The Gambler (2014)

Oh, how quick we forget. Yes, it's time for another unnecessary remake review. Way back in November 2013, I reviewed 1974's The Gambler, James Caan playing a literature professor with an extreme gambling problem. Well, it's 40-plus years later so let's revamp things! Here we are with 2014's The Gambler.

Walking into an oceanfront underground casino, Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) is carrying a suitcase packed with $10,000. He promptly goes up thousands and thousands of dollars...and then promptly loses it in one bet at the roulette wheel. That's just the start of his problems. A literature professor and respected writer, Bennett is in serious debt. Like $260,000 debt, and that money is coming due very quickly. He only has seven days to come up with the money or else, well, it's not going to end well for him. So already in ridiculous amounts of debt, Bennett borrows more money -- some $50,000 -- from a brutal loan shark (Michael Kenneth Williams) with a similarly fast approaching payment date. The clock is ticking. Can Bennett get his hands on all that money? Will his severe, obsessive gambling addiction even allow the possibility of getting out clean?

So my usual stance on remakes is pretty simple. There needs to be a reason for that remake to be made. Was the original really bad? Was there a ton of wasted potential? That's pretty much it. For the most part, if a movie was good, great or a classic, it doesn't need to be remade. This remake from director Rupert Wyatt is an interesting mix of the above reasons. The Caan version is pretty good (I gave it three stars), but it isn't a hugely well-known flick. Good but not great so where do we sit in the remake department? I, for one, liked this new flick a lot, flaws and all.

I'll say this going in. Not that any movie about gambling addiction is going to be real pleasant, but this is one dark, brooding flick. It starts with Wahlberg's lead performance as Jim Bennett. I was curious how the performance would go, and I came away impressed. Wahlberg is a blue-collar kind of actor, typically playing tough guys, cops, boxers, armed forces, that sort of thing. How about a well-read, intelligent English literature professor? Not exactly a role you'd associate with Wahlberg, but I thought he did an excellent job as Professor Bennett. This is one sad sack of a character, beaten down by the world even though it appears he's been given no real reason to be so downbeat. Maybe the best compliment is that Wahlberg isn't just being a tough guy. He gets to show off his acting chops and doesn't disappoint. Big shoes to fill playing a part James Caan played, but Wahlberg is excellent.

As for the movie itself, I similarly liked it a lot. It's a remake, but thankfully not a scene for scene remake. With a script from William Monahan (The Departed, London Boulevard) that uses the original screenplay as a jumping off point, the new 'Gambler' has some similarities but tries to carve out a niche for itself. It works. The story is different. Wyatt does a good job stylizing the story without going overboard. Title cards count down the days to Bennett's payment deadline. The soundtrack features a good mix of the score from Jon Brion and Theo Green with an eclectic mix of actual sounds with everyone from M83 to a Radiohead cover to Cole Porter and a lot in between. It isn't a flashy visual movie, but you look back and think it's definitely a visually interesting movie.

Much like the 1974 version, the 2014 remake features a strong ensemble cast. The best part goes to John Goodman as Frank, a physically massive, intimidating bear of a loan shark. His scenes with Wahlberg's Bennett are the highlights, Frank giving a great speech about the power of money in everyone's life. Kenneth Williams is similarly very good (read = intimidating and frightening) with Alvin Ing rounding out all the possible loan sharks. Brie Larson plays Amy, one of Bennett's students who has a natural feeling for writing, an excellent supporting part. Oh, and Jessica Lange is very strong as Roberta, Jim's mother who's at the end of her string with her gambling addicted son. Also look for Andre Braugher, Domenick Lombardozzi, George Kennedy, Richard Schiff and Emory Cohen in some other key supporting parts.

Watching a man struggle through the depths of his gambling addiction, it's a frightening, fascinating picture. The gambling scenes are intense and uncomfortable as they're intended to be. We see the highs and lows, the ups and downs with a man who is up enough to pay off his debts only to see him continue to bet as he feels that winning high. That crazy adrenaline rush. There are flaws, and I thought the ending tapped the brakes far too much. There was a natural ending about three minutes earlier that would have been perfect in the open-ended finale department. As is, it's a finale that is a little too tidy. You know what though? I really liked this remake throughout. Well worth checking out.

The Gambler (2014): ***/****

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Joel and Ethan Coen are the movie director equivalents of chameleons. They do a little bit of everything from a horrifically violent, dark crime thriller like No Country for Old Men to genuinely funny (and still horrifically dark) comedies like Burn After Reading with all sorts of classics and near-classics among their filmography from Fargo to Big Lebowski, Blood Simple to Raising Arizona. But how about a story based (even loosely) off of one of literature's greatest works? A daunting task for sure. That's 2000's O Brother, Where Art Thou?

It's 1937 in the deep South and three convicts, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), Pete Hogwallop (John Turturro) and Delmar O'Donnell (Tim Blake Nelson), have managed a daring escape from their chain gang. Their reasoning? Everett told his fellow prisoners that he hid away a huge treasure from the robbery that ultimately landed him on the chain gang. He's only got a few days before the treasure's location is washed away, a valley being turned into a lake as part of a hydroelectric project. Chained together at their ankles, the fugitive trio is working against the clock, the road ahead of them full of obstacles both external and internal amidst a gubernatorial race as well. All sorts of people stand in their way, both those hoping to help them and those trying to stop them and in some cases, stop them. Time is running out, and Everett has a secret up his sleeve.

