Reviews: Wall-E & Wanted

Hi, Robot

Pixar is Pixar, it will always win. This famous studio which began winning Oscars in short films (this feature has one with a frustrated magician fighting his famished, tenacious rabbit) has now built itself up as the studio winning Oscars for their feature films. Very good directors have been awarded the chance to bring their creative visions to the icon studio. My personal favorite still remains Brad Bird, who championed two Oscars for The Incredibles and Ratatouille. While I don't think this particular film is the absolute best from Pixar, I still believe that it is a worthy entry that deserves every bit of recognition it gets.

The little robot "Wall-E" (which is an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) is the lone garbage man on Earth after the planet becomes completely uninhabitable due to the surplus amount of trash supplied by humans. Wall-E and his sole Earthly companion, an indestructible cockroach, enjoy a solitary world in which Wall-E becomes more interested in building a friendship (via his obsession with Hello, Dolly!). One day, however, he (for all purposes, we'll call it a he) gets a visit from a spaceship and a sleek, eggshaped robot, Eve (who, for all purposes, we'll call a she). Eve is sent to determine the stability of life on the planet and eventually forms a slight bond with Wall-E. That is until she returns to her spacecraft, for which he tags along, and discovers the ship that holds humans in the gluttonous conditions.

At the heart of Wall-E, which is present in all of Pixar's films, is a good natured story that has a character to match. Wall-E may seem like an unusual character to put in a lead role, especially considering the fact that he remains silent except for a few squeaked out words in robot tongue. However, he manages to create a real connection to the audience, and he is very endearing. The same can be said of Eve and an annoyed cleaning unit named M-O (who gives a new worthy phrase: "foreign contaminant"). The human element, which has been known to be missing in Pixar films, is severely limited here, although we do get clever voice performances from Jeff Garlin, Sigourney Weaver, Pixar regular John Ratzenberger and even Fred Willard, who is actually the only live action performer in the film.

The film's wonderful story and characters are matched equally by its marvelous technical elements. The wonderful sound design for one is magnificent and the sleek animation is really what is the highlight here. There is also a special mention to the magnificent score by Thomas Newman, an 0-8 Oscar competitor who should score his ninth (and possibly tenth with the original song) this year. In fact, I'd be in strong support for his first ever win that would return Disney's long held, and now lost, status in the musical Oscar categories.

While the film is very enjoyable, it does suffer from one element, and that is a twist in the story's last act that I feel is a cheap shot and a cliche. While normally I would think this is only a minor complaint, I find it more irritable because the whole movie actually dares to be different and take on a darker tone than most animated films in the past. The fact that the direction it takes also subtracts some of the impending doom and menace from a certain element means their risk only goes so far. However, it is only one complaint that I do not take very far. I still love this film, and I love the fact that Andrew Stanton, who previously won an Oscar for Pixar's current biggest hit Finding Nemo, has chosen a story that might not be well received across the board. I find it a commendable effort, and I hope that Stanton, come early next year, will have something else in common with Brad Brad. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-




Dead, nor Alive

Here we go again. The fast paced world of comic book adaptations rears its occasionally ugly head again for this rip roaring action film. Many will be intrigued by this stylish film, and I will admit that there are times when the impressive style does just that. However, I would be guilty of some kind of unethical process if I didn't offer some kind of warning with this film, and it is why I can't really recommend this film.

The story follows Wesley Gibson, played by budding actor James McAvoy, who is unhappy with current cubicle ridden life along the ugly streets of Chicago (the Windy City will make another appearance in the coming weeks under the pseudonym Gotham City). However, his irritable life is interrupted when he gets a visit from Fox (Angelina Jolie) in the grocery store. Following a big shootout, we discover Fox and a group of other assassins called The Fraternity that have made it their duty to take out necessary targets. Morgan Freeman cashes in a paycheck role as Sloan, the current leader of the Fraternity, who reveals that Wesley must train to become a top notch assassin in order to take out the rouge agent that recently killed his father. They have faith because Wesley has a special gift that makes his heart beat faster and operate with highly developed senses (it's like a blend of spidey-sense and Matrix slow-mo).

