Ted 2

I loved 2015's Ted. It's filthy, raunchy, disgusting, stupid, smart and mixed all together, it's a gem. It's also a pretty good stand-alone film. In other words, it don't need any sequels or follow-ups or reboots or any rejigger of any sort. But here we sit, and it got a sequel. Hitting theaters last weekend to mixed reviews and an underwhelming box office performance, here's 2015's Ted 2.

It's been a year since Ted (voice of Seth MacFarlane) has married Tami-Lynn (Jessica Barth) and....well, everything isn't all right in the world. In the midst of a seemingly never-ending fight, Ted and Tami decide the best alternative is to have a baby to save their marriage. Other than the obvious issues of Ted being a teddy bear and not being able to...ya know, reproduce, they quickly hit a roadblock in court. A judge rules that Ted is not a human being. Instead, he's a piece of property. Now with the help of his best friend, John (Mark Wahlberg), and a like-minded young lawyer, Sam (Amanda Seyfried), Ted has to prove without a reasonable doubt that he is in fact, a person, a human being, and not just a little kid's toy. Let the road-tripping, weed-smoking shenanigans begin. No one and nothing is safe...

As I mentioned in my first Ted review, MacFarlane can be a pretty divisive guy, whether it be his humor, his directing, his animated shows...basically everything. I think when it comes to pure humor, he has few equals right now. He manages to find that generally pretty perfect of really smart and truly dumb while all keeping it incredibly entertaining. Sure, there have been misfires along the way, but the laughs are almost always there. Well -- and here comes the twist -- they're not there as much anymore. Just because I loved the first movie so much, I wanted to love this unnecessary but hopefully entertaining sequel just as much. I didn't, and it wasn't even close. There are laughs (no doubt about that), but there are just as many and maybe more misfires along the way.

My worry was this sequel would be more Million Ways to Die than the original Ted. Lovely premise, horrific, so not funny execution. 'Million' was one of the worst movies I saw last year to the point I almost walked out. The unfortunate part is Ted 2 falls somewhere in between with some great laughs that get bogged down in running bits and repetitive scenes that don't get laughs and don't have much energy. Case in point; Patrick Warburton returns as Guy, John's co-worker, this time in a relationship with Rick (Star Trek's Michael Dorn). They joke about weird sexual preferences, beat up nerds at Comic Con (over and over again) and genuinely don't provide many laughs, but the script keeps going back to them. Then, he brings it back around with Warburton (The Tick) and Dorn (Worf) dressing up as their past characters. It can be infuriating how equal parts clever and dumb one script can be.

When the movie succeeds and produces genuine, out-loud laughs, is when the focus is on Ted and John and all their stupid, mind-blowing antics. MacFarlane's voice work is -- as usual -- pretty flawless as we see all the different sides of Ted, MacFarlane bouncing among them with ease from scene to scene. Wahlberg too shows off his funny side, often times playing the straight man while Ted gets the bigger laughs. I'd love to see Wahlberg do his thing on camera with no one sitting next to him as the scenes are filmed. This is a great buddy dynamic as we see in their scene where they sing their made-up words to the Law & Order theme song, their efforts to steal Tom Brady's semen (Yeah, just go with it), and their rapid fire dialogue that reflects two friends that go way, Way back. Two great characters, a movie at its strongest. I just wish there was more.

And that's where the script issues seem to come in. There doesn't seem to be much of a script. The first hour is definitely stronger, but things fall apart in the second half. There's no real pointed direction where things are going, just scenes thrown together that kinda have something to do with the ones preceding them. That wouldn't be an issue if there were more laughs, but there simply aren't. Amanda Seyfried seems kinda out of place and quite the forced love interest for Wahlberg's John. At one point, she sings a campfire song in a nice nod to Three Amigos, but it falls short. As does a pot-smoking montage in a law library, too many Breakfast Club comparisons to mention. These scenes just don't play well to the point the theater was almost dead silent. By the time Giovanni Ribisi shows up -- Yeah, Donny is back! -- and starts dancing and being weird, I'd kinda checked out already.

Just like he proved with 'Million Ways,' MacFarlane is someone some very talented people want to work with. On top of all the above-mentioned names, we also get appearances from the always reliable Morgan Freeman, Mad Men's John Slattery, an expanded part for Barth as Tami, less Sam Jones (unfortunately), sinister John Carroll Lynch, a downbeat doctor in Dennis Haysbert, and a hysterical one-scene appearance from Liam Neeson who's got some questions for Ted at the grocery store and Patrick Stewart returning as our smooth voiced narrator.

When I laughed, I LAUGHED. Ted's appearance on the stand at his trial is priceless. A running bit between John and Ted taking awkward pictures of each other is priceless, and their encounter with Patriots QB Tom Brady is a gem. I just wish there had been more of those laughs. Any comedy is going to have its hit and miss laughs, but all you're usually looking for is more hits than misses. This one comes out about even. If you enjoyed the first one, you'll enjoy this one, but this sequel isn't on par unfortunately.

Ted 2 (2015): ** 1/2 /****

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Seth MacFarlane is one of the more polarizing personalities currently working in Hollywood. The creator of TV's Family Guy and man behind 2012's very funny and very wrong Ted, MacFarlane typically inspires a 'love him or hate him' reaction from audiences. I typically come down on the love him side, loving Ted and for the most part liking Family Guy. So when I read MacFarlane was working on a comedy film western....well, color me curious. Here's 2014's A Million Ways to Die in the West.

