Terrence Malick can’t count himself among the most popular directors working today, but he can certainly count himself among the most respected. His work tends to follow suit, and “The Tree of Life” is no exception. This meditation on life, death, God and the origin of the universe can be described as nothing short of visually masterful, but as well as Malick commands everything within his frame, he has a lot of trouble commanding his audience’s attention span.

Not that he cares — or should. Malick is cinema’s finest poet, and poetry has always been an art form belonging to the artist. We are not meant to understand “The Tree of Life,” but to be affected by it, struck by it in some way. The general public won’t take kindly to this, but anyone with an eye for expert filmmaking has to tip the hat to Malick’s latest.

“The Tree of Life” tells a non-linear story using a series of short visual sequences. Jack (Hunter McCracken as a boy, Sean Penn as a man) grew up in Texas in the ‘50s to a kind and spirited mother (Jessica Chastain) and a tough-love father (Brad Pitt). Although we know Jack loses his brother at the age of 19, this has little bearing on the rest of the plot, though it complicates older Jack’s perspective and informs the rest of our experience with the film. We then see the universe in action (including dinosaurs), followed by Jack’s life growing up.

The film ultimately becomes about Jack forgiving his father for making him “choose” between his parents, for the psychological damage done to him because of his father’s strict rules and rough life lessons. We see this in scenes best described as fleeting memories accompanied by voiceovers of the characters’ one-sided conversations with God.

As we all do in less cinematic ways, Malick wrestles here with faith and with our place in the world as individuals. Rarely, however, does he manage to make a concise point about any of this. Also, the film’s emotional impact comes only from the way we see Pitt’s character treat his children and how it damages Jack. There’s a disconnect then between what the film is about and how it leaves its deepest impression.

Pitt and Chastain give excellent performances despite the fact that “Tree of Life” is not a film about performances, at least not in the traditional sense. As much as they must be able to act, they must also be able to soak up the camera and bask in the expert lighting. That’s what it takes to be in a Malick film. McCracken also impresses considering how little he’s given to say.

Not enough can be said about the beauty of this film. Malick’s camera takes on a life of its own, moving fluidly throughout scenes and only pausing to capture something remarkable, usually with regards to light. Surely if he devoted these skills to more traditional storytelling he’d be among the most celebrated filmmakers alive.

It’s easy to dismiss “The Tree of Life” as pretentious. Unquestionably we expect certain things from film that we don’t expect from poetry; we value accessibility in our moviegoing experiences and “The Tree of Life” offers little of that. At the same time, it has valuable things to say and does so with a visual power rivaled by little else.

3.5/5 Stars

The Tree of Life
Written and Directed by Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Sean Penn

Global pandemics make for captivating science-fiction fodder — especially when the infected turn into raging zombies — but let’s say it was a tad more realistic. Let’s say that H1N1 had been as bad as we were prepared for and people were dying left and right. “Contagion” imagines that scenario through the extensive research of writer Scott Z. Burns, while director Steven Soderbergh shows us in grim fashion what it would look like if it all went down.

“Contagion” plays predominantly as a procedural, though to its credit, it’s not devoid of heart or humanity. The entertainment and strength of the film, however, come from the rhythm and pacing. The story jumps to and from various perspectives in the outbreak from the family of the virus’ first victim trying to weather the storm (Matt Damon and Anna Jacoby-Herron) to the folks at the CDC (Kate Winslet and Laurence Fishburne) calling the shots and trying to assess the scale of the outbreak. There’s also an influential blogger (Jude Law), an epidemiologist (Marion Cotillard) and a scientist researching a cure (Jennifer Ehle). To a significant extent, the film relies on its audience’s natural curiosity as to how this epidemic scenario would play out in real life, particularly behind the scenes.

Those who could care less probably will, and “Contagion” will seem rather purposeless. The many side plots offer some unique insights into how we might react in such a situation and put a face and a soul to everything, but admittedly the only thing the film builds toward is whether or not a cure can be found in time to avoid decimation of the human race. And if that were to be the scripted ending, well that would probably dampen the mood a bit.

Pacing is everything in “Contagion.” Soderbergh gets things going right out of the gate, but after the first hour the side plots start to build up and cause it to drag; a fair trade off if you ask me, seeing as if the film got any more scientific it could’ve been a documentary.

In addition to ample movement, Soderbergh lays on the germophobia. Anyone with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder will be set back a few years in therapy after this one. Just wash your hands people. Seriously. The moral of this story doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Nobody puts together a cast quite like Soderbergh. From “Traffic” to “Ocean’s Eleven,” his films have never lacked for names. Although it’s hard to say how necessary they were for a film primarily interested in dazzling the intellect, “Contagion” possesses a greater sense of gravitas as a result. Certainly having big names playing the brains at the top helps you to take them seriously, especially Kate Winslet, who gives the film’s best performance as a person from the CDC charged with figuring out how the disease spread and how it might be contained.

The centerpiece of the film, however, is without a doubt Burns’ meticulous script and Soderbergh’s ability to turn it into a grounded story with strong characters. This writer/director relationship proved fruitful in 2009′s “The Informant!” and delivers again here. Soderbergh has always done great work tackling films that involve substantive editing to make sense and flow properly and they almost always do, this film included. Cliff Martinez, who scored Soderbergh’s first feature, “Sex, Lies and Videotape,” and has worked with him numerous times since, provides that effective modern synth score that does wonders for ratcheting up tension.

What will go most under-appreciated about “Contagion” is the way it reveals the selfish nature of our survival instinct, yet without scolding it. Every surviving character does something in his or her self interest, yet somehow they all play a role in trying to achieve the end goal of global immunization. It’s a nice touch to add the message that just because we tend to look out for number one doesn’t mean we can’t progress together or help other people too.

“Contagion” isn’t the paragon of modern thrillers, but it keeps a firm grip on the audience’s attention. If nothing else, if the Department of Health and Human Services ever needs it, it’s a heck of a film to stir the general public into being more mindful about the spread of disease.