I like McAvoy, but it seems like when he loses that nice accent, he also loses a bit of that European charm. His problems might also extend from the fact that his character is poorly developed and is actually not someone to really root for. Everyone else glides along in their respective roles and with the exception of an occasional stunt, they don't really offer that much. Although, I do give credit to Freeman for being able to pull of the line "Shoot this motherfucker" so well that it almost covers the price of admission.

Director Timur Bekmambetov makes his English language film debut here, and something definitely gets lost in the translation. Bekmambetov relies heavily on an overtly visual style, and in some parts it does work. Most of the time, however, it only serves as a reminder that the foundation that is the script is so inherently weak that the visuals have to compensate. I'm sure this director can work magic in his own language, but a film needs much more than nonstop action all the way through. People need to breath at some point and, sometimes, actually be given at least ONE stunt that is halfway believable.

In a few weeks, The Dark Knight will be released in the theatres and it will probably be heavily praised. The reason: Christopher Nolan not only creates an exciting action picture but also grounds it in a state of reality with a believable story and characters. Even other successful comic book adaptations, such as Spider-Man 2, work because the characters became very developed without losing the action potential. Wanted tries so hard to compensate for its weak story that it overdoses on the visuals. Some might be turned on by this, but I was not. I hope future comic book adaptations, or maybe even a possible sequel, can become more invested in characters and story because they would then realize that's all they need. ** / ****; GRADE: C

Review: The Incredible Hulk

Green with Envy

It's hard to imagine a film like this could make another filmmaker jealous. But it is certainly an interesting thing to wonder. Everyone remembers the colossal failure that Ang Lee brought to audiences five years ago with his imagining of Hulk. Lee's problem was that he put too much confidence in the American movie-goer, thinking that those who praised his balance of action and story in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would also be pleased with his re-imagining of the comic story by replacing slam-bang action with brooding and cerebral brain puzzles. This time around, however, the new behemoth green man has a lot more of the former category, and will probably be more pleasing to today's audience.

The total revamp of the series puts David Banner (Edward Norton) on the run from the military in remote places on the globe. His threat is not only that monster lurking inside of him, but also General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt). Originally in Rio, Banner gets chased and smashes his way back to New York where his lovely girl from the past Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) awaits to aid him in his endeavor. However, Banner soon finds bigger problems at hand: Ross has taken another soldier (Tim Roth) and turned him into another hulk-like creature known as The Abomination.

Many would argue that this is a far superior version than Lee's film, and in some parts that is true. As an action film, it well establishes itself as a loud epic that devotes much of its screen time to big explosions, giant car crashes and a great loud roar from the big green guy. It also succeeds in making the Banner character just as interesting as the Hulk, which was something Eric Bana had difficulty doing during his time. Norton is a fine actor, and there is never one moment when he loses us, even when he is forced off screen by the CGI Hulk. Unfortunately, that's all that can be said of the cast. Everyone else, even the all important love interest played by Tyler, are just cookie-cutter stereotypes of of how these characters should be played.

The other change that the new film has is its director. Louis Leterrier has very strong action roots, making such masterpieces as The Transporter, Unleashed, and the unjustly Oscar-snubbed Transporter 2. Leterrier can indeed bring his audience in for some heart pounding action that gets the adrenaline pumping, but more than once it seems like that's all he can focus on. After the tenth loud noise, one tends to realise that this movie likes banging things around and keep its lead character moving without really acknowledging why. He makes up some of these faults with his numerous homages to not only the comic book, but also the 1970s television show. Whether it's the underscore using the series' closing piano notes, or the cameo appearances by Lou Ferringo (who also provides the voice of the Hulk) and even the late Bill Bixby (provided by footage from his days on "The Courtship of Eddie's Father"), the winking to audiences puts a smile on the face. However, those quips quickly dissolve into the action scenes that run a little too long.