It's 1882 in Arizona and cowardly rancher Albert Stark (MacFarlane) is trying to make the most of his small sheep ranch in the desert. He's dating the pretty, young teacher, Louise (Amanda Seyfried), and even though the wild west life is pretty rough, Albert is pleased....and then he isn't. After he negotiates his way out of a gunfight rather than shoot it out, Albert gets dumped by Louise. He just sort of drifts along afterwards, eventually meeting a new woman in town, Anna (Charlize Theron), who he clicks with very quickly. It isn't long before Albert gets roped into another gunfight with Louise's new man, but that's the least of his problems. Anna isn't telling him everything about who she is and more importantly, who she's married to. Her husband? Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), a bandit and one of the most notorious gunfighters around. Now, Albert is really in for some trouble.

Released in theaters just this past weekend, 'Million' earned over $17 but was still dubbed a disappointment. Reviews were decidedly mixed to negative, and what little word of mouth I heard was....I'll say, less than positive. Nonetheless, I plunged on! It's a comedy western -- which I'm not a huge fan of to begin with -- but it certainly looked like the talent involved had put together a winning product. Andddddddddddddd, yeah, unfortunately that's not the case. This is not a good movie to the point I will even say it is really, really bad. Making it worse, it does have some potential but never amounts to anything other than a winning joke or bit here and there. It is painfully long at 116 minutes (it feels much, much longer) and simply tries too hard. Simply swearing in the wild west with vulgar sex jokes, pretty raunchy physical humor, some drug jokes, it isn't enough. There's got to be something more.

The parts that do work? It all goes back to the title. The wild west was a particularly nasty place, and as MacFarlane's movie/script points out in its strongest moments, there were a countless myriad of ways to die and to die graphically. The bits that work come from that simple premise, the west was almost trying to kill you. MacFarlane's Albert has a funny monologue pointing out all those ways people can and do die from. The payoff is priceless, Albert literally pointing out the town mayor's dead body that's been lying in the street untouched for three days. The bit comes back later with a great sight gag. The same for the county fair where people always seem to die gruesome, grisly deaths. Gags like that work and do it well, an intelligence to the humor. There isn't enough of those sorts of gags and bits. Instead, we get jokes about a retarded sheep, a gunfighter who can't join the gunfight because he has two (TWO) bouts of extreme and very public diarrhea, and a sheep peeing on Albert while he's hiding from Clinch's gunmen. Now, that's funny!

Some reviews criticized MacFarlane for casting himself in his movie. That's the least of my concerns. You may not like his humor, but he knows how to get laughs. His quick, random asides work well, and a cowardly sheep rancher is an interesting chance of pace for a lead in a western. The script does him no favors though, his Albert getting too many ranting and raving monologues that feel forced. His scenes are okay with Theron, but they tend to slow things down even more. Neeson looks to be having some fun as the dastardly Clinch, a bandit who's reputation precedes him, but even he is underused. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS There are a couple surprise appearances along the way but blink and you'll miss them. They include Christopher Lloyd, Ewan MacGregor, Ryan Reynolds, Gilbert Gottfried, Jamie Foxx (stay for the credits), and then Patrick Stewart providing his recognizable voice for a quick voiceover. END OF SPOILERS YOU MAY CONTINUE READING NOW.

Who else to look for? Wes Studi is a quick scene-stealer in his appearance as Cochise, the wise Apache chief who guides Albert through his struggles. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman don't fare so well as an engaged couple. Oh, and Silverman is a prostitute, but the couple is "saving themselves" for marriage. So yeah, we get lots of raunchy sex jokes that fell short one and all. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater with each passing joke. Repeated jokes about anal and oral sex and ejaculation can only take you so far. Neil Patrick Harris plays Foy, Louise's new beau, impressive mustache to boot. Screen veteran Matt Clark gets a quick part too as a gold prospector.

What I found disappointing was that MacFarlane was genuinely trying to do something different here. In one way, he's trying to make a comedic spoof western in the vein of Blazing Saddles. He's not making a generic, studio-forced sequel. At no point does it click though, a series of bits and one-liners that work at times on their own, but ultimately fall short. MacFarlane looks to be a western fan, even shooting on-location in Monument Valley, made famous by famed western director John Ford. Everything from the look to the throwback-sounding score to the credits scream 'WESTERN!' but it never gels as one cohesive picture. Struggles to find the right tone, the right comedy, the right rhythm, you can point to any and all of these problems as handicapping the final product.

Your call in the end. I love westerns and when a comedy western is handled correctly, I'll go along for the ride. This western most definitely tried, but it just doesn't happen. A few good bits don't amount to something worthwhile in the end. I didn't like this movie at all, and there were more than a few extended scenes that were painful to watch. Truly painful, made all that much worse by the fact that somewhere in all that mess is a potentially very good movie. As is though, steer clear. If you do go see it, definitely don't watch the trailer.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014): */****

Public Enemies

In the age of the gangsters, the 1930s in Depression-era America, one name stands out above the rest. Sure, there's Pretty Boy Floyd, the Barkers, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, Alvin Karpis, even Bonnie and Clyde. But the name John Dillinger stands out, Public Enemy No. 1, a gangster, bank robber and possible killer who rose to notoriety in the early 1930s. I reviewed this movie from 2009 that works as a quasi-biography, but rewatched it recently and updated the review. Here were go with 2009's Public Enemies.

It's 1933 in Crown Point, Indiana and John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has been caught and is just being brought to prison, or so his guards think. Instead, the notorious bank robber has arranged a breakout, a group from his gang busting out with him. With his gang back together again, Dillinger goes on a spree, robbing banks all over Chicago and into Indiana and Wisconsin. The gangster feels the noose tighten around his neck, his notoriety forcing the government's hand in bringing him to justice. The Bureau of Investigation (the FBI) is in its infancy, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) placing a young but capable agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), in charge of bringing Dillinger to justice. Using all the technology available to them, Purvis and his agents do everything they can to capture Dillinger, but can the notorious bank robber continue his crime spree?

