The film was produced by Eli Roth and company and they have done something interesting here, They hired a director (Daniel Stamm)and the writers (Huck Botko, Andrew Gurland) who got their start in the documentary arena which explains how this faux documentary has a very true ring to it. Early in the film the priest chooses a letter he’s received as “the case” they will follow but once they get there we find ourselves conflicted on weather this young girl is possessed or weather she is looking for and answer to why she’s done the things she’s done. The director/writers did something early on that i think was genesis, They made the camera operator a character in the film. They made him a voice of concern so he becomes our voice and when the affected girl looks at him, we feel his fear. Once again…genesis.

There are plenty of good performances from our fallen priest (Cotton Marcus), the possessed girl (Nell Sweetzer) and her very religious father (Louis Herthum) but i think the star of the film fall with the director/writers in the way they make us feel very at ease in the beginning because the priest is going to expose the fraud of the exorcism but as the characters start doubting the fraud… I’m already feeling nervous for the characters as the film start to reeves up. I won’t kid you and say it’s the best film ever because it’s not. I hated the ending. I was thinking to myself “is this the best they could do?” but the first 83 minutes is so good I’d still tell people to see it. I did see some people leaving the theatre because of the strong religious bashing that goes on as well as the very scary scene with Sweetzer’s possession but all in all it was a fun time.

Swanner

Director Nanette Burstien, who before this was known for her documentaries (The Kid stays in the Picture), does a nice job of pacing the movie with plenty laughs and enough schmaltz to make it a romantic comedy.I was equally impressed with the script written by first timer Geoff La Tulippe. The lines are memorable and the characters are likeable. He’s taken the Sleepless in Seattle idea and brought it to 2010. They also made the right choice to make this movie a R-rated film giving everyone involved the chance to make it as dirty as they wanted it to be. The rating is mostly for language even though you do get a few funny semi nude scenes with Long.

The film also has a very funny supporting cast including Christina Applegate, Jason Sudekis, Charlie Day, Jim Gaffigan and Ron Livingston. They all move beautifully around the two stars. The two leads have great chemistry on screen, which probably has to do that they are an item off screen as well. Still the comic skills of both actors if not all the actors come through to make this a very funny and likeable comedy.

Swanner 1/2

I went to see the movie at a matinee where my friends and i were the only people in the theatre. (I guess there isn’t a slue of older folks waiting for this one) So the three of us settled back in our seats for 88 minutes of camp and gore…and we weren’t disappointed. The story takes place Lake Victoria, a fictional vacation spot where after an earthquake in the bottom of the lake opening a fisher that releases prehistoric Piranhas looking for food. Fortunately for everyone it’s spring break and the bikinis make it easier to get to those fleshy areas.

Elisabeth Shue stars as the towns Sheriff with Adam Scott as the earthquake researcher that helps her save the day. The film also has Jerry O’Connell as the “Girl Gone Wild” guy and Ving Rhames is the deputy. There are some wonderful cameos from Richard Dreyfuss playing Matt Hooper…the name as the character he played in Jaws, Eli Roth and Christopher Lloyd. This is a bad movie so good that it’s fun to watch. Is there a place for movies like these? I mean studio’s bring out schlock movies all the time but usually it wasn’t their intention at the beginning where the producers of this film meant for this to be as bad as it is. That makes me happy. I don’t want to see a revival of every bad movie ever made but I’m reveling in this one. I have to mention the director Alexandre Aja who directed the cult favorite High Tension and the writers Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg who both penned Sorority Row. All three have had their hands in Horror but also campy horror which really comes across here.

If you’re too snooty…don’t see this movie, you’re not going to appreciate it but if you remember the days of silly movie with buckets of gore than jump in with both feet and take a swim with Piranha.

The movie was directed by Josh Gordon and Will Speck ,who brought Blades of Glory to the screen, go a bit softer with The Switch by offering a more real slice of life with characters not quite as big as in Blades. The script is by Allen Loeb (Wall Street 2) and Jeffrey Eugenides based on a short story he wrote. Both the script and direction paint what could have been a bland or even sad story into a very funny and sentimental film. Brian would have hated this movie just because i used the term “sentimental”.

I also thought the acting was very good especially between Thomas Robinson the “child” and Jason Bateman’s “Wally” character. I haven’t seen that kind of male bonding since Jerry Maguire. Jeff Goldblum, Juliette Lewis and Patrick Wilson make up the supporting cast and all of them give solid performances. I walked in to the movie thinking it was going to be a Jennifer Aniston film but as much as she’s in it i still think it’s Bateman’s movie and he does a great job with it. It’s a shame this film has been opened so softly that many people won’t see it or even know it’s out. Fortunately, home video will be this film salvation.