This will be more praised than the original film, and more than likely will be more profitable. It succeeds here, it fails there, but it is definitely a film that provides a good time at the show. When the figures of the earnings start to come in, everyone involved will be celebrating. But where will Ang Lee be? He'll probably be admiring his Best Director Oscar and waiting to see if Letterier will see him at the Oscars with Transporter 3. That thought should put the same smile on Lee's face as everyone elses. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: The Stangers

Masking Fears

Today, audiences just can't get enough of the horror franchises out there. Unfortunately, I do think it is in a rather sad and pitiful state as audiences expect to be thrilled with senseless violence and gore, particularly flooding in from the Saw enteries and Eli Roth's grotesquely horrible Hostel films. To be honest, the thought of a low key thriller like The Strangers, that doesn't rely on a heavy dose of blood on the left and shameless nudity on the right sounds like an intriguing gesture to the American public to invite them into something new and creative. However, you have to put your ear up closely to the door, and you'll hear what that idea ends up being: just noise.

Writer-director Bryan Bertino's first feature film moves slowly in its first act to unravel the tale of a couple, James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) whose plans for a romantic evening have gone sour, very sour, and are forced into James's old cottage to spend the night there. Soon, a young woman knocks on the door and asks for someone that isn't there. She leaves, but we all know that it doesn't stop there. No, she returns in a mask along with two other companions as they begin their barrage of terror on the innocent couple.

Being a first time director, there are times when I was impressed with Bertino's craft of this film. His unconventional first act of slowing the pace to allow for character development is an interesting hand, and there are also moments when he lets the film's own atmosphere create the suspense instead of relying on the cheap tricks of the trade (scary music, cheap pop ups). However, for every step forward Bertino takes to create something better, he takes about three steps back with something else. In those first few introductory moments, the camera has the unsettling jarring motion as if presented in one of those overused "docudrama" formats. Bertino would have us believe that these moments are to let us get to know the characters so we can care about them later, but his approach is like the friend who tries to pay a compliment who is smiling all the way through it. You can't trust what they're saying, and we can't trust Bertino's method as well, especially when he also uses heavy shadow lighting from his cinematographer Peter Savo. And despite some good acting from Speedman and, in particular, Liv Tyler, they are working with material that doesn't work with them back.

There's one moment when a frightened Tyler is hiding out in a barn and she hears noises of her tormentors closing in. After a while, I thought to myself, "They're just making noise out there; they aren't doing anything!" Truthfully, that describes the entire film. The whole thing just makes noises without any real threat behind it. Some moments do grab us, but they quickly recede into familiar horror movie territory. Still, I put faith in Bertino and think that a future attempt at a film will go better. Until then, make yourself a stranger to this picture. ** / ****; GRADE: C

Review: Indiana Jones & The Visitor

Whip it Good

So the wait is finally over. After nearly a twenty-year hiatus (nineteen, to be exact), Indiana Jones puts on the beaten fedora and takes out the whip for one last ride. At least we all assume it will be one last ride because we all know it should be. Indy could go on all of the adventures the world can offer but will still get closer to the point where he needs to hang up that whip for good. Still, his latest adventure proves to us that one last crack is enough for us to be entertained by his popcorn action adventures.

Directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas return as collaborators on the fourth and final entry entry to the Indiana Jones saga (at least the final one starring Harrison Ford). Ford returns, of course, as the iconic hero. Now taken out of the 1940s time frame and battling the evil Nazis, who later became almost comedic foils by the end of the trilogy, Dr. Jones is in the fifties where the new enemies are the Russian communists. Cate Blanchett dons a brunette wig and hammy accent as Irina Spalko, an Eastern scientist who specializes in the paranormal. Also joining the crew are Ray Winstone as a flip flopping agent, John Hurt as an eccentric professor, rising star Shia LaBouef as Indy's new greasy sidekick with a twist of his own, and returning Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood from the the first Indy adventure Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The plot details are worth much explanation. This is because the plot wants to become so out of the ordinary that I don't feel an explanation is the right thing to do. I have to admit, that even for an Indiana Jones movie, its dealings in the supernatural and even extra-terrestrial seem a little bit of a stretch. Granted, after twenty years one needs to reach a bit further, but the old school biblical explanations of the first and third entries were enough to carry those films. Still, there is a wonderful sense of adventure and excitement that runs through many scenes, even if they sometimes are overplayed.