This 2009 crime thriller is based off a book of the same name, Public Enemies, by author Bryan Burrough. It's a great read, non-fiction at its best. Burrough's book covers a ton of ground about one of the more violent, turbulent times in American history. The 1930s were the time of the gangster, killers, bank robbers and thieves working on a grand scale with a trail of fast cars, money and riches and dead bodies. Almost every single one of them died bloody and violent. It was a bloody, violent, fascinating time in American history. Originally thought of as a miniseries, Burroughs turned his research into a book. With so many people, places and incidents, the film version was condensed to John Dillinger vs. Melvin Purvis. It's a wise choice because Burroughs' novel as is would have been overwhelming.  

We meet other people, but this is Johnny Depp's movie as he brings John Dillinger to life. A sympathetic character? No, not quite. It is on the other hand a fascinating character to watch. The people who met him during his crime reign of terror, a lot of witnesses said he was charming, likable and friendly. One of the biggest movie stars around, Depp is the best thing going in this movie, making Dillinger a human being, not just a historical name. Depp's Dillinger seems to know the life he's chosen necessitates a live-fast, live-hard mentality. Knowledge of the historical facts or not, you just know Dillinger is leading a doomed life. Sooner or later, his luck will run out. It's really the only character here given any sort of development or characterization too, John given a love interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl from a poor background who falls hard for the gangster, as does he for her. Depp and Cotillard have a believable, real chemistry, giving the story that necessary human element.

Who best to direct a high-arcing crime thriller? How about a director with movies like Heat, Thief, Last of the Mohicans and The Inside to his name? Michael Mann takes the helm here for this style-heavy period piece.  'Enemies' was filmed on location in Chicago and around the Midwest where much of the story actually took place. Chicago serving as a backdrop for a story is never a bad thing, giving an air of authenticity here. The suits, the hats, the gentleman gangsters, the cars, it all adds up a to a more than worthy time capsule to 1930s Depression-era America. If there's a fault, Mann is too interested in the style, not the substance. He shot with a digital format, giving those scenes an odd, fuzzy look. The editing is fast and hard -- almost schizophrenic -- to the point the movement is hard to follow. Replace some of that aggressive style which doesn't necessarily work with some more story and characterization, and then we're talking.

Depp's movie, no doubt, but in star power, Christian Bale isn't far behind. It's just star power though. Bale is a really good actor, but he's given little to do here. The real-life Melvin Purvis was a bit of a dunce, the movie choosing not to delve too much into that angle. Bale is okay, but it's a necessary, workmanlike part, nothing more. Crudup does a good job with his quick scenes as Hoover, a glorified cameo. As for Dillinger's gang, look for Jason Clarke, Stephen Dorff, David Wenham and another violent gangster, Stephen Graham as maniacal Baby Face Nelson. Stephen Lang is memorable as a Texas lawman, Charles Winstead, brought in to help Purvis, Rory Cochrane playing one of his fellow Chicago FBI agents. There's also quick parts for Channing Tatum, Carey Mulligan and Giovanni Ribisi, and in the case of Tatum and Mulligan, don't blink or you'll miss them. There's plenty of other appearances that probably deserve some attention, but they're not around long enough to mention.

That's one of the weaknesses in Mann's film. Condensing Burroughs' book and doing so with just one focus -- Dillinger -- is still a daunting task. I think it tries to accomplish too much. A year-plus of story, countless speaking roles, and a whole lot of history. Depp is excellent, that's not in question. The action is very exciting, especially the infamous Little Bohemia shootout. Mann does action and does it well. The heavy, automatic machine guns, the B.A.R.s, the heavy pistols, these are guns that pack a punch so there's something visceral and adrenaline-pumping in the action scenes. Something is missing though. It's cool, but the movie doesn't have a ton of heart. The last 30 minutes are the movie at its best, Purvis and the FBI closing in on Dillinger. One what-if scene has Dillinger walking into the Dillinger Squad office, surreal and cool. The same for Dillinger's death, a stylish, cool scene aided by Elliot Goldenthal's musical score.

A good movie but with some serious flaws. It could have been a classic, and maybe with a miniseries it would have been. Still, Johnny Depp is cooler than you.

Public Enemies (2009): ** 1/2 /****
Rewrite of July 2009 review

Lost in Translation

They are the movies that everyone loves. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E. Critics and fans alike drool over these flicks, especially during awards season. As I've written about before, cynic that I am, I immediately don't like those movies without having seen even a little of it. Call me naturally suspicious. Released in 2003, Lost in Translation was one of those movies, universally liked, and I had no dying to see it interest. Well, it's 10 years later. I'm safe, right? Might as well check it out.

An aging American movie star, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is no longer a sure thing at the box office. He's taken a job as a whiskey spokesperson for a company in....Japan. It's a lucrative payday, netting the middle-aged movie star $2 million bucks. There's a catch though. He hates it, hates everything about it. He feels completely out of sorts in Japan as he films commercial after commercial, does photo shoot after photo shoot. At his hotel one night as Bob deals with his own insomnia, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a young married woman struggling with where her life is currently at. She's in Tokyo with her photographer husband who's on assignment, leaving her a lot of time to do her own thing. She is of course...miserable. But in this case, the middle-aged actor and the young wife have found a similar soul.

From director/writer Sofia Coppola, 'Translation' cost just $4 million to make but earned over $120 million in its theatrical release. It won an Oscar for Best Screenplay (penned by Coppola), and was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, none of them managing a win. I'm glad I caught up with it finally. No doubt about it, it's a good flick. That said, I didn't love it. 'Translation' wasn't a life-changing movie for me. It's a good, well-written story that features two great performances from Murray and Johansson. The performances are by far the best thing in Coppola's film.

