"We're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing Nazis."

“Once upon a time in Nazi occupied France...”

So begins Quentin Tarantino’s latest opus, Inglourious Basterds. The film is a shining example of what continues to make Tarantino one of today’s most compelling directors: his near perfect ear for dialogue, the nuances of his characters and an ability to build tension that would make Hitchcock proud. Oh yeah, and a smattering of violence just to point out how obsessed our culture is with it.

As has always been the case, Tarantino is a director drunk with films and the history of cinema. Perhaps no other working director is as aware of the power of film to change history (which he takes full advantage of in Basterds), and history’s effects on film. Watch as he name checks Charlie Chaplin and some of the greats of German cinema in the same scene, or the way that the bulk of the kick-ass soundtrack is Ennio Morricone music. Tarantino is some kind of wonder DJ of a director, blending everything together into a perfect piece of celluloid.

Besides, there’s a rare joy that comes from hearing Tarantino’s dialogue in no less than four languages: French, English, Italian and German.

Basterds – which is broken up into five chapters – takes place over four years in Nazi occupied France. The title refers to a group of Jewish-Americans lead by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), a man who has some Apache blood flowing through his veins, and uses his ancestors' example as a way to disrupt and dishearten the German people. From all the men in his group he asks for one hundred Nazi scalps, each. “And I want my scalps,” he growls in a gritty Tennessee accent.

Playing against him – although the characters don’t meet until the climax of the film – is Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), better known as “The Jew Hunter.” Waltz is the Nazi’s head man when it comes to finding people, and a load of the film's tension comes when he encounters Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a French Jew whose family had Waltz had killed. Dreyfus runs a cinema in Paris, and when a smitten Nazi hero brings a bunch of the Nazi higher-ups – including the Furher himself – to her theatre for a movie premiere, her plan for revenge and the Basterds all converge.

Viewers will have to throw out what they know from high school history for the ending, but that’s okay. What’s going on is too entertaining – and more than just a little cathartic – to suspend disbelief. Tarantino choreographs the final gun-fight like a spaghetti-western on steroids, and it’s a beauty.

All the actors are in top form, but three deserve special mention. Pitt is comic gold, bringing a hilarious mix of dry wit, violence and Americanism to Raine. Watching him not at all hiding his thick southern accent as he speaks Italian will have your sides splitting.

Laurent is a wonder as Shosanna. The sheer fortitude she brings to her character is amazing, all the more so when she loses it for a moment after meeting Landa three years after her family’s murder. Her final speech – fittingly, it’s a small movie – is as a prime example of vengeance personified.

The real winner, however, is Waltz. He imbues Landa with a perverse charm and ability to disarm someone verbally without missing a beat in any language. Waltz is so good you almost find yourself rooting for him, which considering what he stands for, is saying something indeed.

At the film’s end, as Lt. Raine looks at a bit of his handiwork, he comments, “You know what? I think this might be my masterpiece.” Go see Inglourious Basterds, and you’ll feel the same way about Tarantino. There’s nothing inglourious about it.

"Welcome to A World Where Anything Is Possible"

For anybody who is concerned that Pixar is the only studio producing animated films that touch on anything other than cheap gags, Japanese master Hayao Miyazaki has brought another gem to the screen. Ponyo will pop your eyes with visual wonders, while cutting through the noise to touch you on a human level.

Miyazaki, the genius responsible for such treasures as Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, has always been a fan of pictures that feature a strong female protagonist (not unlike underrated TV man, Joss Whedon). So, in remaking what is already considered a classic, The Little Mermaid, Miyazaki adds more humour and a more defiant female lead. I’ll be crucified for this by some, but I’ll take his version over the Disney’s original any day.

In the movie, Ponyo (Noah Cyrus) is the daughter of an undersea wizard who is attempting to keep the ocean in balance with an acceleratingly destructive human world (another common Miyazaki theme). Before any images get conjured up, let me stop you right here: Ponyo isn’t any kind of luscious mermaid – instead, she’s a goldfish with a human-like face. When she is rescued on the seashore by a little boy named Sosuke (Frankie Jonas), they fall head over heels for each other. It’s the kind of sweet, child love that doesn’t really get portrayed much in movies anymore.