Spielberg, on the other hand, seems like he's playing by the numbers in this film, and at times it lacks the stamina of the previous entries. All of the sets and action scenes are all reminiscent of the earlier entries and many don't try to reach beyond what the others did, except for the practical cinematography from Spielberg's recently used camera man Janusz Kaminski.

One of the few things that manages to put a smile on the face is the many references to the past films. When a series gets this old, it has no choice but to poke fun at itself, and when we get shots of the golden ark or hear conversations that refer to Denholm Elliot's Marcus Brody or Indy's father (while Connery refused to participate in the film, he does make a photographic appearance), a little recognition of a series that still has a little life is appreciated.

I still give credit to the filmmakers for attempting to breath freshness into the series, and it does work some of the time. However, major plot pieces, and an unsatisfactory ending does hinder the film. It certainly isn't the best in the series, which will always be held by the first entry, but at least we can say that it is better than Temple of Doom. *** / ****; GRADE: B.







Visiting Ours

The market for independent movies has substantially grown in the past few years. Many of them have become more complex than the custom silent, black and white student film into ones that try to tackle on pressing issues and important subjects. As much as this film tries desperately not to fall into the latest niche of indie movies, it ends up doing it. It's a terrible mistake coming from a film that had the potential to become a sweet story with its leading character playing wonderfully at the center.

The story follows well known character actor Richard Jenkins as a Connecticut college professor who must go out to New York to deliver a speech on an essay he's not particularly proud of. While he resurfaces in his long-ago apartment, he finds more than just moldy furniture. Inside are Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and Zainab (Danai Gurria), two illegal immigrants that have fled to the United States and have taken refuge in his apartment. However, instead of panicking and worrying about the degradation of American jobs and enterprise, Jenkins's Walter invites them to stay. That's when we get a barrage of friendly scenes between the two that then allow Walter's character arch to develop.

After decades of being "that guy" in the movies, it's nice to see such a wonderfully underrated actor like Jenkins getting the chance to shine here. It's a predictable kind of a character, but Jenkins invests so much that he does make us care about every action that is going on in his life. Even when his changes in character can be seen clearly as they approach, we still enjoy watching them because of how much Jenkins puts into him. The rest of the cast works only so-so, playing off of Jenkins. The only other noticeable character is Tarek's mother, played by Hiam Abbass. She is subtle in her acting and never piles onto what could have been a hammy supporting role.

After making an impressive debut five years ago with The Station Agent, writer-director Thomas McCarthy does little here to make his film special. Every move he makes in this film are all predictable styles of previous independent filmmakers, and after a while it gets a little tiresome. One would wish that McCarthy would just try to feel out the story without letting that indie style of filmmaking take over for camera angles and predictable editing cuts. The only exception I find that breaks out of the indie world is the transcendent score from Oscar-winner Jan A.P. Kaczmarek, which has an indie feel to it but also recognizes that this film is also about bigger things.

Those bigger things, however, end up hurting it in the long run. McCarthy has turned the film into an overbearing political message about how America's post-9/11 policies on immigration are unjust and need to be fixed. I don't feel that's the right approach to this story, and after an obligatory shot of a freeway sign that protests: "Support our troops by bringing them home," it made me realize how liberally slanted this film was. By the end, it became less about a film that focused on a sincere, character driven story and more of a political message directed mainly towards Republicans. I wish McCarthy had enough faith in his story to let the characters develop the message themselves without piling it on in the script.

Everyone knows that this is Jenkins movie, and everyone will see it for him. I certainly did, and I'm glad I did so. He is the shining light of a film that wants to shroud itself in a political message. That is unfortunately a wrong choice. The story itself can be powerful, but it gets muddled in the socio-political setting. Hopefully Jenkins is enough to let this film provide a great time. *** / ****; GRADE: B.