4/5 Stars

Contagion
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Written by Scott Z. Burns
Starring: Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Kate Winslet

Actor-turned-director Thomas McCarthy came off as a natural in his first two features as a director: 2003’s “The Station Agent” and 2007’s “The Visitor.” That put a fat old earmark on latest effort “Win Win.”

All three films demonstrate an understanding of human motivation and how more often than not, things do not turn out as we plan. The conflicts in his films are extraordinary in the most down-to-earth sense of the word: unusual people and unusual circumstance can enter our lives at a moment’s notice and through handling that hardship we become better people.

“Win Win” encompasses all of these notions and into a tighter, even more Hollywood-like package than McCarthy’s previous films. Paul Giamatti stars as Mike Flaherty, an attorney whose practice is struggling, so he spends late afternoons coaching a high school wrestling team. When he learns of a way he can earn money by claiming guardianship of one of his clients with dementia and placing him in an assisted living facility, he pulls the trigger despite knowing the old man (Burt Young) would prefer to live on his own.

The decision proves a real win-win — until teenager Kyle (Alex Shaffer) enters the picture. Kyle hitched a ride from Columbus to New Jersey to stay with the old man, his grandfather, after his mother (Melanie Lynskey) checked into drug rehab. Mike and his wife, Jackie (Amy Ryan), take Kyle in because seeing as he can’t live at the assisted living facility or alone in his grandfather’s house. Kyle, as it turns out, was also a top wrestler in the state of Ohio, and he joins the team.

Mike finds a way to make it so that once again, everyone wins, but then Kyle’s mom shows up and throws it all into turmoil, putting Mike in a bind and bringing out Kyle’s angry side.

Giamatti does some of his best work as Mike. Giamatti is most often drawn to playing unlikable characters or ones with glaring flaws and while Mike fits that bill, it’s much more understated. Mike bends the rules in one instance, an instance upon which everything that happens next is built. Of course after it all piles up, McCarthy pulls the plug and Mike’s true character is tested.

So “Win Win” doesn’t offer any surprises or truly unique insights into morality. Instead, it plays out one of the many kinds of universal human dilemmas that people face every day. Then it reminds us how we should treat others and rectify situations in which we’ve done wrong. McCarthy is just being honest with us, and the drama and the acting reflect that.

In terms of the wrestling element, one could see it as metaphor for perseverance, but its primary function in the film is to give characters Mike and Kyle an outlet. It helps Mike deal with stress and it allows Kyle to channel his hardships in a healthy way. It didn’t have to be wrestling, but wrestling was really the perfect choice.

“Win Win” feels like a film true to its title. It can get a bit slow, but it would be unfair to refer to its pseudo-remarkable nature as “being too realistic.” It strikes a nice balance of conflict, enough to stay engaging yet certainly nothing over the top or melodramatic. Considering the number of films that tip the scales one way or another in that regard, “Win Win” deserves acclaim simply for being neutral.

4/5 Stars

Win Win
Written and Directed by Thomas McCarthy
Starring: Paul Giamatti, Amy Ryan, Alex Shaffer, Melanie Lynskey

Paul Rudd gets a lot of love from moviegoers, just not enough love. It’s not a wayward assessment to say that other than (arguably) Steve Carell, Rudd is the best actor doing comedy right now, in the sense that he could do so much, but he sticks to the joyful life of comedy. Thankfully he’s darn good at it.

Rudd plays the comedy everyman (“Role Models,” “I Love You, Man,” “Dinner for Schmucks”) as good if not better than anybody in today’s comedies, yet no one’s surprised when he takes a role like that of Ned in “Our Idiot Brother” and hits a home run with it. That’s because he’s always taking risks and offering something different when he’s not the lead. “Our Idiot Brother” gives us the best of both Rudd-worlds.

Jesse Peretz’s film also exists in an uncomfortable middle ground between modern comedy and indie family dramedy, which would explain why it has been met with mixed criticism. It succeeds mostly when looked at as a simple comedy with honest truths and strong performances.

Ned is a pretty complex idiot. Peretz built the character and Rudd builds his performance around his “benefit of the doubt” world view, and it makes Ned different from that dumb character you’ve seen before, though certainly pieces of his personality will feel familiar. His dumbness is quite believable, which says a lot considering the film opens with him selling pot to a uniformed police officer. Perhaps the difference is that he doesn’t sell right away, he gives it to him, but the officer can’t make the arrest unless he sells it, yet he manages to convince him to ask for money in return. Whole other idiocy ball game.

The comedy has a fairytale structure as Ned must rotate between living with his three sisters: Miranda (Elizabeth Banks) the strong-willed independent journalist, Natalie (Zooey Deschanel) the spontaneous lesbian stand-up comic and Liz (Emily Mortimer) the hardened mother of two with an emotionally unavailable husband (Steve Coogan). With a reluctant sense of obligation, they all give him things to do and of course a place to sleep.

So it goes that Ned finds a way of making their lives more difficult either through ignorance or some other means and they harshly overreact and blame Ned because they’re all kind of selfish. You can see it all unfolding, but Rudd has such charisma and these actresses are no slouches. Deschanel and Rashida Jones might not make the most convincing lesbians, but the film never falls apart thanks to poor characters. Without them, it would be hard to look past the obvious conventions, but they and the general high jinks Ned finds himself in keep you smiling.

There’s a definite comfort in this family redemption story no matter how many times you see it. What makes “Our Idiot Brother” different is that character fullness. Instead of writing in one-liner jokes, Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall focus more on humorous situations. Although not wildly original, the actors step in and give them that fun genuineness that makes you want to see things roll out how they do, even if you know exactly how it’ll happen.

The optimism Ned preaches guides the rest of it from there. The scenarios feel less contrived and more like sincere approaches to the question of how someone who’s so honest and looking to appease yet so ignorant of consequences would cause himself problems. His sisters’ reactions might be overblown, but the conclusion ends up quite sweet. Those who don’t corner the film into comedy or indie comedy/drama will find it hard not to be won over by this film and especially Mr. Rudd.