With a story about people, 'Translation' makes a wise choice and decides to focus on....the people!!! What a great idea! I've always been a big fan of Murray dating back to his SNL/Caddyshack days, but that's how I typically think of him, a comedic actor. Along with his Wes Anderson ventures, he shows he is perfect at that underplayed, smart, a little sarcastic straight man. Just about everything here is underplayed, Murray making Bob this great lead character. His family/home life isn't ideal as we see through some phone calls back home to the wife. The same for Johansson as Charlotte, typically an actress who's thought of more as a pretty face than a good actress (and she is appropriately gorgeous here). Much like Murray, her part is quiet and real without being obvious and aggressively in your face.

It's that chemistry between the duo that carries the movie. And let it be said, it's a good thing because the movie barely has an energetic pulse to begin with. There aren't a lot of set pieces or BIG moments so the episodic story kinda drifts along at certain points. We see a couple chance encounters at the hotel bar, a couple quasi-dates as they explore Tokyo, but mostly it's a lot of talking as we get to know the two characters. We meet them and find out what drives them, how they got to that point, how their personal lives have driven them to become friends in a hotel bar in a foreign country. As for the rest of the cast, it's limited to Giovanni Ribisi as John, Charlotte's photographer husband (generally pretty clueless), Anna Faris as Kelly, an actress doing a publicity tour in Tokyo who knows John in some form from the past.

I'm struggling with much to write about this flick. I liked it but didn't love it. It's good but not even close to great. Coppola's style is subtle and artsy, much like the story itself. 'Translation' explores all sorts of topics from insomnia to feeling out of place to the feeling of being lost in one's life. The ending is mysteriously annoying, but I guess it's an ending that's called for. Nothing is tidy for anyone involved, just a real ending. Mildly disappointed I didn't like this more, and maybe down the road on a repeat viewing, I will. For now...it's okay.

Lost in Translation (2003): ** 1/2 /****

Gangster Squad

I'm a simple guy when it comes to movie. Entertain me, and I'll be pleased. Not every movie needs to be some groundbreaking, never before seen story that rewrites how films are made. Take 2013's Gangster Squad. It has taken a ridiculous amount of heat because.....I have NO IDEA. It is familiar in a way, but it's stylish, entertaining and action-packed with a ridiculous, loaded cast. Screw all the Debbie Downers. I loved this movie.

It's 1949 in Los Angeles and former boxer turned gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) is taking over the city bit by bit. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, Cohen is buying up cops, judges and politicians left and right as fast as he can. One of seemingly few clean cops, Sgt. John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) is fed up with what he's seeing in a city he wants his family to grow up in. He's approached by the similarly clean police chief, Parker (Nick Nolte), with an offer; assemble a small crew of officers and take the war to Cohen. O'Mara's squad will work as their own separate unit, completely removed from the laws and rules that would typically limit officers. He puts his crew together, including roguish Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), and goes to work, attacking casinos, bars and clubs all over the L.A. area. They immediately find success, but it's only a matter of time before Cohen figures out who's gunning for him. Can O'Mara's Gangster Squad take Cohen's illegal businesses out before he gets to them?

There is little to nothing I didn't like about this movie. Playing like a modern film noir, it's a gem of a flick. It plays like a mix of L.A. Confidential, The Untouchables and The Magnificent Seven. If you put those three movies together and can't get a winner, then you're doing something wrong. Director Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less) is at the helm of a damn entertaining movie. It feels like a throwback film to the Hollywood glory days with a huge cast -- much, much more on that later -- to go with a well-written script, exciting, well-choreographed action and a story that never really slows down. More than anything, it is just F-U-N. That's all. There are good guys and bad guys, cops and gangsters, a femme fatale and not a damsel in distress. Is it so wrong for a movie to just be entertaining? I read a surprising amount of reviews that were highly critical of this movie. Maybe I missed something, but I loved it from beginning to end.

Watching the trailer for the first time last year, I have no doubt my eyes were as big as dinner plates. A movie about cops and gangsters in post-WWII L.A. already drew me in, but with this cast?!? It's a ridiculously deep, very talented cast. Because there is so much talent assembled, we're not talking in-depth character studies, but there isn't a weak part in the bunch. For starters, Josh Brolin as the hard-headed, stubborn O'Mara is a hero cop gem. A WWII veteran, he's sick of Cohen and his antics so given a chance to take him down a whole lot of notches, he jumps at the chance. He has a pregnant wife (Mireille Enos) weighing on his mind, but he wants to get the job done, on principle alone. Brolin is aided by Ryan Gosling as Wooters, the cop who sees what L.A. has become and just doesn't care too much, but he's given a reason to care while also getting the love interest, Grace (Emma Stone), Cohen's girl. Uh-oh, more issues!

The names already mentioned would be enough for most movies, but not this one. Penn gets to ham it up as real-life boxer turned gangster Mickey Cohen, sneering and intimidating his way into the part. This is an out-and-out villain, a bad guy you just love to hate and can't wait to see get taken down. Nolte makes the most of his smallish but effective part as Chief Parker, the chief of police who sends O'Mara on his dangerous, illegal mission. Also look for Sullivan Stapleton as Jack Whalen, a bookie and friend of Wooter's working in Cohen's organization (a supporting but excellent part), Holt McCallany as Lockwood, Cohen's bodyguard and enforcer, and Troy Garity as Wrevock, a hired killer working for Cohen.

Not surprisingly, a certain part of the cast caught my eye....O'Mara's Gangster Squad! Uh-oh, it's another men-on-a-mission movie! Assemble a crew of misfits and specialists and let them go to work. How can you lose? Brolin and Gosling are the stars, showing off that hero-sidekick chemistry that every group of specialists needs. But wait, there's more! Rounding out the crew/squad are Harris (Anthony Mackie), a specialist with gun or knife looking to clean up the streets of drugs, Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi), a WWII intelligence officer and expert in radio technology, Kennard (Robert Patrick), the veteran cop and part-Wild West lawman who favors a six-shooter, and Ramirez (Michael Pena), a young Mexican officer who's looked down upon by much of the rest of the force. It's a good group of some really solid actors, all comfortable and willing to take a supporting part to flesh out an impressive cast.