One thing that should be brought up are the performances by the two leads. Both actors have had their successes and failures in the recent past but as these two stars age they are moving into more appropriate roles for their ages. Diaz (38) has been playing more mothers and wives and no longer the sassy single lady while Cruise (48) has been moving towards the more interesting and hilarious character roles. The reason why these two work here is that they know how to make this comedy work and they aren’t trying to make us believe they are still 20 something’s. They are playing it smart and using the on screen charisma they have for everything it’s worth. In an age of pale vampires and 3D animation, Knight and Day gives a women over 25 a sanctuary from all the summer movie silliness.

Judd: You should have mentioned that it’s her Seven Evil Exes. Why is that important? Because by the fourth Ex, I was bored with the battle shtick and was ready to see the closing credits. With that said, Scott Pilgrim is well written, well made and the fight scenes were choreographed wonderfully. However the movie is a one trick pony that relies on said trick seven times over.

Swanner: It does get a bit long for us novices but it’s not just a one trick pony. The Evil Exes is a big part of the story, but it’s the characters in the movie that really drove it for me. His high school girlfriend, his gay roommate and his sister were hilarious. The band, which he is the lead bassist, is a lot of fun as they try to win in the battle of the bands contest. There was a lot going on so I’m thinking you were bored because you couldn’t see past the one trick.

Judd: Maybe … I know I felt like an 80 year old watching the movie. The movie is very hip – and hip in a good way, not a Juno forced wannabe hip. God, I hate Diablo Cody. Anyway, sure there were the characters and other story lines, but you’re right, I couldn’t see past the one trick. I will say it was nice to see Michael Cera do something a little more than his usual Michael Cera Stuttering Pussy routine. He was still a stuttering pussy, but at least he kicked some ass.

Swanner: Totally agree with you on the Michael Cera “pussy” factor. I usually call him the Nudge. Yes he’s a bit safe here but at least he’s not dragging his feet. I also thought it was a really well cast film and having some sweet cameos like Chris Evans and Brandon Routh rounded it out nicely. I have to give most of the credit for the film to the Director Edgar Wright who made films like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead instant hits and Michael Bacall who co-wrote this fun script with Wright.

Judd: This is one of those movies where given all its bonuses, I should have liked it. A good looking cast, Edgar Wright directing and well choreographed fight scenes, however, I think the repetitive nature of the story and its 2 hour runtime got to be too much for me.

Swanner:
Judd:

Swanner: This is the premise of this comedy from Director Adam McKay. McKay has successfully worked with Farrell before in Anchorman and Step Brothers and seems to be the director that can either control him or know how to bring out the funny in him. If you look at it, the movie is very well cast and the performances show it. I was very surprised how good Mark Wahlberg was in it. I would think trying to act against Farrell would be tough but he made it work and sometimes actually steal the focus completely.

Judd: I think you hit the nail on the head with McKay being able to successfully reign in Farrell. I thought The Other Guys was going to be an awful piece given it’s a Farrell movie being released in August, but I was pleasantly surprised. However, I think the plot was needlessly convoluted and there were several moments that seemed tacked on just for the visual mayhem the scenes created. They did nothing to advance the plot.

Swanner: In this kind of a screwball comedy I think you’re going to have goofy scenes just for laughs…Eve Mendez wouldn’t need to be in the movie if she wasn’t a running gag. You are right on the plot. They have too many red herrings in the film but then they do work in to more silliness. They do bring the film around to where at the end it all makes sense…sort of but I wasn’t really concentrating on the plot.

Judd: I know, who goes to a Will Farrell movie for a gripping well thought out plot? But I do feel that the loose plotting made the movie feel a bit long. It’s nearly two hours long and it definitely feels that way. I think if the script would have been tightened up the movie would moved along better and would have made the movie a real classic. The way it is, the humor carries the movie along, but just barely.

Swanner: A real classic? Are you getting a kick back from someone? It was a funny movie but classic never entered my head when thinking how I might describe the movie. What next Jonah Hex Oscar contender? It was a funny movie with good performances but if Sony’s not paying for your new air-conditioner and you still think it’s just short of being a classic…we must have seen two different movies.

Judd: Did you even read what I wrote or did you just zone in on “classic”? Yes, classic in the sense of Step Brothers or Animal House – a movie with a decent plot and great humor. But the writing was sloppy, the plot was ill formed and the movie fell short of what could have been excellence. The potential was there, but the movie failed to deliver. I think I made that perfectly clear in the last sentence – but much like the target audience you probably got distracted by a bright shiny object before you were able to finish reading.

Swanner: Step Brothers or Animal House? First, Step Brothers is no classic and secondly, even breathing either of these films in the same sentence with Animal House is a crime. So I think it’s safe to say I did understand what you said, Mister Pushy, I just didn’t like this movie as much as you obviously did.