Just like in The Little Mermaid, Ponyo defies her father and uses magic to turn into a real girl, but is their love real? That’s the question that gets answered as the story unfolds.

As any Miyazaki fan knows, his plots are never that simple. There are subtexts galore here: ageism, environmentalism and strained family relations. Ponyo isn’t quite as geared for the older audiences as Spirited Away and Howl’s Moving Castle were, but it truly is a film that both old and young will be dazzled by.

Give Disney credit for doing a fantastic job dubbing the film, so it doesn’t distract from the images, and still gives depth to the characters. Actors Tina Fey, Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett and Liam Neeson all give strong performances without showboating.

Naturally, the real joy of Ponyo is the visuals. Miyazaki stands out in a crowd that is coming to rely so heavily on computer-animated work, and leans far more towards more “traditional” animation. But don’t let that fool you – there’s nothing old-school about the undersea world he creates, or the time-capsule worthy image of Ponyo running across living waves during a storm.

When the Oscars roll around, its up in the air between Up and Ponyo for Best Animated Picture, and I don’t know where I stand as of yet. All I know is that Ponyo is the perfect, shining way to close out the summer season.

As Ponyo becomes a real girl, she revels in the wonders all around here, never missing a thing that delights her. Go see Ponyo and you’ll know how she feels.

"I can't stay." "I know."

The Time Traveler’s Wife snuck up on me. The film - based on Audrey Niffenegger’s novel – takes its time grabbing you, and as I’ve read the book already, I knew how the film would end. So does the audience. So, it was quite to my surprise that, as the film neared its climax, I had a pit in my stomach. I knew what was happening it was affecting me on an emotional level. I bought it all: hook, line and sinker.

Colour me a hopeless romantic.

To be fair, The Time Traveler’s Wife could pretty fairly be labeled a “chick flick,” but that’s not a term I’m sure I really believe in. We’ll ignore the fact that this – like most “chick flicks” – was written and directed by men, and the fact that Brad Pitt (yes, that Brad Pitt) was an executive producer. Just because a film is a drama about love – something that both sexes go through – doesn’t mean that it’s something that should only appeal to women. For God’s sake, Casablanca may be the most famous “chick flick” of all, but if Bogie can pull it off with style and his manhood intact, I see no reason why modern men can’t enjoy these films as well. But I digress.

The plot of Traveler is easy to sum up, but confusing (at first, anyway) to jive with. It revolves around Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana), a man who has a neurological disease that causes him to randomly travel through time. The woman he loves, Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), he first met when he traveled back in time to when she was six years old, and they’ve been in love ever since. The story follows their life together, going through the many pitfalls that would accompany such a condition.

The joy in the film (and in the book) comes from watching it all play out. You experience life out of order, as Henry does, but it allows a unique perspective on the major events of life. As would be expected, it’s a tearjerker, so be prepared.

Bana shows yet another side of himself (see his flair for the hilarious in Funny People), dropping the tough-guy attitude he usually has for a man vibrantly in love with a woman, and how the very nature of who he is is breaking them down. McAdams, one of the sexiest and most talented actresses we have today, brings the money as she always does, acutely exhibiting the joy and heartache that Claire experiences trying to deal with Henry’s condition. They’re the third wonder couple of the summer’s film season, and watching them together touches on some kind of magic.

The pacing is a little slow, as I already said, but by the end, I wanted to see more of their life together, which gets a bit rushed in order to get to the ending. Most of the science transferred over from the book gets lost, and instead the movie’s focus is the relationships, which hurt the film a little, but not over much.

The Time Traveler’s Wife is basically what one would expect from a so-called “chick flick,” but hell, that’s okay with me. So they turn up the schmaltz. It works, and that’s what the audience wants anyway (the scene – clichéd as it may be – where Claire and Henry run through a field towards each other gave me goose bumps). Put your prejudices aside and let it carry you away.