Originally supposed to be released in summer/fall 2012, 'Gangster' was pushed back for re-shoots following the Aurora shooting at a movie theater. What remains is still an action-packed movie that will appease most moviegoer's needs for some shoot 'em up action. The script never goes long without a gunfight or shoot out of some sort. A couple different sequences stand out, including a failed ambush in a busy street in Chinatown and the finale at Park Plaza Hotel especially leaving their mark. It's pistols and machine guns to aid the throwback feel with some pretty cool uses of slow-motion without going overboard. Bloody but not overly graphic, the action sequences are just another selling point.

It's hard to describe this movie without describing the style. The late 1940s (and heading into the 1950s) were an inherently cool time looking back on them. Cops and police officers wore a suit, tie and a hat. The cars were ridiculously cool, the streets even more so, and Fleischer and Co. took that to heart. Part of the appeal here is the look of the movie, like we were transported to 1949 Los Angeles. Just like a scene where O'Mara and crew walk away from the L.A. City Hall, there's a cool factor that's hard to touch or classify. It's stylish and cool....because it is. How about a montage of the Squad doing their work to big band music? It works. There is style on display in every scene whether it be the clothes and sets or the quick, speedily delivered dialogue. I liked everything about this movie and look forward to future and repeat viewings.

Gangster Squad (2013): ****/****  

Ted

With animated TV shows in Family Guy, American Dad and The Cleveland Show to his name, Seth MacFarlane has become one of the more bankable names around currently working in television. It was only a matter of time then before he made the jump to movies, right? Thankfully, he picked a very solid, very funny venture, 2012's Ted.

Growing up with his family outside of Boston, young John Bennett is far from a popular kid and struggles making friends. One Christmas he receives a teddy bear that becomes his best friend and more. One night he wishes that Teddy was real, and in the morning....ta-da! Ted is real. The talking, real-life bear becomes an international sensation for awhile at least. But some 25-plus years later, John (Mark Wahlberg) is all grown up with Ted (voice of MacFarlane) his roommate. The only problem? John's been dating Lori (Mila Kunis) for four years, and she'd like a commitment from John, and that means Ted has to move out. Choices, choices, your long-time best friend or your beautiful girlfriend?

Do you like Family Guy? If you answered 'yes,' you'll like this movie. Probably like it a lot. If you answered 'no,' this probably isn't the movie for you. Using his very dark, usually intelligent, sometimes dumb and always helter skelter sense of humor that viewers see on Family Guy, MacFarlane brings that same manic touch to 'Ted.' It helps if you have even a vague knowledge of 1980s-1990s pop culture, anything from lousy music to iconic movies and TV shows. We even get a couple dream-like sequences, a few dropped in flashbacks, and an over the top, sometimes exaggerated effort going for laughs. It's filthy, dirty, and filthier so definitely know what you're getting into here. Like Family Guy and MacFarlane's other shows, it will almost certainly divide audiences.

The movie on the whole is not great, but it is very good, even near perfect in its humor at times. What works best? Not surprising answer here. That's a CGI teddy bear voiced by MacFarlane. Check that; a foul-mouthed, pop-culture referencing, pot-smoking, sex-obsessed CGI teddy bear voiced by MacFarlane. It's criminally simplistic why this works. It's that image of a cute, fuzzy, soft teddy bear....doing what he does. We're introduced to a "grown up" Ted smoking pot with John and then driving him to work minutes later, just his ears poking up over the wheel. MacFarlane does a great job with his familiar voice talents (even poking fun at how much Ted sounds like Peter Griffin) bringing Ted to life. What's better? In this world, no one seems to question this teddy bear come to life, and it's the better for it. Ted is a great character, and one that ends up carrying the movie.

None of that is to say the rest of the cast isn't memorable. It's just that they're not as memorable in any scene Ted is in. Wahlberg does a great job acting alongside, well, nothing. His back-and-forth with Ted speaks to their long history, an easy going relationship between two guys (okay, a bear) who are genuine friends but don't mind busting each others' balls when deserved. Their Thunder Buddies song is a highlight too, both of them still terrified of thunder. Kunis (of Family Guy) isn't given a lot to do, but gets points for not being the stereotypically shrill girlfriend. Also look for Joel McHale as Lori's skeevy boss, Patrick Warburton and Matt Walsh as John's co-workers,and  a creepy Giovanni Ribisi as an obsessed fan of Ted's. Also look for Nora Jones, Tom Skerritt and Flash Gordon himself, Sam Jones, all appearing as themselves. Even keep an eye out for Ryan Reynolds in a wordless but very funny two-scene appearance.

I struggle at this point with comedy reviews. How much should I reveal in terms of laughs? IMDB's Memorable Quotes does a fair job of that so I won't go into great detail here. Without giving anything away, I can say the parts that work here are hilarious. Ted's apartment party is a highlight, quickly taking a turn for the worse. A running gag with his job at a grocery store and his boss are priceless as he tries to get fired only to earn promotions. A brutal, knock-down fight between John and Ted is unreal too. Moral of the story is simple. It's an above average comedy, with more jokes/gags working than those that failed. The ending too is surprisingly sweet. All in all, highly recommend this one.

Ted <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Contraband

With absolutely nothing new, unique or even partially original about 2012’s Contraband, you might think this is the start of a very negative review. You would be wrong although to be fair it’s not a particularly positive review either. It’s an entertaining enough movie that drifts and drifts some more, borrowing liberally from countless other crime thrillers.

Putting his smuggler past behind him, Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg) has moved on with a clean slate and a family, including wife, Kate (Kate Beckinsale), and two boys. He’s well known for his smuggling abilities, but he’s decided to move on until his brother-in-law, Andy (Caleb Landry Jones), opts to become a smuggler for himself. Things go poorly on an operation, and now murderous, intimidating thug Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi) is threatening Andy, and even Chris and his family, demanding a debt be paid. He wanted to leave the smuggling world, but now for the safety of his family, Chris heads to Panama to pull off one last job. Time may be running out though.