3.5/5 Stars

Our Idiot Brother
Directed by Jesse Peretz
Written by Jesse Peretz, Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall
Starring: Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer

Our ultimate expectations of a romance film are hypocritical. On one hand, we expect a grounded film: real people in real relationships with real feelings doing not necessarily sane but at least rational things in the name of love. On the other hand, we relish in fairytale depictions of love and the idea that true love finds a way and other poetic notions such as soul mates. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” fights this battle longer and to more extreme degrees than anything before it. Those with the fairytale soft-spot will take to it instantly, but even those who tip their scales in favor of believable romance will find something that resonates.

Heartfelt and natural performances from a range of excellent actors yanks this out of the rom-com nebula and into something seemingly more tangible. With talents lesser than Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, this would not only be a rom-com, but also the flamboyant marshall of the rom-com parade. Although powerless against the cliché moments and improbable romantic gestures of Dan Fogelman’s script, they add incredible emotional realism to his smaller, more intimate moments.

Carell stars as Cal Weaver who in the opening seconds learns that his wife, Emily (Moore), wants a divorce. After throwing himself from their car when learning she had an affair with David Linhagen (Kevin Bacon), he goes home and prematurely squeals the news to his babysitter, high schooler Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), who happens to have a crush on him. His 13-year-old son, Robbie (Jonah Bobo), also overhears — and he’s got a crush on Jessica.

Once again, with generic rom-com mainstays in place, bringing a sense of realism to this convenient and nearly farcical romantic chaos would’ve been almost impossible. Carell has his character on lockdown, blending his “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Dan in Real Life” characters into an earnest yet loony portrait of a middle-aged man learning to float after his lifelong stability gives out on him. Moore deftly navigates the territory of a woman in midlife crisis who’s emotionally unsatisfied but completely unsure how to handle it. In contrast, Robbie is so completely far from a typical 13-year-old boy it’s insulting. If his relentless pursuit of Jessica ever finally clicks in any form of the word, it’s not until the very end and the fact that it basically works at that point is nothing short of magic.

Then there’s Jacob (Gosling), the handsome (I’m underselling him) womanizer who takes a dejected Carell under his wing and teaches him the ways (“Karate Kid” references abounding) of the bar pick up. He’s such a smooth natural in his role he could pick up someone watching this movie despite their knowledge of being played. Jacob’s backstory (why he’s at this bar every night picking up women) ends up a casualty, which was really a big mistake, but Gosling has such a strong way with transparency that we believe all Jacob says or does. There’s no doubt that he actually feels something for Hannah (Stone), even if it materializes way faster than it should.

Quickness and exaggeration are two of the chief factors of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” that threaten to derail it in the eyes of those looking for grounding to their romance. Cal’s gut reaction to his wife’s divorce request, not trying to rectify the situation instead of bailing for the bar, seems hasty. After learning well from Jacob and becoming a ladies’ man himself, his attempts to get Emily back don’t gel, perhaps because they come at the ushering of his unrealistic 13-year-old son. Especially when the film reaches it’s big revealing climax, the rash reactions and failures to communicate get really frustrating.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” dashes willy-nilly between moments of emotional realism and romantic exaggeration and realistic humor and comedic exaggeration, enough to make your head spin. After all, this was directed by Glen Ficarra and John Requa, the team behind “Bad Santa” and “I Love You, Phillip Morris,” both of which go extreme and dark places for laughs yet try to stay human.

So how does it all — for the most part — ever manage to unscramble? The performances are truly the key, but the film’s success comes down these intimate, down-to-earth moments throughout, like when Emily calls Cal without knowing he can see her from the backyard. These quieter moments give the actors a chance to shine and Fogelman’s dialog has some real bright spots too. These moments help build support for the characters, a support and general liking that mostly doesn’t tear apart throughout the absurd and unrealistic moments. It’s a completely wild ride between two drastically different approaches to romance, but considering that all the contrast and paradox only bolsters the title “Crazy, Stupid, Love,” it has to be considered a success.

3.5/5 Stars

Crazy, Stupid, Love
Directed by Glen Ficarra and John Requa
Written by Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

She might have been a rom-com darling for most of her career, but there’s no mistaking now that Cameron Diaz is a natural bad girl. Sure, part of it might have to do with survival of the fittest; raunchy R-rated comedies are the new cool kid in class and those who can’t play that game will find themselves jobless. But Diaz might have even upped her stock with her performance in “Bad Teacher,” a movie that’s unapologetically crude if not to the fault of absurdity. Nevertheless, foul-mouthed middle school teacher Elizabeth Halsey makes for an amusing character study (no worries, you can skate by on the cliff notes).

Writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky have essentially taken the laundry list of what qualities constitute a good teacher and ensured that Elizabeth embodies or does the opposite. To top it off (no pun intended), her motivation throughout the entire film is to raise enough money to afford breast implants, or as her character would be more apt to say, “a new pair of tits,” so that she might be able to woo the attractive and wealthy new substitute (Justin Timberlake).

Entire films have been built from shallower foundations, but for those bothered by issues of plausibility, “Bad Teacher” will be offensive in more ways than the many it already intended. How someone of Elizabeth’s nature ever got a teaching position in the first place will be the one question that crosses the mind of every viewer at some point during the film. Once you get past that whole in logic, it becomes easier to appreciate the way “Bad Teacher” allows us a chance to imagine what the world’s worst teacher would be like.

Elizabeth is about to finish her first (and only) year at John Adams Middle School somewhere in Illinois and wed the “man of her dreams” only he and his mother are on to the fact that she only wants him for the money. Her plan having failed, she returns to “JAMS” as a means of keeping herself (and her poor lifestyle) afloat. Her return reignites the gym teacher’s (Jason Segel) advances and a rivalry with her polar opposite, the spunky learning-lover Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch). Other than Diaz, Punch is the only one who seems aware of how absurd the film is and consequently she pushes it further with her delightfully quirky performance.