"Comedy is for Funny People"

Judd Apatow is a lot like Quentin Tarantino was in the late 90’s; he has his hands on a lot of films (writing, producing, ec.) but he’s only directed two – now three – films. Audiences have come to expect a certain kind of comedy from Apatow's movies: funny and crass, but deeply rooted in the characters and about way more than cheap laughs.

In respect to all these expectations, Funny People is without a doubt, Apatow’s most mature film. Its fitting that the story is based on getting older, and what to do when you see the next generation coming up, when you’re still uncertain of what you want to do. Fittingly, the bulk of the movie’s cameos – another requirement from Apatow's films – are older entertainers. Warren Zevon and Jackson Browne both get name-checked - one movingly, the other hilariously -, and James Taylor has perhaps the funniest cameo in the whole movie.

The movie’s plot is centered around George Simmons (Adam Sandler) a former stand-up comedian, turned comedy actor who has lost himself in a slew of crappy family films and meaningless relationships. When he finds out that he has a form of leukemia, he starts to reassess his life. On the top of his mind is the quintessential “girl that got away,” Laura (Leslie Mann).

Into this world comes Ira Wright (Apatow regular, Seth Rogen), a hopeful comedian whose sense of humour catches George's attention one night in a comedy club, so much so that he hires Ira to be his assistant. The two have a great love of comedy, and a real friendship develops, even if George doesn’t want to admit it.

So, when George gets the news that he has miraculously beaten the disease, he has to decide what to do with the second chance he’s been offered. No fair spoiling the end, but its not what would be expected from this kind of comedy.

This all may sound a little too dramatic for an Apatow comedy, but Apatow is a director who knows how to blend humour and heartbreak together seamlessly. Even if the movie was a bit long, all the scenes go toward advancing who these two men are. You could call Funny People a “bromance” (which is a term that just drives me up the wall), but it really is about two men trying to find a way to do what they love in the world.

As always, the supporting cast is fantastic. Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman as Ira’s roommates are hilarious, but my favourite was Eric Bana, dropping all the action/drama gravitas he normally is saddled with, and going for outrageously funny as Laura’s Australian husband.

The main three actors are all at the top of their games. Mann (Apatow’s wife) has never been more lovely or vulnerable, skillfully creating a woman in the midst of a crossroads in her life. Rogen, who seems made to deliver Apatow’s brilliant lines, is as funny and charming as he’s ever been, while still conveying all the emotions of a green guy in the world of comedy.

The real money is Sandler, though. After doing a bunch of lackluster roles, Funny People is his best acting display since Punch Drunk Love. I’m not sure how much of his own life he plumed for the role of George, but he brings all kinds of loneliness, bitter humour and confusion to bear for this character. I know he won’t get any love when the award season roles around, but he knocks it out of the park here.

Funny People isn’t as laugh-out loud funny as The 40-Year-Old Virgin or Knocked Up, but it is a film that shows a writer/director coming to grips with age in an industry that usually tries desperately to avoid aging. For me, age looks good on Apatow.

"All My Memories from High School are from Tonight"

I Love You, Beth Cooper is a lot like high school. It starts out with promise, fizzles out into the same old thing in the middle, but manages to turn bittersweet by the end. Its certainly not going to become required high school experience watching (like The Breakfast Club) but its no Not Another Teen Movie, either.

The plot (based on the hilarious book by Larry Doyle, who penned the screenplay) is pretty simple – and familiar. Dennis Cooverman (Paul Rust) is the stereotypical geeky high school valedictorian, who has had a major jones for Beth Cooper (Heroes’ Hayden Panettiere, who I would love to see cast as someone who isn’t a cheerleader, because I think she may have some actual acting chops if she could ever show them), who is also the typical high school hottie – cheerleader, blonde and a stupid boyfriend.

Inspired by the advice of his best friend Rich (Jack Carpenter) and burdened with the knowledge he’s about to leave school behind, having never spoken to Beth, Dennis declares in his speech that he, well, loves Beth Cooper.

Embarrassed but flattered, Beth and her two token cheerleader friends actually show up to Dennis’ extremely lame graduation party, but a jealous boyfriend follows, which leads to a night of being chased around by punks, awkward sex jokes, and ultimately, the heart-warming affirmation that this geek is the one who is really ahead in life.