There just aren't too many directors out there with more visual and storytelling style than the Coen brothers. How many directors could pull off a transition from a poem from classic Greek mythology to a similar story in pre-WWII deep south with a heavy reliance on folk music, quirky characters and an episodic story that could be called downright random? Not too many as I sit here writing this review. The Coen Brothers on the other hand make it look pretty effortless. It is a fun movie from beginning to end, the generally random shifts in tone, humor and laughs moving things along at a brisk pace in a 107-minute movie. In other hands, things might have gotten bogged down but that certainly isn't the case here. A very solid, entertaining movie.

Through all the zaniness in the deep south, we follow our intrepid trio on their journey. The chemistry is pretty perfect, Clooney, Turturro and Nelson showing off that effortless chemistry that simply works. The Coen brothers also wrote the script, their quirky humor showing through in the three convicts. Clooney as the vain, motor-mouthed, ultra-confident Everett, the unofficial leader of the group. His preference for Dapper Dan hair pomade consistently gets him and his traveling companions in trouble, his insistence on looking his best (he wears a hair net to sleep to not muss his hair) providing some great moments. He uses $20 words when a $1 word would cut it. His long rambling monologues are pretty great, a man trying to show others how smart he is. Turturro as Pete is a bit of a wild card, prone to frustrating outbursts as their plan unravels. The best characterization goes to Blake Nelson as Delmar, the sweet, thoughtful and generally naive convict who simply has a nice, positive outlook on life.

These three out-there escaped convicts are searching for Everett's buried treasure from an armored car robbery. But naturally, what do they end up doing? They become renowned folk singers, Everett thinking quick on his feet to name themselves The Soggy Bottom Boys (based on The Foggy Mountain Boys, their hit song a cover of Man of Constant Sorrow. Whether it's the Soggy boys singing or T-Bone Burnett's folk-heavy soundtrack, the music is a hugely successful, essential ingredient to the movie's success. The music is always there, always catchy, driving the story forward, the score transitioning scene-to-scene. It's the music and style that works, the Coens using digital color correction to give 'Brother' an almost washed out, sepia look to the story. All those little things that add up to a really enjoyable movie.

We've got three crazy characters to follow across the south, but following Homer's footsteps in The Odyssey, our trio meets some odd characters on the road. Part of the fun is figuring out who's who in relation to the poem. We've got a loving-life bible salesman (John Goodman), a gubernatorial candidate (Charles Durning) seeking reelection, his hot-chasing opponent (Wayne Duvall), Everett's frustrated wife (Holly Hunter) and her new beau (Ray McKinnon), infamous gangster Baby Face Nelson (Michael Badalucco), down on his luck musician Tommy (musician Chris Thomas King), a blind radio programmer (Stephen Root), the sheriff (Daniel von Bargen) in hot pursuit, the blind seer (Lee Weaver) who warns the convicts of what awaits them and lastly, Pete's cousin (Frank Collison) who's curious why Pete just showed up...in chains.

When the Coens decide to do something, they commit to doing it right. From the set design and style to the script and the characters, their movies create these little worlds that are folksy and real and authentic. A very enjoyable movie with some great parts and a lot of laughs. An easy one to recommend.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000): ***/****

Inside Llewyn Davis

Maybe more than any other film that was considered for some Academy Award nominations, 2013's Inside Llewyn Davis landed with a thud when the nominations were actually released in February. It picked up just two nominations -- for Best Cinematography and Best Sound Mixing -- but won neither. Should it have picked up some other nominations? That's for others to decide. What isn't up for discussion is that awards season success aside, this is a good movie.

It's 1961 in New York City's Greenwich Village and Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is looking for work and more importantly, some money. A folk musician with a bit of a following, Llewyn released an album with a partner in recent years, but he's on his own now and struggling a bit to get by. His name has a reputation -- somewhat -- as a talented musician who's also a bit flighty. Mostly though, Llewyn wants to sing, to perform, to get his name out there and really to take his career to the next level. He's nearing rock bottom though, his money running out almost completely. It's the dead of winter and he's overextended all his relationships, his friendships, his business connections. He feels he's close, but he just needs that one break...if he can find it.

Another movie that proved difficult to write a one-paragraph plot synopsis. From the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, 'Inside' is a stylish, well-told, throwback-type story that follows about a week in the life of a struggling musician. It's easy to see why there was some outrage when it didn't pick up any prominent Oscar nominations. I'll get into some real analysis later, but the gist is this; it's a really good movie. Not quite a comedy, not a straight drama, it's just good.

The most obvious place to start is with directors/writers/producers Joel and Ethan Coen. There is a certain style in each and every one of their movies from Blood Simple to Fargo, True Grit to No Country for Old Men, O Brother, Where Art Thou to The Big Lebowski. The stylistic choice here is picking the location, 1960s New York City (with some out of state departures). From the look of the movie with the hairstyles, the wardrobe, the cars, the mindset, all these little things add up to one great puzzle. From beginning to end, you feel like you're in 1960s NYC. The visual is almost bland, washed out colors permeating almost every scene. As for the folk background, 'Inside' has an extreme love and appreciation for the folk music scene of the 1960s. It feels authentic down to the smallest detail, and that authenticity goes a long way. The story drifts at times, it's both dark and funny and dramatic, but it just feels real.