The depths to which both Elizabeth and Amy will stoop to get what they want or ruin the other have no limit. Their schemes are cleverly concocted, though they’re along the lines of your typical high jinks. Putting aside that their entire story relies on an unusually large suspension of disbelief, Eisenberg and Stupnitsky show a knack for writing easily digested crowd-pleasers. The array of other supporting characters could be described as either run-of-the-mill or perfectly adequate. Timberlake makes few waves as a socially oblivious dork who as it turns out has a passion for dry-humping and John Michael Higgins delivers exactly what’s expected of him: acting like John Michael Higgins. Phyllis Smith brings her “The Office” character over to this film with a measure of success, but only those unfamiliar with her will be impressed.

The small ounce of a “good message” comes with a slight lowering of Elizabeth’s superficial expectations after her grand plan unfurls. The natural thought here would be to completely ignore any sort of moral responsibility to end on a warm and fuzzy note considering all previous material dismisses it anyway. Yet some sort of Hollywood obligation must have nagged for awhile. Forget Elizabeth, the fact that Segel’s character Russell would want anything to do with her beginning, middle or end of the film says a lot (though quite little) about his character.

The R-rated comedy trend continues to thrive with “Bad Teacher,” though for better or worse it’s hard to say. Calling it a guilty pleasure comedy might be the most apt description, as even those who really enjoy it will admit just where it falls on the preposterous spectrum. Considering many previous Cameron Diaz vehicles have fallen into the guilty pleasure category too, maybe the actress has been in her comfort zone all along.

3/5 Stars

Bad Teacher
Directed by Jake Kasdan
Written Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Lucy Punch, Jason Segel, Justin Timberlake

The Pixar library stands as modern animation’s most impressive by far, partly due to both the studio and Disney’s belief that sequels should only be made with the right artistic reasons in mind, namely a good story. That’s why, to date, we have just “Toy Story 2,” “Toy Story 3″ and … “Cars 2″ … ? 

The original “Cars” has largely been considered the worst of the Pixar movies, in the same way that Pluto might be considered the worst of the nine planets. So why create a sequel? The answer that’s hard to hear is that “Cars” has done incredible merchandising business compared to the other Pixar films. The less cynical answer would be that its director, Pixar head honcho and young boy at heart John Lasseter, loves the “Cars” universe — a lot. “Cars 2″ plays out as a fantasy for a 6 to 10-year-old boy, one that cares much more about sheen than story, despite Pixar consistently championing that phrase the other way around.

In fairness, “Cars 2″ does everything a sequel should in terms of widening the scope, upping the action and improving the overall visuals. Pixar set the bar for technical mastery in digital animation and every animator and member of the production team meets that standard if not exceeds it. It’s the story under the hood that struggles, choosing fun as its main objective as opposed to heart.

And “Cars 2″ has fun by the tankful. Lasseter, Brad Lewis and Dan Fogelman’s story takes the “Cars” universe and throws “James Bond” into it, a cocktail most definitely shaken and not stirred. The film introduces British secret agent cars Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) who are trying to find out what the dastardly Professor Z (Thomas Kretschmann) is up to at the World Grand Prix, a new race sponsored by Sir Miles Axelrod (Eddie Izzard), an adventurer who is now promoting his new alternative fuel source.

Meanwhile, Lightning McQueen has been busy racing and winning championships when he finally returns to his old pal Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) in Radiator Springs. It’s a short vacation, however, as Formula 1 race car Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro) has challenged McQueen to the World Grand Prix. He accepts and brings Mater to Tokyo with him, where our secret agents believe Mater to be an American spy helping them out.

Most surprisingly, Lightning McQueen takes a back seat in to Mater in this film. Agreed that Mater is one of the funnier supporting characters that Pixar has written and in this film he’s equally if not more hilarious, but McQueen’s quest to be the best is completely inconsequential. There’s a moment, as is in just about every film where the message is about friendship, when he spurns Mater and then later tries to make amends, but it happens so early on. Any emotional impact the film could have had is zapped thanks to this and the fact that McQueen has no bearing on the spy plot. There’s also the theme of Mater confronting that people think he’s stupid, but the power of this message never plays itself out.

The real problem with the story of “Cars 2″ can ultimately be attributed to the fact that it does not necessitate being told in a world where the characters are all cars and other vehicles. The same story could have been told with human characters and nothing would have changed. The car aspect serves only as the chance to be clever with a number of car-related jokes and gadgetry.

Disappointment will resonate with a lot of Pixar fans, yet the truth is “Cars 2″ is such a well- oiled machine that it’s much easier to discuss what the film lacked than its strengths. The action, the wit, the cleverness and the impeccable visuals we’ve come to expect from Pixar make it a first-rate animated film. However, we’ve also come to expect an emotional pull, the feeling of being on the verge of tears for even just a bit. “Cars 2″ doesn’t deliver that at all, nor the feeling of artistic purpose. It feels like a studio making the best movie it could with the pieces it already had in place from its financial successful 2006 film.

At the same time, if “Cars 2″ brings in enough money that it funds another three years of powerful, intelligent and emotional original films like “Up,” “Toy Story 3″ and “WALL*E,” I can deal with that.

3.5/5 Stars

Cars 2
Directed by John Lasseter, Brad Lewis
Written by Ben Queen (screenplay), John Lasseter, Brad Lewis, Dan Fogelman (story)
Starring: (voices) Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, John Turturro

To use a completely irrelevant but title-appropriate expression, when it comes to comedy, women tend to be the bridesmaids and never the bride. Prior to “Bridesmaids,” the only mainstream comedy driven by females that I can recall (at least in the Judd Apatow era) is Tina Fey’s “Baby Mama” back in 2008. Comedies preceded by a “romantic-” given the nature of their intended demographic, don’t count, at least not in the eyes of the general public. Fittingly produced by Apatow, “Bridesmaids” fights all these assumptions and historical tendencies better than you’d expect.

Star and writer Kristen Wiig and co-writer Annie Mumolo pick a fight with the biggest and most relentless rom-com formula at the party: the wedding story. It’s not exactly the easiest way to challenge the general perspective on women-centered comedies, but if successfully avant-garde enough, has the greatest potential for turning the genre on its head a bit while still appealing to the women who still prefer to indulge in these repetitive story lines.

Some of “Bridesmaids” most effective marketing came from a critic who called it “‘The Hangover’ for women.” The only things the two films have in common is that a wedding sets in the events in motion and they both expressed a desire to push R-rated boundaries. “Bridesmaids” has a much more traditional comedy structure and heavy doses of romance.