Like I said, same old story. The beginning, with its awkwardness, but positive affirmation about saying what you never could say actually has some promise, and if the movie had followed this line, it could have had a much larger impact. In the middle, however, it falls into the same jokes audiences have seen ad nauseam.

Surprisingly, even though the end is pretty predictable and has its share of clichés, when Rust and Panettiere finally get alone together and talk, and both take off the mantles of the roles they play in the high school hierarchy, there’s some genuine human connection. The two play earnest and confused well, and you actually understand why Dennis would fall for Beth.

The book – as is always the case when the book came first – is better than the movie, but its disappointing because since the author is overseeing the transfer, one would hope that he would be able to transfer more of the subtle humour and teenage angst that were so well done in his book.

I Love You, Beth Cooper, isn’t going to knock anybody out of the park, but if you can make it to the end, you might just see a tinge of wit and humanity. There are worse ways to end a picture.

"Its love, not Santa Claus"

Give it up for a cinematic love story that’s not afraid to explore all the nuances of love – both the joy and the heartache – using two believable, relatable characters. In an age of over-dramatized soap flicks or callous one-nighter movies, (500) Days of Summer is the sunlight breaking through the clouds.

The story owes a large debt to films like The Graduate (which gets name-checked several times in the film, in fantastic ways) than to the typical list of romantic comedies. Being a major romantic myself, it added another layer of enjoyment to the film that it’s the male lead who is the more lovesick. This doesn’t pop up as much in cinema as I would like, and whenever it does, it right away sets the film off from its peers.

Said male lead in Summer is Tom (one of today’s best working actors, Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who gets perhaps one of the greatest introductions on film in a while, from the movie’s narrator: “Tom Hansen of New Jersey, grew up believing he’d never truly be happy until the day he met the one. This belief stemmed from early exposure to sad British pop music and a total misread of the movie, The Graduate.” When Tom meets Summer (the enchanting Zooey Deschanel) at the office where he works writing greeting cards, be believes that day has come.

What follows is the story of their relationship, told Memento-style, jumping around chronologically, as they go from boy-meets-girl, down the familiar relationship path, with some major hitches in the road. The biggest being that Summer doesn’t believe in love, or in “being anyone’s anything.” Still, Tom breaks down her walls as their story progresses, but as the narrator warns, “this is not a love story. This is a story about love.”

You’ll have to watch the film to see what the actual difference is, and its no fair spoiling the ending, but what viewers get is a much more in-depth examination of all that goes along with being in love than most movies provide. There’s the brutality of going back in one’s mind in an attempt to find the moment things started to sour, the complete and utter difference between reality and expectations when one sees their ex again, and of course, the joys of first getting together. Audiences will be hard-pressed to find a movie that more accurately describes being in love.

Major props go out to director Marc Webb and writers Scott Neustadler and Michael H. Weber for crafting a film that allows visuals to take the place of dialogue in describing how a character feels – the dancing scene after Tom and Summer’s first night together is one of the purest expressions of joy on film of the summer.

Of course, the real power of the film is Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel, who join John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph from Away We Go, as two actors who bring everything to the table in their portrayals of being a couple. Deschanel is at her quirkiest and most charming, and she’s never looked lovelier. It’s a no-brainer why Tom falls for her from word one. Gordon-Levitt continues his streak of fantastic performances bringing all manner of wit and heartache to Tom. These two make you believe in their love, the way the classic movie couples did. The film feels less like something that was written, and more like videos of real life, their acting is so vibrant.

Summer is winding down and Autumn’s on the way, but there’s no better way to catch some of the last summer joy than (500) Days of Summer. Its one for the ages.

In Defense of Megan Fox

A major part of contemporary American culture is deconstructing people in the spotlight, whether they are politicians, musicians, actors or even those who are having their fifteen minutes of fame (i.e. Susan Boyle, Jon & Kate, ad infinitum). The list of reasons that we do this is undoubtedly as long and varied as the people who enjoy this pastime so much; there’s curiosity, animosity, jealousy, boredom and countless other reasons. What rarely ever happens is a regular person defending one of these people.