A young actor with a ton of potential, Oscar Isaac nails the lead part here as folk singer Llewyn Davis. He's had key supporting parts in Drive, The Bourne Legacy, 10 Years (where he also sang), and Robin Hood, but this is quite the breakout leading part. For starters, Llewyn is far from a likable character. He has moments where you feel sympathy for him, but mostly, his issues are self-made. We learn why he's on his own now and not working as a duo anymore. We learn how he's got to this spot, and most importantly, we see that desperation and frustration of an artist/musician who just wants his shot at the big time. Unlikable qualities aside, with a general lack of sympathy, I still found myself rooting for Llewyn....only to see him rip that away quickly with some jackass move. Like the story though, this has the distinct feel of an authentic character, a person with hopes and dreams, aspirations that just haven't been there so far. Likable? Nope. Interesting, fascinating to watch? Yes, you bet. Interesting to see where Isaac goes next, especially because many thought he should have picked up a Best Actor nomination for his part.

Those Cohens, they specialize in ensemble casts like nobody's business. I guess talented actors and actresses want to work with them for some reason. I especially liked Carey Mulligan as Jean, a fellow folk singer who has a checkered past with Llewyn including one major current issue. Justin Timberlake is excellent too as Jim, Jean's fiance, a singer who's carved a name out for himself already.  The pairing of John Goodman as existential-thinking jazz musician Roland Turner is a scene-stealer, Garrett Hedlund providing some 1960s beatnik background as beat poet Johnny Five, Llewyn carpooling to Chicago with the odd duo. F. Murray Abraham has a good part as a Chicago club owner who's got some pull with record labels, giving Llewyn an impromptu audition. Also look for Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett as the Gorfeins, a middle-aged married couple who love Llewyn and allow him to crash on their couch from time to time. Max Casella also has a fun part as Papi, a club owner who likes Llewyn and keeps offering him different gigs.

An interesting movie for a whole lot of different reasons, most of them positive. The only one I didn't like was a stylistic choice with a framing device at the beginning and end, but it's not a huge deal. In general, there's plenty of things that can/will draw you in. There's a handful of musical numbers performed -- Isaac especially impressing -- with a nice nod to Bob Dylan late if you're paying attention. But across the board, whether it's the music, the story, the style, the acting, it's just good stuff. Enjoy it, appreciate it.

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013): ***/****

The Monuments Men

I'm weird when it comes to movies. When I catch wind of a film in production, of an actor being attached to a project, stumbling across a trailer, I look forward to said movie like a crazy person. We're talking kid on Christmas Eve excited. Over the years, I've looked forwarded to The Alamo, Skyfall, Casino Royale, the Dark Knight series, the Fast and Furious movies, and most recently released in theaters, 2014's The Monuments Men. Where does it fall among that list? Read on.

It's mid-1943 and the tide of World War II is quickly turning to the Allies, the Axis retreating on almost all fronts. An American officer, Frank Stokes (George Clooney), with an art background is proposing a plan to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the tide turns, presenting an idea for a small squad of specialists and experts in art, architecture and history and dropping them into the war zone in France. Their goal is simple, try and save as much famous and historical art, statues, structures and buildings across Europe. Germany, the Third Reich and the Nazis -- led by Hitler and Goring -- have been stealing and stockpiling priceless pieces of art for years, more than that stealing hundreds and thousands of years of history and culture. Stokes gets his right-hand man, James Granger (Matt Damon), and goes to work assembling his small team. The war is definitely turning though, the Germany army retreating all along the front. Countless pieces of art, treasures and items of historical significance are at risk, the Germans having received an order from Hitler to destroy everything they can.

This story is a prime example of how powerful history can be. There are countless stories out there just waiting to be told. This WWII story with Clooney directing (and co-writing the script with Grant Heslov) is based off a true story and the book of the same name (check it out HERE by author Robert M. Edsel). The fact that this really happened -- the Germans hoarding history's treasures, the Allied effort to recover said treasures -- is pretty crazy in itself, a hugely interesting and entertaining premise. I loved the book, a window into a chapter of WWII that was almost completely forgotten by history until the last 20 years or so. It was fascinating and terrifying all at once, unlikely heroes in an unlikely situation. I was worried then when Clooney's film was pushed back from an original December 2013 release to a February 2014 release. Should I have been worried?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a good movie that entertained me. The truth is though with the story at hand, the real-life incidents, the flesh and blood people, it could have been a classic. A true classic, and it isn't. The positives are obvious. There is a throwback feel to the story reminiscent of so many good 1960s World War II movies. Clooney clearly has a ton of respect for his subject matter and rightfully so. What these Monuments Men accomplished in a live war zone is remarkable, and yes, there were casualties. For a cliffsnotes version of what the force/organization accomplished, read HERE. This is a movie interested in really illuminating what these men accomplished. They were soldiers, if not the classic idea of what a soldier is. The movie is gorgeous, filming on location in Germany adds a perfect sense of authenticity to the story. The score from Alexandre Desplat is okay, nothing too memorable, a little too adoring at times. There's a lot going for it but.....

There's also a lot of negative to mention. A couple hours after watching 'Monuments,' it's hard exactly to say why. The task in transitioning Edsel's book to a manageable film is daunting. We're talking almost double-digit characters traversing across Europe over a year-plus. The result in Clooney's 118-minute long film? A generally disjointed feel with no real unifying link to the characters and set pieces. Episodic is a more than apt description, one episode, one bit or routine bouncing to another as quick as it arrived. The early portions are rushed, characters introduced far too quickly. The middle portions drag as if the script doesn't know exactly how to get to where it wants to go. The finale definitely is the saving grace, the Monuments Men traveling deep into Germany to rescue extraordinary amounts of art. It's disappointing because I expected so much more. The drama is good but not great, wandering too much aimlessly, and most of the attempts at wry, subtle humor fall short.