Review: Speed Racer

Sound and the Fury

This film has a lot more in common with William Faulkner's classic novel, titled above, than one might expect. However, I doubt that Faulkner would have imagined a duo like the Wachowski brothers helming an adaptation of anything he's written. Truthfully, they probably haven't either. The brothers prefer to work in their highly visualized world in which their imagination can't seem contained. It worked with the first Matrix outing, and for some parts of its successors. In some points of Speed Racer, that style works behind the scenes of some big failures. But, there might be something underneath the slick paint job, and that is a good ride.

Everyone remembers the famous (or infamous) Japanese cartoon that was imported to the United States in the mid '60s. The Wachowskis have now "matrixed" the cheaply made cartoon and have attempted to put a plot behind it. Speed, played by a rather bland Emile Hirsch, is seen as a hyperactive, ADD ridden young boy in his early days who translates that impulsive energy into racing, particularly after his brother Rex was killed in a fatal accident. Speed likes to keep racing in the family, as his Mom (Susan Surandon) and Pops (a wonderfully campy John Goodman) head their clan along with Spritle and the chimp. Then, after a big win at a race, the sponsors try to lure him onto their team, and the CEO of the Royalton Company (Roger Allam, who hammed it up good in the Wachowskis scripted V for Vendetta) sparkles the charm in his eyes before pulling the rug out from under him about the real, dirty side of racing.

What that side is, anybody could care less. The film's plot devices of stock trading, company mergers, fixed races and Korean pop sensation Rain are only there to pad up the films two hour and fifteen minute running time (about forty-five minutes two long). As soon as Allam starts his lecture to Speed about everything, the 10-year-old boys' ears will tune out, along with everyone elses. This story doesn't need exposition after exposition because the source material certainly didn't require that. However, when the film does recognize where it needs to be, in the world of its candy colored visuals and stylized racing scenes, it goes full throttle. I have to hand it to the Wachowskis and their visual effects team for going all out with the effects while not letting the visual style overpower the senses. Every race is an eyeful, but there is never a sense where the computer enhanced features are wearing thin. There is also an added bit of excitement whenever Michael Giaccino's zippy music features an underscoring of the original Speed Racer theme song.

An interesting aspect of the film, and sometimes a very annoying one, is how the Wachowskis' screenplay operates. Much like Faulkner's novel, every scene seems to have no sense of time. It prefers to weave in and out of storylines and subplots as soon as a new thought enters a characters mind. That writing style impresses at first, but quickly gives way when a dragged out second act causes the acting to be sucked out. Hirsch gave an impressive turn last year for Sean Penn's Into the Wild, but his deadpan expressions are too great to ignore. Also, the littlest family member reminds me a little too much of Ron Carey from Mel Brooks's High Anxiety, and the chimp is just as annoying. The script tries hard to make some substance out of this premise, but whether it's the self-congratulating lines of encouragement ("It's art what you do out there") or the very lame jokes ("Ninja? More like a Non-ja!"), it never really succeeds. The vision of the directors overpowers here.

Sometimes an overtly visual style only creates a loud and opinionated atmosphere that just can't be contained on the screen (look to Julie Taymor's Across the Universe as an example), but for some reason, the Wachowskis have found a way to place this style on the screen without losing something in the process. Well, most of the times that happens. Sometimes, the Wachowskis adhere to the phrase "style over substance," where they keep the camera and backgrounds moving continually even during a mundane conversation. Still, everybody tries their best to work within the green screen world while trying to go beyond the Star-Wars-like acting. If your brain switches during any part of this film, you're going to realize that all of this is insane. However, I'd advise you to let the 10-year-old boy out and let him yell, "Go, Speed Racer, Go!" **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-.

Review: Iron Man

Heavy Metal

For the longest time now, the summer movie craze has been a highlighted season for studios to start a frenzy of releases that will promise a big profit in the end. Some of them are huge successes, some are gigantic flops, but all provide the audience with something. I really hope that this film fits into the former category, because it is a wild ride that everyone can enjoy.

