prince Gwang-hae became king of the Joseon Dynasty (an important historical Korean state). He faced war throughout the region and was later deposed, despite his best efforts. In the official court chronicles, there are two weeks missing during his eighth year as king — Masquerade tells a fictional tale of what might have happened.

As we begin to look into the royal court, we see Gwang-hae (Lee Byung-hun from GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra) — not a very popular ruler — constantly worried about being assassinated. At the same time, Ha-sun, a local jester who is eerily similar looking to the king (also Lee Byung-hun, of course) is arrested for making fun of the king. The king finds this identical-faced person intriguing, but it doesn’t quite get into Prince and the Pauper territory, as the king falls into a coma after being poisoned (apparently he was right to be paranoid). Naturally, the king’s close adviser and the Chief Eunuch bring Ha-Sun in to be pretender to be the throne until Gwang-hae wakes up.

Ha-sun is a very different sort of person than the dour and frustrated monarch, empathetic and kind even the lowliest of servants, with a lighthearted and silly sense of humor. He only agrees to the pretense for a bit of payment and “for the good of the country.” So this simple-minded but earnest jester must now deal with complicated political issues. His Queen’s brother has been arrested for treason, and her roots to the Greater Northern country have led to tensions. The Chinese and Japanese rulers have been involved in various wars, and then there’s Park Chung-Seo, the Ministry of the Interior that is the king’s primary political rival. And people are starting to notice the king acting quite differently indeed.

This is a historical drama based on a real setting, but the events are entirely invented. The story starts farcical and slapstick but quickly becomes quite emotional and dark, as we see the dangers of political power. At times the humor gets a bit stupid, scatological at times, although the other humorous asides work better. There really do not need to be so many jokes about bodily functions in an otherwise serious dramatic movie. In general, the acting is very good — Lee Byung-hung is fantastic as two very different people, although Gwang-hae isn’t on screen nearly as much as Ha-sun, who is the real hero of the story. He cares about the people, not money — a true humanitarian. We get a real feeling for several people in different classes and how they begin to appreciate Ha-sun, from the kneeling food taster to the fiercely loyal bodyguard. In general, there are times of over-dramatic scenes and confusing political asides about taxes and landowners that are probably important in a historical context but don’t seem relevant to the story. The villain of the story seems overly simplistic — we don’t really get an idea about what he’s about or why he’s opposed to the king.

However, although it drags in places, the movie ends up feeling like an inspiring tale of the potential of people to not be corrupted by power. It is a beautiful film about people, seen through the twisted lens of great power. The lesson may be questionable, but at least it believes in the potential of people to be good.

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B003GMEH44″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41n90stqcYL._SL160_.jpg” width=”112″][easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B002NXSRX4″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JW709SQlL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

In my varied retail career, I worked in three different record stores during three different and distinct musical eras — New Wave, Grunge and Hair Bands — so I had a feel for what Rock of Ages was going to be about, especially since much of the promotion leading up to the movie focused on Tom Cruise as ruined rocker Stacee Jaxx. Not being at all familiar with the Broadway musical on which the movie is based, I was actually surprised to find the story focused more on two other characters looking for love in the pursuit of rock and roll glory … although I guess I should have figured that out since Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta actually received top billing (and, if I remember correctly, there was quite a brouhaha around the lavishly appointed CliqueClack offices about that billing).

Sitting down to watch the movie for the first time on Blu-ray, I found myself mightily confused by what the movie was supposed to be. Was it a look at the destructive power of rock and roll on a person’s soul, was it a bubble gum love story, or was it just a big screen version of Glee recast with movie stars? It’s really hard to say.

Reading up on the Broadway version of Rock of Ages, I’ve discovered that while the show and the movie do share a similar storyline, a lot of things have been changed for the movie, particularly the subplot about the gentrification of the Sunset Strip, home to The Bourbon Room, the notorious rock and roll club where Stacee Jaxx and his band Arsenal are scheduled to perform their final show before Jaxx goes solo. The show involves a father and son team of developers from Germany, while the movie brings in publicity hungry Patricia Whitmore, wife of the mayor, who needs to score some points with voters and moneyed interests, as well as impress her circle of church ladies by focusing on the destruction of The Bourbon as a way to “clean up” the Strip.

A lot of the movie is pretty over-the-top, but Catherine Zeta-Jones pretty much chews up the scenery whenever she’s on screen (and she really doesn’t get a lot of face time), and has one of the film’s more hilariously choreographed numbers as she and her friends high kick, gyrate and pelvic thrust their way through “Hit Me With Your Best Shot” … in the aisle and pews of the church. I really could not believe my eyes. (And speaking of loopy, I could not believe the gay love story that came out of nowhere. I won’t ruin it for those who haven’t seen it, but is that in the actual show?) Unfortunately, Bryan Cranston as her husband is wasted in a subplot that shows him as a philandering conservative that goes nowhere and has no effect on the outcome of Patricia’s story arc. Mary J. Blige also suffers the same fate as the owner of The Venus Club, showing up to help Sherrie after her break-up, and then just pops up every now and again to sing a line or two of a song, edited in with the rest of the cast.