Annie (Wiig) has hit a mid-30s crisis: her dream of opening a bakery came true but got cut down thanks to the recession, she has a crappy living situation and she keeps going back to a guy (Jon Hamm) who’s rich and good-looking but doesn’t care about her. Her one rock has been her life-long best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph). When Lillian gets engaged, Annie assumes the duty of Maid of Honor, but the tremendously pretty and rich Helen, another bridesmaid, seems intent to steal that out from under her, which pushes Annie over the edge.

The script puts a particular emphasis on developing Annie’s character to the fullest, which hurts the comedic rhythm of the film a bit, but ultimately makes “Bridesmaids” a stronger film. The movie doesn’t quite live up to being billed as hysterical with exception of a few boundary-pushing scenes and takes awhile to get going, but the emotional parts don’t set off a chain reaction of eye-rolling, which alone puts “Bridesmaids” in a higher tier as far as rom-coms go. A montage scene toward the beginning when Annie bakes herself a singular ornate cupcake and then eats it for lack of a better idea drastically slows the film down, but might contain more intelligence in those two minutes than most romantic comedies can fit in two hours.

Most of the heart comes from a terrific and believable relationship between Annie and Lillian. Their scenes drag on a bit as these are two talented improvisers volleying the humor back and forth. They carry on like any two best girlfriends but with a touch only true comedians can offer. “Bridesmaids” mostly showcases Wiig’s off-beat awkward humor. Annie comes across as a lady-like Larry David character, someone you pity to death and care about but who can be completely nuts and usually causes all her own problems by reacting poorly to adversity.

Outside of the cat-fighting between Annie and Helen, the rest of the bridesmaids get short- changed (another reason to separate this from “The Hangover”) except for Melissa McCarthy as Megan, a character so multi-dimensional that you never know just what to expect from her. As much as this will feel like speaking poison, she could warrant her own spin-off.

“Bridesmaids” doesn’t break the mold and completely usurp female comedy conventions, but some of the film’s best characteristics do offer proof that women can be funny in a mainstream way, at least when the characters receive thoughtful treatment. The R-rated gross-out humor could have backfired, but it was treated in such a way that it effectively enhanced the story and fit the characters, something most rom-coms that try similar tactics fail to achieve.

Hopefully Wiig keeps churning out films and can train some other hopeful lady comics to follow in her footsteps so that romantic comedies can truly be enjoyed by everyone again.

3.5/5 Stars

Bridesmaids
Directed by Paul Feig
Written by Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy

In a world post-”Avatar” and “District 9,” where lack of creativity can no longer be blamed on the limitations of special effects (if that was ever a scapegoat), the goal of the sci-fi movie has been to innovate. Filmmakers have completely abandoned the minefield of clichés that is the retro “Area 51″ alien with a big green head and black ovular eyes. Now they’re into alien design with insect-like features, especially multiple extremities. 

“Paul,” on the other hand, dives right back into the old school. Our titular little green (greenish-blue?) man not only reinforces whatever stereotypes exist, but the reason is written into his back story in the form of a lighthearted but sentimental homage to the sci-fi films of yore, particularly Steven Spielberg’s two infamous entries, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T.”

But above all else, “Paul” is a red-blooded on-the-run comedy that rejoices (quite innocently if you can believe it) in profanity with a self-irreverence that makes it hard for any honest geek/nerd/dork to dismiss.

For starters, after a prologue of sorts, the film opens at Comic-Con. Clive (Nick Frost) and Graeme (Simon Pegg) are two British buddies, one a sci-fi writer and the other an illustrator. After the convention, they aim to travel the Southwest and visit all the alleged UFO landing/spotting sites. They get exactly what they bargained for when a car wreck reveals Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), a scrawny bug-eyed alien wearing cargo shorts and flip-flops who’s on the run from some feds. After Clive pisses his pants and Graeme is assured Paul won’t anally probe him, they embark on a road trip with Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and his cronies (Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) in pursuit.

Say what you will about modern R-rated comedy, but “Paul” is a departure for “Superbad” and “Adventureland” filmmaker Greg Mottola. Although he manages at least some of the heart of those two films, “Paul” is foremost an exercise in goofy. Pegg and Frost wrote the script, so the comedy with an homage to another genre makes sense, but you’d expect a bit more sophistication from Mottola. Instead, he succeeds by recognizing the difference and playing to the strengths of the film, which is magnify the silliness and embrace the unoriginality. He uses melodramatic foreshadowing to cut the scenes from pursuer to pursued to compensate for the typical plot and he lets his actors take over with their own wit to keep them vibrant despite being one-dimensional.

For Pegg and Frost, this is not akin to their films with Edgar Wright. There’s the homage angle, but the satire is not as biting, nor is “Paul” an execution of homage before comedy but the other way around. “Paul” packs in references to sci-fi classics, but in a way that re-evokes the bright-eyed wonder that we first associated with the honored films when they came out. Music also plays heavily into this element of the film from the band at a local bar playing John Williams’ “Cantina Band” to other Williams/Spielberg-inspired scores.

You won’t have to catch all the references to like “Paul” and appreciate what it is. Kristen Wiig helps drastically in this way by changing up the main character dynamic and playing what could only be described as a “born-again sinner.” But there’s no “Doubt” that those who like “Paul” the most will be the science-fiction fans it caters to; it does little to try and make first contact outside its target demographic. Given the premise, no one who presses play should be surprised by that, so don’t expect any sympathy from this critic should you be.

3.5/5 Stars

Paul
Directed by Greg Mottola
Written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen (voice), Kristen Wiig

Animated talking-animal films since the dawn of CGI have gotten much more prolific. Now that animals can be illustrated with ease and superb realism (namely in textures such as fur, feathers and scales), the supply can meet the demand and almost every major movie studio has either its own animation division or a relationship with an animation company. “Rio” is the product of Fox Animation and Blue Sky Studios, the team behind the “Ice Age” franchise.