Continuing the Marvel Comic book adaptations, Iron Man's leading man is Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Jr., who is the eccentric, playboy billionaire that just so happens to control the most powerful arms dealing company. While Stark is testing his newest weapon in Afghanistan, his envoy gets ambushed, and he is captured by terrorist who try to get him to rebuild the weapon for them. Instead of being a good little arms dealer, he instead invents a sort of Iron Man prototype, and escapes. Upon his return to the US, he has a device in his chest that will prevent the shrapnel from entering his heart and a new found sense of the world to protect it. And thus Iron Man is born.

Marvel comic book adaptations have been hitting some rough spots lately. Even though their films outnumber those produced by DC Comics (which has currently stuck with their Batman and Superman), the comic chain has had some serious duds. Even their most successful franchises, Spider-Man and X-Men, had hit snags around their third pictures. However, Iron Man is a welcomed gift perhaps because of the Downey casting. It's true that he isn't the typical superhero, and there are times where his manic personality and witty comebacks would fit more so an over-the-top supervillian, but because Downey isn't Tobey Maguire or Hugh Jackman, his character offers a really fascinating quality. He isn't an everyman, but he's far different than what is expected.

The film also features a fine supporting cast, which is headlined by Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's assistant Pepper Potts. Her chemistry with Downey is right on the money and Paltrow delivers her best performance in years (and I'm not even including her Oscar-winning work for Shakespeare in Love). As for the rest, they may be fine, but they don't match up to the quick steps from Paltrow. Terrence Howard is in kind of a throw away role as Stark's best buddy from the military and a nearly unrecognizable Jeff Bridges is Stark's business partner and eventual villain. Bridges is a good actor, but he's got one of the clumsiest, half-witted and forgettable villainous roles around, particularly faulting points because he stores his secrets in his computer inside the subtly named file "ultra-secret."

If you thought Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man was an odd choice, an even more unconventional thought is Jon Favreau as an action director. The not-quite-indie-sensation has been known in front of the camera, but has ventured behind it for films like Elf, Zathura and penning Swingers. The film is a little too maneuvered for him to be officially established in this genre, but I think Favreau, as unlikely as he is, has room to grow and any other films in this franchise from him would be welcomed.

This is an action movie, plain and simple. It has some good special effects and acting, particularly from Downey and Paltrow, but it does suffer from a lame villain and a bit of a labored script. However, it is still a great ride to take, and kicks off the summer season promisingly. Hopefully, the season will continue to be as good as this. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+.

Reviews: 21 & Under the Same Moon

Breaking Even

To be in complete honesty, this movie doesn't really offer anything that the viewer probably hasn't already conceived by watching many other films about this genre. George Clooney and Stephen Soderbergh have made it their life long goal to see that all the twists and turns of the traditional Las Vegas heist movie be explored. However, that isn't to say that 21 doesn't have it's moments that put a smile on your face. So what's the verdict? Well, read on a little more, and you might find out.

To start, this is "inspired" by a true story. Taken from the book Bringing Down the House by Ben Mezrich, the tale focuses on Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) who is that ordinary guy with the bright brain and gifted abilities but cannot seem to get the things in life. He's at MIT now and has been accepted at Harvard Medical. The only thing standing in his way is that measly little $300,000 needed to attend. His solution to presented to him by his math professor (Kevin Spacey, who also produced) who takes Ben and some other hotshots to Vegas to basically count cards at blackjack. One of those students is played by Kate Bosworth (can anyone say love interest?) and the rest of the crew does their own part.

To be fair, there are many moments in the film where I was very entertained. However, this would be a much better film to recommend had it not be riddled with so many conventional cliches of the genre. For instance, Ben is given the usual day and a half to think over joining the team, he says he's only doing it for the school money, but then he gets greedy, and there is an inevitable double cross. The bulk of these problems comes from the script adapted by Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb, who also infuse this story with dialogue that seems below the par of what George Lucas would consider ("I'm not the same guy back in Boston" is a very direct line uttered by Ben; duh!). Also, director Robert Luketic seems more interested in making the game itself look interesting with a lot of slow motion and computer enhanced closeups of the cards, that he forgets that people are the ones actually behind them. Luketic knows how to do stories with people (I recommend his surprisingly pleasant Win a Date with Tad Hamilton), but he has misguided steps here.