The movie's savior and strongest attribute is the cast that almost makes up for the disappointing script. If Clooney is attached to a project, it instantly has cache for me. He's good, not great, leading the ensemble as Lt. Frank Stokes (based on George Stout), the creator of the Monuments Men. Damon has the more scene-stealing part as James Granger (based on James Rorimer), the art director at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. His subplot with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett), a volunteer who survived years in Paris in efforts to protect invaluable pieces of art, is a cool departure from the story, including a great scene where Claire (based on Rose Valland) reveals a huge secret to Granger. The rest of the Monument Men include Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a French artist, Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art expert of sorts, Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), a disgraced Englishman, and Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a young soldier who grew up in Poland, now working as the group's translator.

While the formula is tweaked, the premise here at its heart is a 'men-on-a-mission' movie, Clooney's Stokes assembling a small group of specialists to help pull off an impossible mission. The formula is rushed too much to the point I never really felt I knew any of the characters. I felt like we were supposed to root for them because it was Bill Murray, because it was John Goodman, not because we get to learn anything about them as individuals. Like so much of portions of the movie, I came away disappointed with the characterization. The acting is uniformly good but cold for lack of a better description. Some parts work very well, especially Goodman and Dujardin teaming up as the group is split up to cover more ground. Murray and Balaban are the odd couple, almost constantly arguing, but overall, it's just more wasted potential.

I'm wavering here. This movie seemed like a gimme for me, a sure thing review at 3.5 or 4 stars, but it wasn't. Some moments work perfectly, like a Christmas montage as we see the war starting to wear on all the Monuments Men, a message from Murray's daughter playing on a phonograph. A late interrogation between Clooney's Stokes and an SS officer is foreboding and subtle at the same time. the last 30-40 minutes pick up the momentum, providing the movie's strongest moments. Getting there though can be a trial at times. Most of the issues can be chalked up to the script that falls short in so many ways. A disappointingly average film that should have been so, so much better.

The Monuments Men (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Trouble with the Curve

I really like baseball. I also really like just about any movie Clint Eastwood has ever done. So naturally I should like a movie that combines the two things, right? Right?!? Yeah, that's what I thought, but it didn't quite turn out that way. I had modest expectations going into 2012's Trouble with the Curve, but it was surprisingly bad.

A longtime scout for the Atlanta Braves, Gus Lobel (Eastwood) has made a career out of being able to analyze a baseball player's skills and tell if they'll be able to cut it in the Majors. His contract is about to expire, just a few months away, and though he's unaware of it, the Braves are trying to decide if they should re-up with him. With the first-year player's MLB Draft fast approaching, Gus has been tasked with scouting Bo Gentry (Joe Massingill), a power-hitting third baseman projected to be either first or second pick overall. The Braves have the No. 2 pick so Gentry could fall to them, but Gus has a serious issue. He's starting to lose his vision but refuses to get any help. His daughter, Mickey (Amy Adams), an associate aiming to be a partner at her law firm, takes a few days off to accompany her Dad and help him out if possible. Their relationship is to say the least strained though, and both are working through some past and current issues, the draft approaching ever faster.

I really thought this was a can't miss kind of film. No, not an all-time classic that would rejuvenate my love of movies, but a good, old-fashioned story about family and baseball and all that good stuff. So as I mentioned, modest expectations, nothing more. Even then, I came away extremely disappointed. Basically all the reviews made a clear distinction. The script from Randy Brown is schmaltzy, sappy, too darn sweet, and oh so darn heartwarming. Everyone admitted it, but it seemed to divide the reviews. Some people said all those things and liked it (I didn't see many "love" reviews) while others said all those things and came away disappointed with a dull, cheesy movie. I'll give two guesses, but you'll only need one. Which camp do you think I'm in? 

It doesn't take a genius to watch the trailer and figure out it's going to be all of those things I mentioned above (watch the trailer below at the end of the review). I figured it would use that as a jumping off point, a springboard to bigger, better and more. Yeah, about that.....nope, it just doesn't happen. A movie that runs 111 minutes plays like one big after school special. A torn apart family, wounds still fresh and unresolved, a chance to come together and get a shot at some redemption, it gets tedious by the second or third confrontation between Eastwood's Gus and Adams' Mickey (named after Mickey Mantle). Mickey wants to deal with their checkered past, Gus a single dad who worked a lot and tried his best but really pawned off his little girl on family. It takes too long to get anywhere, it's dull getting there and the resolution is more than just predictable. You can predict it now. Go ahead, try it.

As the plodding story moved along, I kept waiting for this movie to get better. If nothing else, the talent assembled would make it worthwhile, or so I thought. It didn't. Eastwood came out of acting retirement to star here, but he's playing that same gruff, growling old man he's done in Gran Torino and any number of other movies. It's not a bad performance, just a familiar one that isn't particularly interesting. Adams tries her best here to bring it all together, a woman who's spent much of her adult (and child) life trying to adjust and cope with what happened to her as a kid. Her chemistry is okay with Eastwood, but far too much time is devoted to her 'Will they? Won't they?' possible relationship with Justin Timberlake's dreamy young baseball scout, Johnny. So Mickey is trying to help (read = save) her Dad, but her Dad is the one that's helping her out too, everyone learning a lesson in the process? Gag me.

Also look for John Goodman as a higher-up Braves official and a close friend of Gus, Robert Patrick as the Braves general manager, Matthew Lillard as a younger scout who's embraced all the stats of scouting rather than the personal analysis of watching a player, and Ed Lauter, Chelcie Ross and Raymond Anthony Thomas as fellow crotchety baseball scouts.