I didn’t go into this movie with particularly high expectations. I went into with moderate hopes, mostly because I’m a big fan of Mark Wahlberg and little else. More on the star later, but the movie is immediately hamstrung by a complete lack of originality. It’s “borrows” the most from Gone in 60 Seconds with a dose of Heat, Fast Five, The Town and basically any other crime thriller of the last 20 years thrown in for good measure. The positive? All those movies are good so by association, ‘Contraband’ can’t be truly bad. The negative? It can’t be truly good either. You’ve seen it before so it’s hard to go along with the movie. The New Orleans locations provide a cool backdrop as well, but as far as originality, that's as far as things go.

With all those different elements working against and with each other, the story is one mess on top of each other. Forced to get back into smuggling (well, sort of, Chris actually really loves smuggling and all its adrenaline-pumping thrills), he figures a plan effortlessly and without much preparation. Apparently, the black market and smuggling world is easy to get back into after being away for years starting a family. Once Chris does get on board a ship heading to Panama (captained by a bullying but mostly clueless J.K. Simmons), things come together even quicker. The story drifts along as Chris and partner-in-crime Danny (Lukas Haas) get dragged into a Panamanian armored car robbery – random detour much? – with Diego Luna's gangster in a race against time. The goal is always the same – save the family – but getting there takes far too long.

Thanks to a Saturday Night Live skit over the last couple years, Wahlberg has taken more abuse than usual pertaining to his one-note acting range. It’s hard to argue with the criticism, but because he’s such a likable star on-screen, it’s also hard not to root for Wahlberg and enjoy his movies. I’ve read comparisons to him as a Charles Bronson for the 2000s, and that’s a pretty spot-on comparison. He is an actor and a movie star very comfortable in a certain niche with a specific part. Shakespeare might not be his ideal role, but a former smuggler turned pissed off family man? That’s about as perfect a part as possible for Mr. Wahlberg. Oh, and he’s cooler than you so don’t mess with him or his family.

Filling out the rest of the cast, certain names pop out but because of that bouncy script, but no one leaves a really positive impression. Beckinsale is given nothing to do other than to look like she loves Wahlberg in a few scenes, act terrified in a few others, and then look lovingly at Wahlberg again. Damsel in distress most definitely. Simmons is wasted as Capt. Camp unfortunately, his intentions all over the place. Ribisi hams it up as only Ribisi can, an indecipherable accent mixed with amazing facial hair and tattoos bringing this character together. Who else can ham it up like Ribisi? That would be Ben Foster as Sebastian, Chris’ former partner in crime who gets himself into some $ trouble, but is not given much to do in a predictable supporting part. Also look for as Chris’ current accomplice, and William Lucking in a quick part as his dad.

Entertaining and mindless enough, but not worth more than one watch. And I’ll just say this and be done with it. Yes, I know it’s a movie, and yes, I know we’re supposed to root for someone here. Wahlberg’s Chris is an anti-hero because the movie requires it, but he’s smuggling millions of dollars of counterfeit money into the U.S. Huh? I realize it won’t actually cripple the U.S. economy, but it did seem a weird touch. Should we actually be rooting for him? Eh, who cares? Look, more gunfire and explosions!

Contraband <---trailer (2012): ** ½ /****

Avatar

When I first heard about James Cameron's Avatar, I can honestly say I wasn't interested in the least.  Sure, I saw Titanic twice in theaters while in grammar school, but this new project he'd been working on for years held little appeal to me.  The story sounded weak at best, and the attraction of some new technology did little to impress me.  It got worse when the movie actually hit theaters and was a huge success, lots of friends and family saying I'd love it, just go see it.  Well, that sealed the deal. I wasn't going to watch it. Most of a year later, I caved, getting it from Netflix this week.  Final result? Good but not great movie, one that's definitely not one of the greatest movies ever made regardless of how many bajillion dollars it made in theaters.

Going in with as open a mind as possible, I wanted to give Avatar a fair shot...even if that voice deep down inside wanted me to hate it.  I couldn't help it.  I saw all this craze last winter and thought it was ridiculous how much fans got into it.  I read stories that some fans were even going through variations of depression and withdrawals since they couldn't visit the fictional planet of Pandora where the story takes place.  It just all added up.  It was Harry Potter, Twilight, and any number of other popular series in pop culture rolled into one.  Still, I buckled down and tried to enjoy it, and overall, I did.  But that doesn't mean there weren't flaws along the way, major flaws.

Sometime in the future, a paraplegic Marine, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is sent to the far-off planet of Pandora in place of his recently deceased twin brother. On Pandora, a corporation is struggling with how to handle the indigenous population, the Na'vi, a humanoid race of creatures, who sit on a hugely lucrative element needed back home called unobtanium.  Through an extensive, expensive scientific process, Jake can become a Na'vi as an avatar, looking like them and eventually living with them.  His superior, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), wants to learn about the Na'vi and their culture and way of life, but Jake receives pressure from the corporation's head (Giovanni Ribisi) and the head of security (Stephen Lang). Living among them, Jake begins to become one of them, even falling in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and is torn between his duty as a former soldier with his desire to do what's right.  A fight is coming, and Jake's right in the middle.

Props to Cameron right off the bat because he basically invented a new form of technology to film this movie, taking existing motion capture software and making it ridiculously better.  The whole movie is basically CGI (which I despise), but it's so good, so perfectly handled, that you don't even process that you are watching anything completed by a computer.  If you can convince me CGI is a good thing, you've done your work.  Point to Mr. Cameron.  The movie is beyond gorgeous.