With animated films coming out in rampant fashion, originality has taken a hit. The formula? Pick a country, climate or segment of the animal kingdom and set the exact same story there. So what started as a “fish-out-of-water” tale has become a bird/dinosaur/penguin/African animal-out-of-water story. “Rio” is a visually beautiful film with a sweet story and humorous supporting characters, but it contains not one original feather in its coat other than the Brazilian backdrop.

“Rio” tells the story of Blu (voiced by Jesse Eisenberg), a domesticated blue macaw that ended up in Moose Lake, Minn. in the care of a socially awkward bookworm named Linda (Leslie Mann). When an overenthusiastic ornithologist named Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro) shows up claiming Blu is the last of his species and he would like to mate him with the lone remaining female back in Rio de Janeiro, Linda is hesitant but agrees.

Eisenberg’s eccentricities fit Blu well and help sell the bird-out-of-cage story effectively. When he meets his mate-to-be, Jewel (Anne Hathaway), things couldn’t go worse. She wants desperately to escape and return to be free in the Amazon. Blu and Jewel are kidnapped, however, by a man who intends to sell them. Chained together, the must of course learn to like each other in order to survive. Oh, and it would help if Blu knew how to fly.

The writing team makes a concerted effort to infuse the film with the free spirit of Rio’s annual “Carnival” festival in hopes of adding a meaningful cultural element. It basically results in a few unexpected musical numbers and several overweight male characters dressing scantily, but it helps give “Rio” a distinctive flavor.

In my opinion, you go full musical or you don’t go musical at all, but the concept works better than you’d expect. Even the typical “statement of evil” song from back in the Disney days makes an appearance here and is actually quite funny. Jemaine Clement voices the evil cockatoo Nigel, one of the more sinister and intriguing animated enemies you’ll see in a film of this genre. He provides the necessary sense of danger for this all-too-typical adventure.

The character archetypes are the most bland: the out-of-its-element main character, the rebellious love interest, the wise mentor figure (George Lopez as Rafael the toucan), the tiny sidekicks (Jamie Foxx and will.i.am as Nico and Pedro) and the big lovable stupid acquaintance (Tracy Morgan as Luiz the bulldog).

Sure, there’s a reason animated films keep coming back to those character types, but “Rio” uses them to an unoriginal end. The moral and themes are tired and not given any renewed attention. Do you think that Blu learns how to fly by the end? I even went so far as to try and guess a line of dialogue: “Blu, you’re flying!” I would tell if you if I was right, but truth of the matter is “Rio” is still a light and enjoyable animated flick worth watching.

3.5/5 Stars

Rio
Directed by Carlos Saldanha
Written by Carlos Saldanha, Earl Richey Jones, Todd Jones, Don Rhymer, Joshua Sternin, Jeffrey Ventimilla, Sam Harper
Starring (voices): Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Leslie Mann, Rodrigo Santoro

Haunted houses and questionable children have composed many a horror film, but there’s a reason they work. When they do so despite years of being recycled, it’s usually thanks to talent. “Saw” director James Wan found something of promise in “Saw” writer Leigh Whannell’s story “Insidious” and the same must’ve gone for stars Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson. Horror films rarely get that infusion of talent, and as such, “Insidious” does not get lost in that dark dimension of forgettable horror.

Josh (Wilson) and Renai (Byrne) Lambert have moved into a new home with their two young boys and infant girl. Like always, paranormal oddities occur in small doses here and there until one morning they find their son Dalton in a coma. A few months pass and they move Dalton back home. The freaky incidences increase and eventually Renai sees the ghosts. She convinces Josh to move them into a new home, but it gets worse, so they bring in a paranormal expert (Lin Shaye) who provides them with some shocking revelations about the state of their son.

Like “Paranormal Activity” (a film thats producers have credits on this film unsurprisingly), the idea is to mount tension through paranormal phenomena and expert suspense. Wan provides a number of perfect angles and color to achieve the various moods. As much as you’ve been spooked this way by films before, you can’t simply shirk the way the film creeps in — Wan won’t have any of it. In fact, nothing here in terms of scare tactics will come as a revelation; many with a higher jumpiness tolerance will likely find it boring in many regards. No gore or horrific images to be found here — “Insidious” does it old school.

Once Shaye’s character Elise and her two employees arrive on scene, the story mutates from paranormal suspense to other-worldly mystery. Elise explains what’s going on — something that involves Dalton’s soul being lost in a realm called The Further — and now they must rescue him. Whannell constructs an interesting mythology here and the story goes from horror to more of a mystery/thriller with demonic elements. In a sense he borrows from science fiction in establishing the rules of what’s going on. It’s mostly interesting, but in many instances flat-out weird to the point that horror purists might not like it.

The best way to describe “Insidious” is first half “Paranormal Activity” and second half something akin to Sam Raimi’s “Drag Me To Hell,” which equates to a nice balance between self-seriousness and horror fun. The “X” factor would be the performances. Byrne keeps Renai from becoming an obnoxious scaredy cat as her role’s importance dwindles in the latter half of the film, in which time she still keeps Renai relevant. Wilson’s character is no typical over- macho father figure or anything. Together they provide an unusual boost for horror, which typically strives for random faces with questionable experience.

In general, “Insidious” possesses a professionalism not often seen in the genre; most horror films go for cheap across the board from the budget to the talent to the thrills. Although “Insidious” lacks distinctiveness in terms of story, not an ounce of it can be perceived as immature or hollow. What a rare (but not unusual) treat.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Insidious
Directed by James Wan
Written by Leigh Whannell
Starring: Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, Lin Shaye, Barbara Hershey

“What happens in Cedar Rapids stays in Cedar Rapids,” says Joan, a “one of the guys” kinda woman played by Anne Heche who views her yearly trip to an insurance conference in Cedar Rapids as momentary liberation from her life’s irrevocable commitments. For those of us who’ve tried to spend as little time in Iowa as possible, that little mantra’s something of a joke, but escapism means something different to everyone. “Cedar Rapids” puts much in perspective this way by showcasing adults as the children they often are.