More than anything, I had an issue as a baseball fan of a baseball movie that doesn't know the sport it's writing about. The Red Sox are going to send an inexperienced scout like Timberlake's Johnny to scout the possible No. 1 player in the draft? And Bo is a five-tool player? He's slow, chubby and is supposed to be the next Albert Pujols? Yeah, I'm not buying it, the character an unlikable caricature. Those are all issues but nothing that would ruin a movie. That comes in the finale, a ridiculously forced ending that would happen in no real world of professional sports with millions of dollars on the line. Big, broad characters -- for good and bad -- and a story that's going to get where it wants to get, making sense be damned. A huge disappointment.

Trouble With the Curve (2012): */****

The Internship

With their 2005 hit Wedding Crashers, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson made one of the best comedies of the 2000s. They charged the comedic genre with an R-rating vein, made a boatload of money and put its two stars right on the map, making them more than bankable. The weird thing? Both actors have struggled to find the right roles in the years since. The solution? Pair them up again with 2013's The Internship.

Longtime salesmen with the ability to sell just about anything, Billy McMahon (Vaughn) and Nick Campbell (Wilson) have been friends for years going back to high school. With the economy changing though, they find themselves without a job when the company they work for shuts its doors. Scrambling for what to do next, Billy finds a solution, enrolling them in the internship program at Google. What they find at the program is something they're just not used to, waves of 20-somethings who are wrapped up in themselves, technology and their phones. Can they adjust in time? All the interns are assigned to teams, Billy and Nick joining a team led by a fellow outcast, Lyle (Josh Brener), and three other nerd types. Only one team in the whole internship program can win in the end, the team being offered full-time positions with Google. Can the salesmen duo figure out what they're doing in time?

I'm a big fan of 2005's Wedding Crashers. Who isn't really? Communists I say!!! The formula here is simple for director Shawn Levy, reunite Vaughn and Wilson, give them a remotely interesting reason to be back together, and....no, wait. That's it. 'Internship' is an excuse to pair these two pretty funny guys together and let the hijinks begin. It has its fair share of issues, but my biggest complaint was that it plays like a giant advertisement for Google. Oh, look how quirky and cool Google is! It has a nap/rest room! It's got bikes painted with Google's signature colors?!? We hear lots of conversations about Gmail, Google Maps, Google Wallet, Google Plus and on and on. The Google jumping off point is solid/interesting enough (who doesn't use the search engine in one way or another?), but it gets to be too much eventually.

Beyond the original idea of two smooth dudes crashing weddings, the popularity of 'Crashers' came from the perfect pairing of Vaughn and Wilson. Their chemistry was impeccable, perfect, and carried the movie. Does it translate to this PG-13 comedy eight years later? Yeah, most definitely. That kind of chemistry doesn't just go away. Vaughn co-wrote the script with Jared Stern, giving himself and Wilson plenty of chances to riff and improvise and do those crazy rants that work so well. Even when they push it a little too much -- LAUGH!!! THIS IS FUNNY!!! -- their chemistry in all their scenes carries the movie through a sometimes sluggish 119-minute running time. Also look for John Goodman as the duo's longtime boss, Will Ferrell as Nick's brother-in-law and possible boss at a mattress store, and Rob Riggle as a salesman at a retirement home. Both Goodman and Ferrell's parts were uncredited.

That chemistry only goes so far unfortunately. The script wants to say a lot, and in general, the messages are actually pretty spot-on. The differences in generations is obvious, the younger 20-somethings growing up with technology in every single aspect of their lives. The generation before them is aware of the technology but not ingrained with it. With the way the world's heading, it's clearly leaning toward the younger generation. Ha, didn't think you'd get this sort of analysis in a review of The Internship, did you?!? What the script is saying is that the answer is somewhere in the middle; the personal relationships, the talking/conversations of the 40-year olds mixed with the tech-savvy younger kids. Seems fair if you ask me, but getting that message across comes out a little heavy-handed.

How you ask? Billy and Nick have to teach them how to live! I actually like the message that our over-reliance on technology is slowly killing society, but do the 40-somethings have to actually teach us that? In their team, we meet Lyle, nerdy in every way, a Google employee who wants to date his dance teacher (Jessica Szohr, yes, Google has dance teachers), phone-obsessed Stuart (Dylan O'Brien), Neha (Tiya Sircar), wildly experimental but really a virgin, and home-schooled Yo-Yo (Tobit Raphael). There's also Rose Byrne as Wilson's crush (yeah, didn't see that coming) and Google supervisor, Aasif Mandvi as Mr. Chetty, the internship program leader, Graham (Max Minghella), the brutal British intern, and Josh Gad as Headphones, an intern who wants to be left alone....seemingly.

I did like the movie a little more in the second half, the first half dragging. There are just too many instances where the movie is seemingly begging for the audience to laugh. The interview via webcam is painfully forced, a later sports montage at a Quidditch match just as forced, and some of the scenes where Vaughn and Wilson improvise are trying too hard. Disappointing because I liked parts of it, just not enough to fully recommend.

The Internship (2013): **/****

Monsters University

Since Toy Story was first released in 1995, Pixar has become a cash cow among audiences. Children and families alike love the animated films, many of them becoming instant classics. That said, just about anyone who has seen a few of these movies no doubt has a favorite movie among the bunch. It's like picking pizza...even the bad ones are still good, but for me, one of my personal favorites has always been 2001's Monsters, Inc. How then can you go wrong with a prequel, 2013's Monsters University?