That’s what I am endeavoring to do with Megan Fox, because being in the spotlight as much as she has recently, the woman’s taken a lot of flack, and I’m not quite sure how much of it is deserved.

To get it right out of the way, I’m not going to lie and say that, as a heterosexual male, Megan Fox didn’t first come to my attention because of her looks. Of course she did. The way the first Transformers film was made, that was exactly the point, and let’s be honest: it worked. Myself and countless other males around the country were hooked from scene one. This fact makes me biased, of that I have no doubt, but this discussion could only be started by someone who is biased.

The first thing I’d like to address is the many people online and in the critical circles who claim that Fox is only “pretending to act,” and who completely disregard any acting abilities she has. Let’s be honest: she’s no Meryl Streep, yet. Yet is the key word of that phrase, because I’ve watched her films several times, and I see a definite potential for some serious acting chops. I think most of the basis for these condemnations come from the fact that she’s only been in big-budget summer films (with the exception of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People but there she was basically typecast as a exaggerated version of the person the press thinks she is) which, let’s face it, are hardly the kind of films that really hone actors’ skills. I think that once she gets offered some meatier roles – ones that aren’t just about spectacle – that people will see a different side to her. I’d love to see her in some kind of quirky comedy or drama, because I think she has the talent to do something real and visceral with these kinds of roles.

Of course, one must consider the fact that Fox enjoys the bigger movies better, and who’s to argue with that? If those are the films that she enjoys making, why should she be railroaded for it? “Big” movies like The Dark Knight and The Lord of the Rings have shown that just because a film has a big budget, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be powerful and moving, despite its massive scope. There’s no reason to discredit somebody’s abilities just because they don’t do an occasional indie film here or there. They just aren’t some people’s style.

All the criticism I hear about Fox’s acting – how shallow it is, and is based solely on her looks – calls to mind Marilyn Monroe. She too was considered less of an actor and more eye candy, something she battled her whole career. Yet looking back, who could have brought more humor to Some Like it Hot or heartbreak to The Misfits? Fox has only been in three movies so far – which is a fact that people seem to forget when they’re attacking her – so I would hardly say she’s had a decent chance to develop her skills as an actor yet. There’s some kind of grace period for an actor to really develop their skills that we just don’t allow anymore. Give her time, and the right roles, and I remain confident she’ll surprise a great many people.

The attacks on her personality in my mind are tied together with her image as a sex symbol, so I’ll examine these two things together. Our country is very confused when it comes to sexuality. We condemn those who are too expressive with their sensuality, while at the same time, making fun of those who are more introverted when it comes to that aspect. The fact that Fox is not only completely comfortable with her sexuality, but appears to embrace it and all the connotations – both positive and negative – that go along with it turns a lot of people off. Somebody that comfortable with themselves becomes intimidating to people who aren’t, but perhaps wish they could be. She gets the labeled as a man-eater, or as a stuck-up person just because she is aware of the fact that she is attractive, and goes along with it. It takes a huge amount of confidence to accept a label the way she has, and I’ve admired her from the start for her ability to do this so naturally. Yet in all the interviews, stories (from people who have spent real time with her, not just a minute) and discussions, she has always come across to me as a very confident, funny and sweet person. She has a very dry, sarcastic sense of humor, and as somebody who is the same way, if people aren’t used to that, it can really alienate or offend them until they get it.

Hollywood and our culture on the whole have a nasty habit of making beautiful women out to either be mean or stupid, something that has been a part of our male-dominated society for ages. That’s why they broadcast during those pre-movie trivia games – like its some kind of shocking news – that Natalie Portman went to Harvard, or that its such a big deal that Emma Watson would rather go to university than act. Megan Fox is just one of countless actresses who gets pegged with this prejudice.

You can throw that whole “boy with the rose,” thing out there – which anyone will admit was an honest mistake (some of these people should try having their picture taken 100 times in two minutes and see how much they are able to notice) – but she handled it very well, apologizing right off and hoping that she could maybe find the boy and apologize personally. That maybe doesn’t fit with how some people view her, since she’s evidentially so conceited, but I see the situation as a glimpse of how she really is, not how people want her to be.