Ed Helms gets his first starring role as Tim Lippe, an insurance agent from Brown Valley, Wisc. who’s never set foot out of his hometown and is even sleeping with his seventh grade teacher (Sigourney Weaver) to whom he’s “pre-engaged.” When the insurance company’s golden boy dies of auto-erotic asphyxia (which Tim regularly refers to as “an accident”), Tim must represent the company at the annual ASMI conference in Cedar Rapids where he must win the coveted Two-Diamond award for excellence or it will cost the company dearly.

Helms nails the fish-out-of-water character using much of the same naiveté that made him a beloved addition to “The Office.” Although in many instances his super-small-town mentality serves as a comedic ploy, it informs the way we watch the rest of the film, namely how he interacts with his new group of friends, characters that rather accurately represent the array of business types.

Tim first meets Ronald (Isiah Whitlock Jr.), the amicable by-the-books guy with who tells bland jokes and means well. Then John C. Reilly storms onto the scene as Dean Ziegler a.k.a “The Deanzy,” the straight-shooting schmoozer with absolutely no filter and as such, the source of much of the laughs so long as you find humor in creative vulgarity. Last would of course be Joan, who jokes around about seducing Tim but behaves otherwise. Heche seems to have found the path many actresses looking to rebound have taken: playing a damaged middle-aged woman trying to feel things out.

Essentially these characters are grown-up children in much the same way that the “The Office” brings playground dynamics to the adult world. Team-building activities and getting drunk are just the beginning for what these characters do and consequently how they behave. For Tim, it’s a long-delayed loss of innocence. He learns that even parts of his ho-hum life can have a two-faced nature; those people he believes to be bad end up good and vice versa.

Director Miguel Arteta (“Youth in Revolt”) seems to show an adeptness at this kind of comedy, drawing performances from the cast that provide nuanced characterization and believability. A comedy about Midwestern insurance agents doesn’t work if the people don’t seem average, yet at the same time, the characters are far from dull.

“Cedar Rapids” mostly struggles as most indies do in finding a balance between comedy and poignancy. The over-the-top comedic elements seem to push away from the dramatic, which is the film’s greater strength. There’s plenty of humor to be had in the nature of the story to the point that a scene with Tim going over the edge and smoking crack with a prostitute doesn’t seem essential to say the least. Tim’s reactions to moral conundrums seem a bit exaggerated as well in terms of the writing.

The ending lacks a bit of zing, but the intentions of Phil Johnston’s script are pure and true. His focus stays on a well-cast protagonist and Tim’s attitudes help create the perspective shift that allows us to enter the characters’ shoes. The results are light-hearted and not preachy in the least.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Cedar Rapids
Directed by Miguel Arteta
Written by Phil Johnston
Starring: Ed Helms, Anne Heche, John C. Reilly, Isiah Whitlock Jr.

If humans can only access 20 percent of their brains normally and 100 percent while on NZT, the “Limitless” drug of choice, then I would say screenwriter Leslie Dixon and director Neil Burger probably access somewhere around 70 percent of their creative power with regards to bringing Alan Glynn’s novel to the big screen. All far-fetched concept stories have their side effects, but the true winners avoid the crash. “Limitless” takes its audience on a thrill ride through the realm of possibility and gleefully entertains, but some sobering second-act elements kill off a bit of the joy.

Bradley Cooper ascends to full-fledged leading man status as Eddie Morra, a disheveled writer stuck in a rut who receives a little round miracle from an old acquaintance. This pill multiplies brain function exponentially, increasing his capacity for knowledge and the speed with which he acquires it. He can learn entire languages within hours, problem-solve instantaneously, recall long-discarded insignificant details from his memory and even finishes his book in the first night. But as we all learned in D.A.R.E., all drug use has its consequences.

Eddie’s consequent meteoric rise to wealth, prestige and even fame is a fun time. He even scores his girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) back. Although the degree to which he outsmarts and impresses everyone is a total joke from a believability perspective, between Burger, Dixon and Cooper, we get a hard sell. The script paces well and uses narration effectively to help us enter Eddie’s head and Burger employs a great deal of visual techniques — even if excessive at times — to mimic the effects of the drug, not unlike Darren Aronofsky’s work on “Requiem for a Dream,” just less stomach-churning.

Burger and cinematographer Jo Willems change exposure levels, color brightness and countless other techniques to create a distinction between when Eddie is on versus off NZT so that we feel that transition with him to an extent. Cooper as an actor fully captures that for us as well. I suppose if there’s anything he learned to do well from “The Hangover,” it was act convincingly hung over or experiencing withdrawal.

Truthfully, Cooper’s the show here.  Although they have scenes of influence, Cornish and Robert De Niro (as a business bigwig who employs Eddie to orchestrate a merger) have little bearing on the story. At one point it seem Cornish’s Lindy will emerge as a prominent character, but this surprisingly subsides.

Muddling matters more are the varying forces of antagonism in the film: a lender who gets hooked on the drug who keeps coming after Eddie, a man following him and of course the nasty side effects of the drug that Eddie soon uncovers. Things are not as intricately connected as we’re inclined to believe, which is mostly what derails the film in the end. The other factor would be a total lack of a realistic message, or any message for that matter.

Rather than make a statement, “Limitless” opens our minds a bit. For a science-fiction concept, there’s something relatable on a rather universal level. What if all of a sudden we could unlock our full potential? Would it still be “us?” The story imagines that world well and “Limitless” provokes these questions and more; it just doesn’t do much with them.

Serving as executive producer, Cooper shows a flare for the business here. He’s put the right pieces in place to make a fun concept movie work in addition to finding a leading role that fits his abilities. The film’s better-than-expected box-office business also suggests he’s growing quite popular. It’s almost the kind of prowess you’d have to manufacture … wait, could it be?

—

3/5 Stars

—

Limitless
Directed by Neil Burger
Written by Leslie Dixon, Alan Glynn (novel)
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert De Niro

There are the grand emotional courtroom dramas that immerse you in the ethical dilemmas that stem from from the case itself, filled with quotable speeches from venerable actors; then there’s “The Lincoln Lawyer” starring Matthew McConaughey. Based on the Michael Connelly novel, the film plays more like a crime thriller set in the legal realm, one that intends to be equal parts slick and ethically challenging. Rather than an honorable protagonist who must do the right thing in the face of great adversity to combat a corrupt justice system, Mick Haller is an alcoholic with a moral compass that would make your intestines curl.