Ever since he was a young, little monster, Mike Wazowski (voice of Billy Crystal) has wanted one thing more than anything else. He wants to go to Monsters University and get his degree in Scaring, hoping to ultimately become one of the all-time great scarers. Mike eventually does get into MU, devoting himself to learning the ins and outs, every little thing he can about becoming the best monster he can be. He meets another freshman, James "Sully" Sullivan (voice of John Goodman) who seems to get by on his family name and a natural ability to scare. The two freshmen become fierce rivals, but when they get on the wrong side of some of the school administration, they have to team up. Can Mike, Sully and a handful of members of a nerdy fraternity on campus work together to win the famous Scare Games?

Made 12 years after the original, 'University' gets at least a partial pass just because it's fun to see these characters we love back again for more. It's great to see Mike and Sully, see how they met and eventually end up at Monsters, Inc. where we saw them in the first movie. It's cool to see the introduction of some other characters we've met prior, not to mention a solid list of other characters we're meeting for the first time. Thankfully though, director Dan Scanlon doesn't go for the status quo. Is another Monsters movie even necessary? Over a decade later....no, not particularly so Scanlon comes up with a gimmick that ends up working really well; the prequel. Instead of some retread sequel, we get an enjoyable, worthwhile prequel. It sounds obvious to give credit where it's due, but it felt refreshing to see an original prequel rather than a well-worn, comfortable (if dull) sequel. Point to you, Mr. Scanlon.

As is the case with all the Pixar movies I've seen, the voice casting is impeccable again. The pairing of Billy Crystal and John Goodman as Mike and Sully is pretty perfect. Crystal's higher-pitched, almost nasally voice at times is a natural fit with Goodman's deeper, almost baritone voice. Also, seeing them as enemies rather than friends is a cool, surprising twist. The visual doesn't hurt either; Mike a small, gangly green monster with one enormous eye while Sully looks like a teddy bear on steroids, immense and tall with blue fur and pink polka dots to go with his horns. Forcing the duo to work together was a nice touch as well, giving the story a bit of a lesson for its younger members of audiences without being really obvious or overly heavy-handed. LISTEN to the MESSAGE! It never feels like that. Mike with his stubborn edge and thirst for more, Sully with his natural ability and self-confidence, it's a monster match made in Heaven.

The rest of the cast in the voice department doesn't disappoint either. Returning (pre-returning?) from 'Inc.' is Steve Buscemi as Randall, Mike's roommate who can turn himself invisible and hasn't quite created that mean, evil streak we see years later. Helen Mirren is a welcome addition to the cast as Dean Hardscrabble, the legendary dean of Monsters University who comes to work against both Mike and Sully with Alfred Molina as Professor Knight, the teacher in Scaring 101. Nathan Fillion is a solid choice to play Johnny Worthington, the All-American college guy and head of the fraternity that's always the coolest on campus. Also look and listen for the voice talents of John Krasinski, Tyler Labine, Aubrey Plaza, Bonnie Hunt, Bill Hader, Bobby Moynihan and John Ratzenberger as the Abominable Snowman in supporting parts.

The best thing to come out of this 2013 prequel though is the handful of characters we meet at Oozma Kappa, the nerdy, disrespected fraternity Mike and Sully are forced to join to be eligible for the Scare Games. The group includes Don (Joel Murray), a 40-something salesman who went back to school for a new job, Squishy (Peter Sohn), a nerdy, quiet youngster looking for friends, Terry (Dave Foley) and Terri (Sean Hayes), a two-head monster, one who wants to dance and the other to study, and Art (scene-stealing Charlie Day), the goofy, off-the-wall monster with an odd past who also looks like a Muppet. Obviously, part of the appeal from the OK Fraternity comes from their physical appearance which proves difficult to describe, but check out the visual HERE. The genuine friendship, the bonding, this key introduction of the OK characters goes a long way and for the better, great additions to the story.

So we've made it this far, and I haven't really mentioned the visual here other than the appearance of the many different monsters. Pixar did it again, producing and making an incredibly visual film, full of color and excitement, deep and rich to the point some shots look like paintings. Mostly though, reviews for Pixar films could be done quickly and capably. It's good -- sometimes really good -- and you will no doubt get some really solid laughs and enjoyment out of it. 'University' isn't on par with the original, but it's a worthy addition to the Pixar archives for sure. A very solid prequel to a classic. The Pixar short before the movie, The Blue Umbrella, is okay but nothing special.

Monsters University (2013): ***/****   

The Hangover Part III

While I liked 2011's The Hangover Part II, I can admit it was far from the most original story. I liked it almost in spite of itself. It was inevitable, wasn't it? In the age of the unnecessary sequels, it was only a matter of time before there was another follow-up. Naturally, I was a little concerned/suspicious/wary of a second sequel, but I've invested this much time so one more movie wouldn't kill me. And away we go with 2013's The Hangover Part III.

It's been two years since the hijinks in Bangkok, and the Wolfpack has moved on....for the most part. Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has hit a bit of a rough patch and gone off his meds. His family and friends are worried about him though and manage to convince him to go to a quasi-rehab center in Arizona. Well, that's the plan at least. With Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) along for the ride, the quartet heads out to bring Alan to the facility only to be stopped in the middle of the desert by a revenge-seeking gangster, Marshall (John Goodman). Years ago, Marshall had a costly run-in with a certain Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong). Marshall threatens to kill Doug unless the group can bring Chow to him. Recently escaped from a high security prison in Thailand, Chow won't make it easy though. From Tijuana to Las Vegas, the Wolfpack has one last adventure.

Have you made it to the third paragraph of this review? Congratulations! I imagine most people know/knew prior to starting this review whether or not they were going to seek this sequel out. Did you like The Hangover (a classic) and The Hangover Part II (meh but entertaining)? Then you'll like this movie. It is simple as that. Don't expect anything hugely groundbreaking, just good, solid laughs with characters we've come to like a lot by this third movie.