I won’t apologize for being a Megan Fox fan any more than I would apologize for being an Audrey Hepburn fan. I hope eventually people stop talking about what she can’t do, and everyone gives her a chance to show us what she can.

"You Won't Have This Much Fun Again Until You Discover Oral Pleasure!"

For anyone tired of all the big-budget blockbusters of the summer, Away We Go will be a breath of cool air. Who knew that Maya Rudolph (from SNL) and John Krasinksi (from The Office) could take this little idea of a movie and turn it into a comic gem in the style of The Graduate and Garden State?

This is the pop-indie movie people have been waiting for all summer (this and (500) Days of Summer) and boy, does it deliver on all fronts. You’ll leave the theatre smiling, just to turn around and watch it again.

The plot of Away We Go is pretty simple. Verona (Rudolph) and Burt (Krasinksi) - an un-married couple, by Verona's choice - decide they need to find a new place to raise their coming baby, and go on a kind of cross country journey in search for the perfect place.

They make stops in cities where they have family or friends, starting in Phoenix, then on to Madison, Montreal and Miami. The characters that populate each place are in turns hilarious, odd, and heart-breaking, but always well-developed, and appropriately human.

All these secondary characters are brought to life by first-rate acting, but the two winners have to be Maggie Gyllenhaal as LN- a Madison professor who has taken family life to a frightening level – and The West Wing’s Allison Janney, (who makes every picture she’s in better) Verona’s old colleague Lily, who is as vulgar and crass as she is hysterical.

Let’s be honest though; this is Rudolph and Krasinski’s picture. They make you believe in their quirky love the way Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill did in City Lights, the way Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck did in Roman Holiday and the way Zach Braff and Natalie Portman did in Garden State.

Rudolph is all kinds of sweet, sarcastic and sexy, totally underplaying a character that could have easily been destroyed by too much talk, too many tears…just too much. Watching her face as she battles her emotions shows the viewer exactly what she is experiencing.

I can only use superlatives for Krasinksi’s performance. He is flat-out fantastic in a role that calls for odd-ball humor, tender emotion and everything in between. This is the nail in the coffin for the handful of women out there who haven’t already fallen for Krasinski on The Office. The way he blends his trademark wit and humor with feeling and melancholy (and always managing to make it either hysterical or touching, as the situation calls for) is a wonder. Oscar take note – this is the kind of performance those little gold statues were made for.

Of course, three cheers go to real-life married couple Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida for their wonderfully written screenplay and Sam Mendes for his compassionate direction. Eggers and Vida deserve an Oscar nod for Original Screenplay, as well.

And props for tapping folk singer/songwriter Alexi Murdoch for the film’s main musical voice. He got left behind after The O.C. crowd forgot about him, but this should bring him to the wider audience he deserves.

Before they decide to go on their trip, Verona asks Burt if he thinks they’re fuck-ups. He replies in the negative, but she remains unconvinced. As the magic of Away We Go proves, the answer is an unequivocal “hell no.”

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

Everything about Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is the very definition of “sequel” in the strictest sense of the word. There’s nothing particularly inventive in this sequel: it’s basically the same plot, the same characters, the same themes – only bigger, louder and longer.

Now, the most important question is, does that matter? If you’re someone who is looking just for entertainment for entertaiment’s sake, or if you’re an intelligent viewer who has the capability to turn their brain off for several hours and just immerse yourself in some eye-popping visuals, than this is summer blockbuster manna.

Like previously stated, the gang from 2007’s hit are all back. This time Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is about to start college, two years after the Autobots (the good robots) first landed on earth. He’s excited about starting a new stage in his life, one that’s normal and alien-robot free. Mikaela (Megan Fox) is majorly in love with Sam – as he is with her - though the main conflict between the two of them throughout the film is that neither of them can actually bring themselves to say the “l word.”

As he’s packing up to go, a sliver of the All-Spark from the first film, catches Sam’s eye, and makes a major imprint on his brain, causing him to see the Cybertron’s language everywhere. It turns out the symbols he sees are a map that both the Decepticons and Autobots need to find a source of energy that will take the earth’s sun for it’s energy.