Hough and Boneta, as Drew, almost seem to be in a completely different movie … or movies … channeling their performances and story from other musicals like Grease, Xanadu, and Moulin Rouge. In fact, Boneta almost reminds me a bit of Michael Beck in Xanadu, but at least he can sing (and I assume everyone is doing their own singing, although Russell Brand is a bit suspect). Hough, though, brings a sweet innocence to the role and I couldn’t help thinking that she should have played the Christina Aguilara role in Burlesque instead of just being one of the dancers with a small subplot. Of course, the real star of the show is Tom Cruise and he totally immerses himself in this Axl Rose-ish rock star teetering on the edge of destruction role. Even when the script calls for him to be a bit campy, Cruise is still magnetic (and in the best shape of his life) and you really can’t take your eyes off of him (or his huge torso tattoo). And he’s got a terrific voice to boot! I can take Cruise or leave him, but he’s simply mesmerizing as Stacee Jaxx.

(This post contains 2 pages. Please visit the website to continue reading. Thank you.)

I am generally not one who tends toward hyperbole. Usually I can be trusted not to say things like “The Avengers is the greatest comic book movie of all time,” or “Brad Pitt is a lock for an Oscar for Moneyball.” Obviously, I’m just not that guy – except for all the times when I am. Hopefully, I haven’t burned you from believing my next one: Pitch Perfect is the funniest movie I can remember seeing in a long, long time.

A couple of years ago, Bridesmaids set the world on fire. It was supposed to be the film that heralded in the age where audiences recognized that women could be funny. Personally, I didn’t buy it, nor did I think the film was that funny – sorry, boys and girls, but a grown woman defecating in a sink isn’t really my cup of tea. Furthermore, I knew women were funny long before that, and if I didn’t, I saw just how phenomenal Tina Fey’s writing was in Mean Girls.

Somehow, all of this brings us to Pitch Perfect. It might be hard to believe, but I was willing to throw a couple of elbows to ensure this flick was assigned to me. The main reason? Anna Kendrick. I’m not sure when this talented young actress snuck into my top five favorite actresses, but she did (For those keeping score at home: Anne Hathaway, Emma Stone, Kristen Bell and Natalie Portman … with Julianne Hough and Blake Lively knocking on the door). Kendrick is an absolute delight here, bringing an interesting light to a character that could fall into 18 different kinds of cliché.

The other reason? I’m a sucker for sophomoric frat humor – as long as we keep the bodily fluid jokes to a minimum (I know everyone expects the other reason to be Anna Camp … I’d be lying if I didn’t say she factored in greatly to my desire to see the flick; I mean, I coined ANNAGEDDON going into the screening … but I do want at least TRY to warm people up to the idea that I only go to movies to see actresses I’m attracted to). The generation before me had Porky’s; I had the Frat Pack and Van Wilder. Pitch Perfect may or may not earn a place in the annals of film history next to Old School or Fast Times at Ridgemont High, but at least you’re getting the wavelength.

My biggest concern going into the flick was easily Rebel Wilson. I’d seen her in a couple of things – like the aforementioned Bridesmaids – and just didn’t get what all of the fuss was about. I was thus completely unprepared for the several times she almost caused me to fall out of my chair laughing so hard. I’m serious; Wilson was perfectly at home in the role of Fat Amy, delivering many of the film’s funniest lines.

Credit for those lines, and the varying types of humor the script employed, goes to screenwriter Kay Cannon. I’m not familiar with her work on NBC’s 30 Rock, but I can see how her style must mesh with Tina Fey. To me, comedy truly succeeds when it works on several levels, where jokes can take on different meanings – and thus delivering different laughs – on multiple viewings. Obviously, I’ve only had the chance to see Pitch Perfect once, but you could tell how certain jokes had the audience laughing at different times that Cannon achieved that comedic nirvana that I’m such a fan of.

Will you like Pitch Perfect? I surely did. Other than one ongoing joke that was probably rolled out one time too many, it was nearly a perfect film. I’ve not even touched on the collection of cameos, ignored Camp and Brittany Snow’s outstanding performances, or how Elizabeth Banks almost steals the movie several times in her series of brief appearances. This is the kind of movie you’ve got to go out of your way to not laugh at.