My biggest worry heading into this sequel from director Todd Phillips (the first two Hangovers, Old School, Due Date) was that....well, that it would be the same movie I'd seen twice before. I came away from Hangover 2 liking it, but feeling ashamed I liked it because it was literally the same movie as the first with Bangkok replacing Las Vegas. Thankfully, Phillips and script co-writer Craig Mazin didn't go for 'same old, same old' here, and the movie benefits greatly from it. There's no literal hangover here. The crew doesn't wake up after a night of debauchery and partying and have to find out how they got to that point. Instead, we get some background with Jeong's Chow, Goodman's Marshall, the Wolfpack and some $42 million in gold bars (just go with it). It's a little forced, but it's different.

Drinking, drugs, debauchery and everything else aside, I came back to the movie because of the cast. Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis are perfect together. Phil the smarmy, confident, good-looking guy, Helms the tortured demon-possessed quasi-normal guy, and Alan the all-around, off-the-wall screwball. Put those weird differences in personality together, and you've got a perfectly cast comedy trio. What they get into gets crazier and crazier, but 'Part III' is just better if you go along with it. Alan has an epic man crush on Phil who just wants to get Doug back while Stu resents everything about what they've gotten themselves into. Oh, and Bartha returns in a part that has to be painful for him. He's there, then gone, then back, then gone again as the story requires.

The best supporting part goes to Jeong though as Leslie Chow, international thief and all-around nut bag. The character is the definition of unpredictable. At different points, he sings karaoke to Johnny Cash's Hurt, pretends to be a dog and eats dog food, parachutes off Caesar's Palace, escapes from a high security prison, and steals a hidden cache of gold. Goodman too is a welcome presence as Marshall, the mobster who wants nothing but revenge on Chow. Also new, Melissa McCarthy is a scene-stealer as Cassie, a pawn shop owner who takes a shine to Alan. Heather Graham as Jade the stripper and Mike Epps as Black Doug also return from the first flick. And last but not least, yes, we see 4-year old Carlos, a really good scene between him and Alan.

There's that something missing that would have made this sequel really special, but I can't put my finger on it. It's missing a certain energy, and at 100 minutes feels a tad rushed. With all the craziness, it never slows down and wraps up rather quickly/abruptly. None of this is a movie-killer, but it does prevent it from reaching that full potential. It's really good stuff that could have been great. And according to cast and crew, this will be the final Hangover movie. That's the right decision. Now that said, stick around for the credits. It's the perfect final scene, bringing everything full circle with one good surprise after another. A worthy finale to a series that had its ups and downs but one that's definitely finishing out strong.

The Hangover Part III (2013): ***/****

Flight

Released in theaters in November 2012, director Robert Zemeckis' film Flight has generated all sorts of positive buzz. It received almost uniformly glowing reviews, and star Denzel Washington has earned a Best Actor nomination for his lead performance. It's a decent enough film, but seriously....did I miss something? I came away hugely disappointed, even bored, with this one.

A longtime pilot, Captain Whit Whittaker (Washington) heads to the Orland airport to pilot a quick flight from Orlando to Atlanta, barely in the air for an hour. But as the flight nears its destination, Whittaker's co-pilot (Brian Geraghty) freaks out when the plane's controls go dead in his hand. Whittaker calmly tries to right the ship, but nothing he do seems to help, especially when the airliner starts to nose dive straight down to the Earth. With time running out, Whittaker does save the day, controlling the plane and turning it so he's actually flying upside down. He puts the plane down in a field, and 96 of 102 people onboard make it through the horrific incident. Whittaker is a hero, or is he? A toxicology report says otherwise, and an investigation reveals a much deeper, darker side to the supposedly heroic Captain Whittaker.

I'm vastly disappointed that I have to say I was hugely disappointed with this film. The combination of Washington, Zemeckis and a strong supporting cast seemed like it would be all I needed to go along with this one. So what happened somewhere along the road? I'm not quite sure. The best I can come up with is that I don't really know the point of the movie. I don't know what Zemeckis and screenwriter John Gatins are trying to say. The movie clocks in at 138 minutes, and we get our money's worth. It feels long, very long. The story isn't quite episodic, but that's only because nothing really happens. We see Whittaker talk to a long list of people, all in hopes of figuring out his own fate and involvement with the crash. There are some truly dumb transitions, plot twists and turns that are horrifically stupid, but the story needs them to happen. That's never a good reason. Dumb rarely helps a smart movie.

All I can come up with as to Zemeckis and Gatins' intentions is a character study of a truly unpleasant, very dark, flawed individual. Washington has done dark before, but nothing quite like this. His Whit Whittaker is one of his most easily hated characters. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS Whit is addicted to all sorts of drugs and is a functioning alcoholic. He flies the plane drunk and with drugs in his system, most notably cocaine. Was it his fault? No, it was a mechanical issue, but how can anyone trust him? Does he want anyone to trust him END OF SPOILERS KEEP ON READING I don't need a main character to be 100% sympathetic -- I love dark main characters -- but here, I was actually rooting against Whit. He is offered help by everyone around him, and still he refuses. It's a decent enough performance from Washington, but Oscar nomination worthy? I think not.