At the same time, the cast does its fare share to make up for the flaws. British star Jim Sturgess is already becoming a household name. He recently appeared in this year's The Other Boleyn Girl and made his debut to American audiences last year in the Beatles-inspired Across the Universe. Sturgess is starting to get noticed, and while this is not the type of film that showcases acting talent, he is providing a pretty beefed up resume, and I suspect we'll get one film out of him where he's going to blow us away. Kevin Spacey is having pure fun with this role, as well as Laurence Fishbure, who plays the casino's security manager who catches on to the plans of the students. Both take the usual guest roles of veteran actors in minor supporting roles. They don't mean to steal the spotlight, but they do it accidentally and we could care less. Unfortunately, that's about all the supporting cast brings (Bosworth is a definite bore), with the exception of Josh Gad, one of the geek friends of Ben who brings life in the story when it sometimes needs it.

At the beginning of this review, I mentioned that the film is "inspired" by a true story. The word inspired has gone to the lengths of some controversy because the original Ben Campbell was named Jeffery Ma, an Asian American student. Whether or not you want to call that racist (and there are some puns in the screenplay that suggest the writers knew about this change) is a matter of opinion. To me, it neither adds nor takes away anything from this film. Even with John Cho in the lead, we'd still get the same movie. So what is the verdict? It's a good time waster. You already know the outcome, but if you're interested in some light entertainment with an attractive cast, then I'd say bet your money on it. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-.





Beyond Borders

Conservatives are going to love this movie. Why? Well, it certainly isn't going to be because of the film itself. That's the thing they're going to hate. No, conservatives will love this movie because it's going to give them about two episodes worth on their talk shows to talk about how this film is another bolt in the Hollywood liberal machine to turn America soft on the immigration issue. Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs will be so happy to have more to talk about. However, if these two every chose to watch this film, they'd be in for a big surprise.

In a tender, if somewhat sappy and conventional, story, little Carlitos (Adrian Alonso) is still living in Mexico with his ill grandmother as his mother (Kate del Castillo) works in the United States illegally in order to provide a better life for her son. However, Carlitos is getting impatient and worries that he will never see his mother again. So after his grandmother dies, Carlitos begins his long journey to get to Los Angeles and reunite with his mother. His path begins with a botched attempt at being smuggled across the border (with the aid of Ugly Betty's America Ferrera) and he soon ends up with Enrique (Eugenio Derbez), another illegal who doesn't want a kid to tag along with him (but do you think he'll change and warm up to the little guy?).

Again, this is a story that wants to pull on the heartstrings of the audience, and sometimes, admittedly, it works. During one moment when Carlitos is looking at the moon, remembering that his mother told him looking at it will bring his mind closer to hers, and then imagines his mother right beside him, I couldn't help but choke up a bit, especially with Carlo Silotto's music swelling up the background. The screenplay by Liagh Villalobos tries all the tricks it can to evoke these reactions, but you can't help but respond to it.

Adrian Alonso, who has the daunting task of carrying this movie, is phenomenal. Granted, it's an easy story to be phenomenal in, but something really does have to take notice here. Previously seen in The Legend of Zorro, Alonso has much more personality and charm here, and he creates a character that we so much want to root for. At the same time, Kate del Castillo does a nice job in the parallel story of Carlitos' mother Rosario, evoking the same type of angst and emotion that Alonso has dealt with. One complaint would come from Derbez, who does seem to steal the spotlight from his younger costar now and again before giving it back.

One thing to remember is that this is not a political film, even though many will argue that it is. At its bare facts, this is the story of a mother and son trying to reunite, and when it does happen, we all feel so good inside. It's not the best film out there about the subject, but it is certainly one that will stay in your heart for a very long time. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+.