That's by far the strongest aspect of the movie, the first 90 minutes or so as Jake explores Pandora and all it has to offer.  The storyline is similar to Dances With Wolves -- except in the future and in space -- so we see Jake learn how the Na'vi live from day to day in the jungles of Pandora with all its plant life and vegetation and various sorts of wildlife, some friendlier than others.  The sequences that blow you away are phenomenal, like Jake flying through the suspended mountains that hang in mid-air, the exploration of the immense tree the Na'vi live in, and many more.  It's all new to Jake as he takes advantage of his new legs, and it's all new to us as we see the ins and outs of this idyllic planet somewhere in the galaxy.

One of the rising stars in Hollywood, Sam Worthington is an ideal choice in the lead to play marine Jake Sully.  He's been in Terminator Salvation and Clash of the Titans, but he's still a new face here in Avatar.  He needs to be a new face because if you've seen this guy/character in various other roles, it loses some of the appeal, the wonderment as Jake transforms into something else. Saldana is the equally strong-willed Neytiri who fights Jake but comes to love him.  The technology that makes Saldana into a Na'vi is obviously something special, but credit to her for not getting lost along the way as she makes Neytiri a very strong female character.  Weaver and Ribisi are solid in supporting parts, Lang is hamming it up for all he's worth as the evil security head, and also look out for Michelle Rodriguez, Wes Studi, and Joel Moore in supporting parts.

Now for the disappointing part of Avatar.  With a budget of over $300 million, Cameron apparently didn't spend much on a well thought out, well written finished script.  The dialogue is embarrassingly bad at times with some lines that made me cringe hearing them and more so now just thinking of them.  I mentioned earlier the story is similar to Dances With Wolves.  That's not true.  It is Dances With Wolves with the Na'vi filling in for the Sioux and evil white men filling in for...oh, wait...that one is the same.  Cameron clearly went to town on the special effects, and good for him because they're amazing, but at 162-minutes the movie feels incredibly long in parts and could have been tightened up or at least been better utilized.

The finale is a combination of all this good and bad as Lang and Co. launch an all-out offensive on the Na'vi and their villages.  It is an inspiring sequence full of scope and a truly epic feel that is also limited by a heavy-handed ending that I hoped wouldn't be there.  SPOILERS For awhile, it looks like the Na'vi are going to lose only to have a naturalistic, spiritual ending of the Pandoran ecosystem work together to fight off the intruders.  SPOILERS It of course leaves the door open for a possible Avatar 2 -- God help us -- but doesn't ring true at all.  But that's the movie.  Lots of good and lots of bad, but in the end the amazing technology wins out.

Avatar <---trailer (2009): ***/****

Boiler Room

One of my favorite things to stumble across on a DVD after all those pointless making of features and director/actor commentaries is the all-knowing, all powerful alternate ending.  Sometimes it's interesting to see what else a director thought about an ending, how they originally intended to shoot it.  Then, a studio can veto it, or a test audience doesn't like it, and a new ending is shot that hopefully will please the masses more.  As a member of the downbeat, surprise ending fan club, I'm all for those original endings that doesn't make everyone happy. I liked 2000's Boiler Room even if the actual ending disappointed.  The alternate, original ending? Much better and much darker.

Now as a fan of sports I can explain how to figure out a pitcher's ERA or WHIP, as a movie fan I can explain the aspect ratios or how the western changed from the silent era through the spaghetti western transformation to the folksy 1970s movies.  But I just can't wrap my head around big business, stock markets, and anything to do with inordinate amounts of monopoly money. Boiler Room deals with all three of those so a fair amount of the time I was quite a bit confused, but never enough to dislike the movie.  It can be too flashy, too stylish at times, but an interesting if not always clear story is aided by some strong performances from an underrated cast.

A college dropout with no interests in school, Seth Davis (Giovanni Ribisi) runs an illegal casino out of his home in New York City.  The money is flowing in, but it's only a matter of time before the authorities catch on and shut him down, sending him to the slammer.  His judge father (Ron Rifkin) disapproves and is about to completely cut ties with his son when Seth is approached by an old friend (Jaime Kennedy) who works at an investment firm as a broker.  Seth gets a job as a trainee at the high stakes firm, JT Marlin, and quickly rises through the ranks under his boss Greg (Nicky Katt).  But right on the verge of hitting the big time where he can bring in accounts of his own, Seth starts to smell a rat.  Things just aren't adding up as the unexplainable amounts of money start to roll in, and customers start complaining.  What should he do though? Shut up and go along for the ride, or blow the whistle and take everyone down with him?

As someone who would need a "Dummy's Guide to Business," I'll freely admit that much of the movie that really delves into business, rips, stocks, the market, went over my head.  I tried to keep up as best I could, but never really had a complete grasp of what's going on.  I was never completely baffled at the goings on, but I've got to point that out.  Maybe some business majors would keep up better than me, who knows?  Saying that, the firm's owner (Tom Everett Scott) is up to some shady dealings that just don't make a lot of sense to me.  Wouldn't the SEC, the FBI, and the government have caught on to these guys long before Seth shows up?  How have they managed to keep up this scam all this time?  Plot holes for sure, but the story does it's best to move along at a lightning pace past those holes.

The biggest challenge director Ben Younger has working against him is that his characters are basically the biggest assholes you've ever met.  They are arrogant, homophobic, loud for the sake of being loud, passive aggressive, maniacally greedy, violent, and they'd stab their mother in the back if it earned them some extra dollars.  I thought I was in trouble after the opening scene because with barely any introduction at all to these guys (all the brokers are male), I H-A-T-E-D them.  They are presented as the type of guys you wouldn't bat an eye at before kicking them in the crotch.  Thankfully, Younger offers at least a few glimpses of humanity in them, especially action star Vin Diesel as Chris, Seth's mentor but not his boss, proving once again he can act no matter how bad his movie selections of late have been.  Nia Long plays Abbie, a secretary at the firm who starts seeing Seth and gets caught up in something bigger than she ever figured.  Also look for Scott Caan as the ultimate type-A personality broker, the one you'd like to punch if you got a chance, and Ben Affleck as the firm's top recruiter who uses 'fuck' as a noun, adjective, verb and a lot more.