Where the movie doesn't fall short is in the supporting cast. Bruce Greenwood plays Charlie Anderson, the pilots' union representative working closely with Whit as the crash investigation grows. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a top-level lawyer who knows every nook and cranny, and he's going to use all of them to help get Whit off unscathed. I liked both performances a lot, two men genuinely trying to help Whit even though they're rebuffed at every opportunity. John Goodman hams it up as Harling Mays, Whit's drug supplier, who is around for three quick scenes. Along with Geraghty, Nadine Velazquez and Tamara Tunie play two of the flight attendants on the doomed flight. Kelly Reilly plays Nicole, a woman in her late 20s struggling with drug addiction who meets Whit following the crash. And last, Melissa Leo plays Ellen Block, the head of the NTSB investigating committee.  

Is the point of the movie to show a truly flawed, not particularly likable character like Washington's Whit Whittaker? I feel like there should have been more going on than just that. Flaws are interesting, but alcoholism doesn't translate well in the interesting department. Similar to Days of Wine and Roses, it isn't appealing in the least to watch an individual keep regressing into their own inner demons. How many times can we see the same thing before it gets repetitive? I was intrigued by Whittaker, but that's all. I was never truly into the character, the film, or the story. His budding relationship with Reilly's Nicole doesn't go anywhere and drags down an already slow-moving story.

Some scenes do work. The opening plane crash sequence is startling and unsettling, but it doesn't come as much of a surprise. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen it. Just the same, the image of Whit's plane flying upside down is an amazing visual to watch. As well, the final scenes at the NTSB hearing are solid as Whit is interrogated, his inner demons torturing him as he decides how much to admit to. The build-up to those scenes feature some of those awfully dumb twists that come across as unnecessary. I just don't know. Almost all the reviews were positive, but I just didn't like this film enough to recommend it. Very disappointing.

Flight (2012): ** 1/2 /****

Argo

Having made a name for himself as an actor, Ben Affleck has turned to the director's chair over the last six years. His first two movies were crime thrillers, 2007's Gone Baby Gone and 2010's The Town, and both showed a knack for really solid filmmaking, both of which I liked a lot. For Affleck's third film though, he had a little change of pace with 2012's Argo.

In November 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is stormed by angry Iranians upset that a deposed Shah is being sheltered by the U.S. In the chaos of the embassy takeover, six Americans escape and manage to make it to the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber) undetected. Some 70 hostages have been taken though, and a long waiting game follows. Over 70 days later, the U.S. government and the C.I.A. are still trying to figure out what to do when C.I.A. agent Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with a plan. Posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a sci-fi film (a Star Wars rip-off), Mendez intends to get into Iran and get the six out safely. The plan is ridiculously dangerous, and the potential for failure is high. Time is running out though, and it's the best plan available.

I've always been a fan of Affleck as an actor going back to his first few roles in movies like Good Will Hunting and Armageddon. As much as I like him as an actor, I'm starting to think I like him more from behind the camera. Maybe it's being around the movie business as much as he has, but he seems to have a knack for this camera. The reviews were uniformly positive here, and the IMDB rating is at a very high 8.4 as I write this review. Is it an all-time classic that the rating suggests? No, but it's very well done and well-executed. It's refreshing to see a story that focuses on just that; the story. While it's rated 'R,' it can mostly be attributed to the language. Little in the way of violence, sex and explosions, everything is streamlined for the story. Nothing wasted here.

This is based on the real life events that took place between 1979 and 1981 with some 80 hostages under Iranian control. Affleck has said in interviews that some liberties were taken with the story, but that's the point. It is based on a true story. He never said it is a true story. What appeals to me about Affleck's work is why I like his acting. It's understated when it is at its best. Argo feels like a throwback to the great crime/political thrillers of the 1970s (interesting because it takes place after those movies were made, but you get the idea). It is not flashy or anything freakishly new. What is it? Lots of good actors, a dramatic, incredibly intense story, and tension that is so well-handled it gets to the point it was uncomfortable by the end. Groundbreaking? Nope, but there's something to be said for a no-frills thriller that knows what it is trying to accomplish.

Like in The Town, Affleck stars in his own flick, but like his story, it isn't a flashy part. His Tony Mendez is an exfiltration specialist, an expert in getting people out of places, who concocts a hair-brained scheme to get these 6 Americans out of harm's way. Tony is quiet and a thinker, but he's always working on something. Give him a mission, and he's not going to stop to accomplish his objectives. A solid leading part for Mr. Affleck. Joining him in two scene-stealing parts are John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Goodman plays a respected Hollywood makeup man while Arkin is a director a little past his prime, both men signing on to help Affleck's Tony create a fake film that will convince Iranian officials and armed forces his backstory is legit. Both parts fade into the background once Tony heads out on his mission, but the scenes among Affleck, Goodman and Arkin are gems. I loved all three performances. Also look for always reliable Bryan Cranston as Tony's CIA supervisor, Kyle Chandler as the White House Chief of Staff, Titus Welliver as a State Department official and plenty of familiar faces popping up in quick one and two scene appearances.

I liked the movie throughout as the story develops. We're given background, see the fake movie -- dubbed 'Argo' -- come together, and then Tony's mission. The actual mission getting the six Americans out of a bloody, chaotic and paranoid Tehran is by far the best thing going for Affleck's movie. Tension doesn't begin to describe these scenes as Tony's "film crew" tries to get through airport security. The six Americans include Tate Donovan, Rory Cochrane, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy and Kerry Bishe. Farshad Farahat does an incredible job with as a checkpoint guard investigating the backstory. The ending is Affleck showing his ability. He doesn't blare music at you or demand you feel a certain way as a viewer. He presents the action, lets it develop and allows the actors to do their thing. Another winner. Looking forward to see what's next for Affleck, as an actor or director.    

Argo (2012): ***/****