“The Lincoln Lawyer” embraces the idea that the legal system is an open air-market where deals are cut left and right “justice” is nothing more than a word that keeps it from crumbling. Mick Haller puts bad guys on the street and makes a living off the legal fees of some of the scummier creatures in Los Angeles, but he’s also seen his fair share of state prosecutors using big hammer on a tiny nail — that’s just how it goes. However, there comes a time when every person’s true moral character is tested.

Haller finds himself in a tough spot when he agrees to defend a wealthy real estate agent name Louis Roulet (Ryan Philippe) who’s been charged with assaulting and raping a prostitute. If he’s telling the truth, the case seems pretty open-and-close, but he’s hiding a few secrets that twist the case in unimaginable ways.

Although terrific talent lines this film inside and out, the acting merely helps bolster the impressiveness of the gripping story. Director Brad Furman has paced the film perfectly with the exception of the last 15 minutes; there are essentially no dull moments. Solid legal thrillers can wrap around your brain with the slightest of ease (why else would “Law & Order” still be on television?), but the true challenge lies in telling a unique story. No rival comes to mind to Haller’s ethical quandary.

McConaughey’s swagger makes him perfect for a sleazy lawyer, but the emotionally troubled alcoholic side of the character — the part that can’t sleep at night — doesn’t lie outside of his acting boundaries. Although neither the script nor the direction ever tests him for too long in this regard, he embodies the role to the point that it does add something to the film. In my experience, McConaughey’s never been better.

Actors such as William H. Macy, a still-underrated Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo and Bryan Cranston all provide excellent fits and stud out the cast, but the stars remain the thrills of the story and Furman’s superb pacing.

The film’s ethical dilemmas and insights provide for some relatively strong chewing, but but “Lincoln Lawyer” rides suspense and engaging dialogue like a Lincoln Town Car into the sunset.

—

4/5 Stars

—

The Lincoln Lawyer
Directed by Brad Furman
Written by John Romano, Michael Connelly (novel)
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy

Festering somewhere in the chaos of “Sucker Punch” is an exotic narrative twisted into an epic adventure waiting to be born. But Zack Snyder has pulled his bun out of the oven way before he’s given it time to rise.

A multi-layered rock fantasy that could find a permanent home on MTV2, Snyder’s premature brainchild is a mind**** of a film; literally every fantasy in his mind and that of creative dorks like him (boys and girls included) popped open like a champagne bottle spewing glorious slow-motion foam everywhere at the hands of one not strong enough to control it. Snyder fills his canvas with everything he or we could possibly imagine, but with nothing except visual motifs to tie it all together.

“Sucker Punch” feels like a personal project Snyder should’ve kept locked up a little (okay, a lot) longer. Sure, after “Dawn of the Dead” and the financial surprise that was “300,” he earned himself a creative license with Hollywood dollars long before the few filmmakers who ever earn that kind of power usually do. Snyder, however, jumped at the chance to work on his own story way too soon. Narratively the film is missing connections between a lot of its dots and the characters, while likable, possess zero back story and consequently have no motivation.

To be as brief as possible, after Snyder’s music video prologue for a remix of Annie Lennox’s “Sweet Dreams” that explains how Baby Doll (Emily Browning) got sent to a mental institution thanks to her nasty stepfather, she discovers the hospital appears to be a front for a burlesque show/brothel run by Dr. Gorski (Carla Gugino) and namely the asylum director, Blue (Oscar Isaac). Girls Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung) and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) are performers, but Baby Doll steals the show as she’s found a way through losing herself in dancing to unlock a dream world that can help her and the others escape. This dream world creates fantastical missions against Nazi zombies, giant Samurai, dragons and more that help them get what they need in reality to make their escape.

At times, I truly believed a book adaptation of this story would be perfect. It would allow the time and opportunity to enter the head of Baby Doll as well as her detained friends and give time for Snyder’s ideas to germinate. As odd as this sounds, Snyder would’ve done amazing work with this film had he adapted it from a well-crafted novel that already made sense and didn’t leave its audience with fingernails upon scalp. His execution rates better than almost any director with action, but his talent is just that so far: execution (and I don’t mean that with morbid sarcasm).

The one cooked-through element of “Sucker Punch” is what you’d expect from Snyder: the action. The visuals are jaw-dropping. The only thing missing would be a little gravity or even the slightest bit of logic justifying the bizarre scenes for each dream world escapade. These fight scenes draw inspiration from any movie you could imagine, with one involving a castle, dragons and goblins that strongly echoes “Lord of the Rings.” The hazy yellow world Snyder has created simply stuns and his style and perspective choices during fight scenes remain impeccable. You can’t deny the man his incredible gift in this regard. He also knows how to support his visuals with music. It will be awhile before soundtracked films overtake or at least match composed films in this genre, but Snyder will be viewed as the godfather when it happens.

It’s tough to make it through a chaotic and abstract film that doesn’t appropriately lay its foundation, so the rip-roaring visuals help. Some moments in the plot are in fact a bit more jarring than expected and elicit more of a reaction than I’d like to give the film credit for, but these talented young actresses help in spite of the hollow cores of the characters they’ve been handed.

Where foundation and execution flip-flop for “Sucker Punch” comes from the creative seed. In that regard, there’s a foundation for an film that could be revelatory, but Snyder’s focus on the stylishness of the delivery slices it up into vague and incoherent chunks. It can safely be deemed a story championing self-empowerment, but we never feel that because of the seemingly random and abstract ways he dresses it. Honestly, if Christopher Nolan had this in his brain and could’ve scripted it, you’d be looking at a hailed cinematic achievement. Snyder just got ahead of himself. Some people will recognize the potential had Snyder waited and really tailored the story perfectly, but most will see the randomness and lack of control.

—

2.5/5 Stars

—

Sucker Punch
Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya
Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Oscar Isaac