So, the race is on to find where this source is before a resurrected Megatron and a whole list of new baddies can locate it.

Like I said, same plot, just bigger. Way bigger; the movie clocks in at right around two-and-a-half hours, when it could have easily been far shorter.

The acting is nothing spectacular. LeBeouf is hilarious in those awkward moments he always seems to find himself in, and there’s momentary glimmers of some real leadership power, but it gets buried under an avalanche of clichés. Fox is as gorgeous as ever, but she gets stuck playing the role of girlfriend/piece of luggage. Despite these facts, the two have genuine chemistry and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I thoroughly enjoyed their scenes together. There’s a genuine wit and sexiness present there and I blame their performances on the lack of material and characters written in such a one-dimensional way, that there’s not much they can do with it.

Of course, the real reason most will be going to this is for the action sequences, and those don’t disappoint. Just like in the previous film, the sound and visuals of the Transformers as they do their thing will pop your eyes. If only the scenes didn’t get bogged down so much with lame new “comedic” characters, they’d flow a lot better.

For all of this, I found myself enjoying Transformers 2. I guess I have the ability to turn my brain off and just float along with the movie. If that’s your idea of a good flick, or if you want to seem some major visuals, this is the movie for you.

A New Twist on an old Con

Listen up, all you yegs: Rian Johnson, the writer/director who brought film noir back into style with 2005’s Brick is back, this time adding his magic touch to the con film. If Brick was his Maltese Falcon, than The Brothers Bloom is his The Sting.

Johnson has a knack for snappy dialogue and wonderful characterization, and is an extremely literal director, a phrase that here means he’s obsessed with storytelling. There’s a touch of Wes Anderson’s style is Johnson’s second picture, but the sheer cinematic joy is all his. Besides, there’s something to be said for a film whose two main characters’ names are Stephen and Bloom, the centerpieces of James Joyce’s Ulysses.

The best thing about The Brothers Bloom is the characters; no doubt about it. The plot is a fantastic ride of twists and turns, but it’s the actors and the unique characters they play that are the real money in this con caper.

Mad props to Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody as Stephen and Bloom, respectively, for bringing devilish wit and humanity to the titular characters. Stephen is all action and smarts, an author of “dead Russian writer” proportions who uses real life to spin his stories into cons. Bloom just follows his brother’s lead, immersing himself in whatever character his brother has written for him, which leaves him feeling like a man without a life.

That is, until Stephen sets his sights on Penelope (Rachel Weisz) – a rich orphan who collects hobbies in her massive New Jersey mansion – as their final con, setting into play a rich tapestry of events culminating in a conclusion at once witty, shocking and heartbreaking. That’s all I’ll give as far as the plot goes – it’s a ride one has to go on for themselves.

The leading ladies are the real thieves in this one, stealing practically every scene they’re in. Weisz is a sweet, sexy wonder full of mischief and childlike excitement that leaps right off the screen as has you jumping up and down for joy. The scene where she describes how best to not get cheated will performing a series of elaborate card tricks will knock you down flat.

Save an explosion of applause for Rinko Kikuchi, who plays a nearly silent Japenese wonder criminal named Bang Bang. Kikuchi already proved she could act in Babel, but her comic turn here, which is at times as melancholy as it is erotic, better land her some more starring roles, pronto. She’s the spice that makes Bloom really sizzle.

For a break from all the summer blockbusters, The Brothers Bloom is just the ticket. It’s like running through the sprinklers after days of going to the pool: fun, fast and full of moving life. What else is summer all about?

"What's That in the Sky?"

Not only is Pixar’s latest film, Up, a magnificent piece of art, but the title lends itself to all manner of fantastic puns that describing soaring, flying, and the sky’s the limit. Fortunately for the viewer – and unfortunately for the reviewer – these turns of phrase don’t do the film justice by a long shot. It wasn’t quite as good as Wall-E for me (blame that on being a sucker for romance) but it comes within a hair’s breadth of matching it.