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0099G6Q5E” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IZrnclUML._SL160_.jpg” width=”160″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B00337KM2S” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yF2AD81wL._SL160_.jpg” width=”113″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B005CHTXY0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/613PUGXrLwL._SL160_.jpg” width=”124″]

I was psyched to see Looper, the new time travel film starring Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and a version of Joseph Gordon-Levitt that’s supposed to look like Bruce Willis. Yes, it’s sci-fi, which is not my genre of choice, but it seemed like accessible sci-fi; basically an action movie with some other-worldly elements thrown in. The year is 2044. As Joe (Gordon-Levitt) explains, time travel hasn’t been invented yet — but it will be thirty years from now. Like many things that are awesome, it’s highly illegal, though, so it’s only used by the top-tier criminal organizations. Joe works as a Looper, and his  job in 2044 is to wait in a Kansas field and shoot people that the crime family wants to be rid of. He then disposes of the future body in the past, thus creating the perfect crime.

For Joe, the problem arises when a new boss, called “The Rainmaker,” comes onto the scene in the future and decides to “close the Loops,” meaning he sends the future version of the Loopers back for their younger versions to kill. Once this is done, the Loopers receive a large payoff and embark on the last thirty years of their lives. At least, that’s what’s supposed to happen. Unfortunately, sometimes the future Loopers make themselves known to their younger versions, creating a situation in which they are both existing in the same time. This is what happens with Joe, as Old Joe (Willis) comes back to desperately try to change the future.

Looper starts out as a fast, fun, bloody sci-fi action movie. For the first hour or so, I was completely on board. Hell, the first twenty minutes was made entertaining enough just by trying to guess how many seasons of Moonlighting Gordon-Levitt watched in order to nail Willis’s facial expressions. After you get used to that and his prosthetic Bruce Willis nose, it’s easy to settle into a film that features action and comedy in almost equal measures, with just the smallest dash of sci-fi thrown in.

In fact, time travel is really just a MacGuffin in this film. One of the best scenes takes place between Joe and Old Joe, in which Joe is naturally trying to ask his older self about how time travel works. Old Joe blows him off saying that it doesn’t matter, and if they started to delve into it, they’d be there all day making diagrams with straws. Willis may as well be talking to the audience there, because the message is clear: time travel is merely a plot device, so don’t think about it too much, nerds.

It is this dismissal that may turn some hardcore sci-fi fans off, but speaking as someone who generally glazes over when a TV show or film delves too deeply into explaining the more fantastical aspects of the plot (I’m looking at you, JJ Abrams), I appreciated it. The idea of present actions having future consequences still plays a major role in Looper, but the focus is on the action, not the scientific implications.

Then, halfway through, Looper becomes a lot less fun.

Let me preface this by saying my reaction to the second half of Looper isn’t necessarily indicitive of the reaction the majority of people will have. Looper made me cry. It probably will not make you cry. You will probably continue to enjoy it. I don’t want to get too spoilery here, but part of Old Joe’s quest involves children — and he’s not starting a softball team. There’s one scene in particular, in which I legitimately turned to my boyfriend, made this face:

And said, “Wait. They are not even … right?” He just sadly nodded at me. I then spent the rest of the film in full-on Tracy Morgan mode:

Yes, the fact that I’m a mother to a little boy who’s turning four on Saturday definitely affects my judgment of the second half of this film. However, I can also look beyond my own personal reaction and make (mostly) objective observations about the turn Looper takes.

There is a message about parental love in this film that is beautiful. Emily Blunt is fantastic as Sara, an emotionally-damaged mother trying to make a good life for her young son Cid (played by a scene-stealing Pierce Gagnon). The scenes between Joe, Sara and Cid are the ones that provide the real heart in the film and make the ending both moving and incredibly powerful.

With that said, the tone of the second half of the film completely changes from the first. While this in and of itself wouldn’t be a bad thing (after all, who doesn’t love a film that completely changes its audience’s expectations?), the problem arises when, instead of a clear directional shift, the film’s waters just become muddied.

Instead of taking a fun action movie and making it dark and disturbing, Looper instead tries to be a fun action movie with a smattering of absolutely horrifying scenes mixed in. A scene that made me cry, for instance, was followed by one of Bruce Willis doing his best John McClane in a scene that had people in my packed theater cheering.

Rian Johnson is an amazingly talented writer/director, and is responsible for making audiences believe that Gordon-Levitt could be more than a sitcom star. Like Brick before it, Looper is innovative and exciting. However, the directional shift went just a little bit too far and severely impacted my enjoyment of the film. Watching the second half of Looper jump back and forth from light to dark made it seem as though Johnson approached it from a clinical angle, with all violence being created equal. While this could have been a statement in itself, it felt more like indifference.

Johnson asks some big philisophical questions in Looper and gives tough answers. Unfortunately, the ham-handedness with which some of the issues are handled do the film a disservice. Looper is still absolutely worth seeing and full of fantastic performances, but just make sure you brace yourself for the second half.

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B005LAII8A” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cBFknFc%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”108″][easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B005LAII8K” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cBFknFc%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”108″][easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B006JOZSIA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512IU2mNLjL._SL160_.jpg” width=”116″]