Through the good and the bad we see two main characters separate themselves from the pack, Ribisi's Seth and Katt's Greg.  Seth quickly realizes how good he is at basically lying to anyone and everyone, but even as he does it knows he's not exactly on the straight and narrow with his new career choice.  Ribisi is a phenomenal actor who I wish would do more mainstream roles, and his lead performance is the highlight of the movie.  At times vulnerable and others ultra-sensitive, he's the heart of the movie, and despite his flaws I found myself rooting for him, especially to mend the strained relationship with his father.  Greg on the other hand is basically evil incarnate.  He's well-dressed, charming, and looks like a gentleman but bubbling just below the surface is a seething, possibly lunatic of a man.  He's smooth in his badness, producing this great villain capable of violence and outbursts that catch everyone by surprise.

Then there's the ending, which works in terms of Seth's character and the identity he develops, but it left me feeling empty.  It's the right choice for the character, but that's about it.  SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS  You want to see the brokers get taken down at JT Marlin, especially Greg and Scott's boss man.  We never get to see that process though.  On to the original ending Younger intended for, wrapping up a subplot between Seth and one of his "accounts," a family man (Taylor Nichols) who ends up entrusting all his money to Seth in a money scam.  Like the ending in the movie as is, it doesn't show anything, leaving the viewer to wrap things up for themselves, but it works much better.  There's a touch of irony thrown in, and a strong element of shock and surprise, maybe more so because we don't see the end result.  I still liked the movie, but it could have been a notch higher if the original ending was left in untouched.

Boiler Room <---trailer (2000): ***/****

Flight of the Phoenix (2004)

Certain movies just don't need to remade, plain and simple. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't remade like the original The Flight of the Phoenix from 1965 starring James Stewart, Richard Attenborough and a really solid supporting cast. It's a minor classic in it's own right and a memorable story of survival in awful conditions. So fast forward almost 40 years, and what do you know, remake!

When it hit theaters in 2004, I was one of the few -- very few, the movie made just over $20 million and was out of theaters in two or three weeks -- who went and saw it. The trailer sucked me in, and it looked like a good old-fashioned adventure movie. Decent cast? Check. Desperate survivor story in exotic location? Double check. Gun-wielding desert nomads? Oh, yes, very much so. Maybe it made a difference, but I hadn't seen the 1965 original when I saw the remake, who knows, but the remake, 2004's Flight of the Phoenix, is definitely worth a watch.

Flying to a desolate oil drilling location in Mongolia, pilot Frank 'Shut it down' Towns (Dennis Quaid) and his co-pilot AJ (Tyrese Gibson) are supposed to pick up all crew and equipment with the well not producing enough results. On-site company rep Ian (Hugh Laurie) never told team leader Kelly (Miranda Otto) the news so the well being shut down is news to her and her crew. Towns takes off heading for home, but the cargo plane runs into a horrific sandstorm that causes him to crash-land hundreds of miles off course in the Gobi desert.

So with enough food and water to last a month if rationed correctly, Towns and the survivors decide to wait for rescue. But after days of no sign of help, one of the survivors, a mysterious man named Elliott (Giovanni Ribisi) who was an airplane designer back home, says they can build a new plane out of the wreckage and fly home, most importantly before their supplies run out. Unwilling at first, Frank decides to go along with the seemingly impossible plan. Can the survivors accomplish the impossible as supplies dwindle?

Where the original went more for the drama in this life-or-death situation, the remake went more for entertainment value. One example? While rebuilding the plane, the survivors dance to Outkast's 'Hey, Ya!' Water be damned! There is the obvious conflict as the group decides what to do, but one thing they can all agree on is that if Elliott wasn't so important, they'd string him up as quick as they could. Credit goes to Ribisi who steals the movie as the arrogant, egomaniacal Elliott as he goes toe-to-toe with Quaid's Towns in a power-struggle. If there was a villain in a story where everyone is supposedly working together, it would be Ribisi.

The biggest differences between the two movies are two additions, Miranda Otto's character (can't have an all-male cast) who is a good add to the cast, and the arrival halfway through the movie of a roving band of gun-wielding smugglers. The smugglers/nomads drop in and out of the story as necessary -- making a key appearance late in the movie -- and do provide the movie's coolest scene, a tension-filled confrontation as Ian, AJ and Rodney (Tony Curran, the tough Scottish roughneck, the coolest survivor) see if they can trade for supplies without knowing if the smugglers intend to you know, kill them. With Massive Attack's Angel providing the sountrack in the scene, it's a shadowy, eerie, beautifully shot scene.

With the script placing certain limitations on characters, the cast does the best they can with what's given. The original, based on a novel by Elleston Trevor, spent a lot of time developing Towns, his co-pilot and the crew. Quaid is as reliable as ever as Joe Everyman, the unwilling leader trying to keep everyone alive, as is Tyrese as his sidekick/co-pilot. Joining Otto and Laurie is Curran, rapper Kirk 'Sticky Fingaz' Jones, Jacob Vargas as the Mexican cook Sammi, Scott Michael Campbell as Liddle, the fella who just wants to see his family, and Kevork Malikyan as Rady, the wise Middle Easterner.

Comparing original to remake is tricky because it's the same basic premise, a pretty ingenious one if you ask me, that goes down a different road in the execution. The original keyed in on story, characters and conflict, and doing it all believably. The remake went more for some action, a few laughs here and there, and some cool if not well-developed characters. The surprising thing is, the original is a better movie, but the remake is more fun to watch.

Flight of the Phoenix <----trailer (2004): ***/****