In the hands of any other studio, a film about an old man – Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) – who ties a bunch of balloons to his house so he can float down to South American to fulfill a promise to his dead wife, could have easily turned into a farce or just plain schmaltz. In this studio’s able hands, it instead becomes the wonder film of the summer. No other picture will dazzle your senses, pop out your eyes visually and still manage to be uproariously funny and moving at the same time.

The plot is pretty simple, as stated above. I should mention that Carl picks up a passenger on his journey, one pudgy wilderness-camper named Russell, who provides much of the film’s more obvious humour. Add in a delightfully adorable talking dog named Dug, and you’ve got a live one on your hands. There are plenty of laughs and thrills to delight both children and adults – and how many so-called “family films” can actually achieve that?

The real power of Up is its focus on the realities of life. Pixar’s films have never talked down to kids, and have often handed down pretty heavy subjects to those in the single-digits. In that regard, Up may be Pixar’s darkest film to date (the opening of the film – a dialoguess story of a married couple’s life - is one for the time capsule, despite its darkness), but by showing viewers that life can be cold and hard sometimes, the filmmakers only increase the power of the love and life that carries the movie along. This isn’t just film making for children – it’s a movie for people, in the grandest tradition of the term.

In a summer full of movies that promise wonders galore (Terminator, Harry Potter, Transformers), Up is the real wonder; a film that never lets its magic get in the way of the human story. Tie a balloon to it and let it fly you away.

The Edge of Love Review

Let’s get one thing straight: Keira Knightley has it all. She’s a damn fine actress, she’s got the pretty in spades, she can sing and she can quite literally light up the screen – as she does in the opening scene of her latest film, The Edge of Love, based on the life of Dylan Thomas. I submit that if Scarlett Johansson is this generation’s more intellectual Marilyn Monroe, than Knightley is our more sensual Audrey Hepburn (if you think that’s crazy, consider that Kinghtley is slated to play the lead in a new version of My Fair Lady). Just like Hepburn, even if the material isn’t all it should be, she still manages to shine.

Alas, sub-par material is the case in Edge. Being billed as the “next Atonement” – it isn’t – is setting the bar pretty high, and the movie doesn’t quite make it. I place less blame on the actors - Sienna Miller, Cillian Murphy and Matthew Rhys – and more on the writer and director.

The main hang-up is that the movie never gets a strong foothold on what the story is, which causes the same problem for the audience. I felt like the director John Maybury couldn’t quite decide if he wanted to tell the story of Welsh poet Thomas, or the women who loved him, and so instead he tried to do both, without pulling either off. The film felt directionless and meandering, which is okay when you have such pretty images to look at – not just the actors, but the beautiful cinematography – but it holds a movie back from having any lasting impact. Personally, I was more interested in the women who loved him than Thomas himself (that may be because I don’t know much about him, and the fact that out four, Rhys’ performance was the most lackluster), but just picking a story to tell and running with it would have grounded the movie. Its like they were trying to make a more serious Shakespeare in Love, but couldn’t decide on what to focus on – the man or the love.

As for the acting, there was a lot that was glossed over, or just not conveyed. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what would make Rhys’ callous, uncharming Thomas so irresistible to Miller’s Caitlin and Knightley’s Vera. It couldn’t have just been that he was a poet, but I never saw what it was. Miller’s acting was fine as Thomas’ lose canon of a wife, but a glimpse into her more vulnerable side would have done a lot in the way of creating empathy. Despite the shady character build up, I was still surprised by Thomas’ sudden turn into utter douche-baggery near the film’s end, which seemed to me out of left field.

Murphy as William, a WWII “hero” does an admirable job, even if it’s odd seeing him in a not so creepy role, and he and Knightley play well together, but there wasn’t enough of them to really sell it for me. Blame that on the film’s lack of focus.

To be honest, though, this is totally Knightley’s show, and while the performance certainly isn’t flawless (her Welsh accent comes and goes and we never see the moment where she really falls for Williams) she’s got the fire that keeps the film burning, even if it’s a slow burn.

Just like falling in love, its not enough to just go to the edge, but you have to commit and jump. The Edge of Love does just what it says: gets to the edge, but can’t quite make that final leap.