Judd: Oops, you’re age is showing Grandpa. Step Brothers and The Hangover are the new Animal House and Caddyshack. You don’t have to agree with me, it’s just the way it is, so you keep clinging to your Angels Flights and blue Nikes with the yellow swoosh. Meanwhile, people reading this review who are under the Half Century Mark will get over the fact that I was able to use Animal House and Step Brothers in the same sentence, and see that I enjoyed The Other Guys but feel that it could have been much, much better.

Swanner:
Judd: ½

The film has a really great cast with some of them actually appearing on screen while the majority are voice only. The voiceovers are done by James Marsden, Nick Nolte, Christina Applegate, Katt Williams, Bette Midler and even Roger Moore (back to that Bond connection again). The two best known of the on screen actors are Chris ODonnell and Jack McBrayer (30 Rock).

The main story here is that dogs and cats secret organizations are still feuding but when word gets around that Kitty Galore has plans to rule the human the two groups must work together to stop the feline. Bette Midler voices Kitty Galore very well by giving her that Diva tone of her Divine Miss M. This movie was really made with the younger kids in mind. I did make it through just fine so if you are accompanying a young one to the theatre, You should be able to sit back and enjoy the silliness. The special effects are top notch and anytime i can watch dogs talk for 90 minutes I’m okay. Seeing the first one isn’t necessary since this movie stands on it’s own very nicely. There is one continuing storyline involving Mr. Tinkles (Sean Hayes) who was the super villian in the first film but it won’t ruin the fun if you didn’t see number one.

Swanner

Judd: Lucky for me this wasn’t a press screening and I didn’t have to worry about being polite – though I rarely do. The movie is about an up-and-coming Paul Rudd who is invited to dinner by his boss, the only catch is that he has to bring an idiot for the executives to make fun of. Dinner for Schmucks is made for schmucks. I didn’t laugh once through the 45 minutes that I saw. It’s Steve Carell doing his Steve Carell shtick. “Oh, isn’t he awkward yet hilarious.” He’s become the new Jim Carrey. The same unfunny routine over and over again.

Swanner: I didn’t laugh either and I sat through the entire movie. You sort of woke me up when you told me you were leaving because I felt myself slipping in to dreamland. What bothered me the most was the movie was so mean spirited and I was siding with the mean people. I thought Carell was too irritating to be funny, so as the movie progressed I was rooting for the bad guys. When the dinner took place you realized just how cruel the film really was … but all I could think about was your escape

Judd: I didn’t care that the movie was mean spirited, I cared that it wasn’t funny. It was watching one strained unfunny moment lead into another strained and even unfunnier moment right after the other. Fans of movies like Dumb and Dumber or any other lowbrow slapstick schlock are going to be the ones that enjoy Dinner for Schmucks. And I agree that Carell was too irritating to be the good guy. There’s a difference between being a loveable goof and an obnoxious asshole and in this case malice is not a factor.

Swanner: You’re right; it is more about the comedy not being funny. It was so unfunny I started questioning why people were laughing. I never did find those types of movies you mentioned funny either. I know there are people who do like slapstick comedies, but since The Three Stooges I haven’t been one of them. I actually thought this movie looked different. I thought this one might have more heart since Paul Rudd was in it and he’s been making better movies. I can tell you right now that Dinner with Schmucks will be on my worst picture list, I’m just that confident.

Judd: Juan wanted to see this movie, and anyone who has read this column long enough knows that if Juan wants to see a particular movie, that movie is going to SUCK. I would recommend Dinner for Schmucks to all the Juans out there. Everyone else can save their money.

Swanner: no stars
Judd: no stars

The story is about Charlie (Efron) and Sam (Charlie Tahan), two brothers who are in a car accident where Sam is killed. The day of the accident Charlie had promised Sam that every night a dusk they would meet in one certain place and play catch. Five years after Sam’s death Charlie is still playing catch with Sam rain or shine. The movie is about grief and how people deal with it differently. There is also a love story that has Charlie having to make the decision between his time with his brother and the rest of his life.

It’s a very affecting movie. For anyone who was ever close with their siblings or ever had to make that choice between family and career or love this movie will touch them. Charlie goes through all these things so that gives Efron plenty of opportunity to show he’s not just the kid from High School Musical that he’s a viable actor and wants to be taken seriously. Even though i wouldn’t say he nails the role, he does do a really good job and i can honestly say he made the right choice. People will compare the movie with The Sixth Sense or The Notebook, which are actually decent comp titles but it’s never as scary or as much of a tearjerker as those films. So when all those old men are out there reviewing this movie they need to remember who this film was made for… older women and young girls…and me.

The film is Directed by Burr Steers, who also directed Efron in 17 Again, who does a nice job of keeping the pace moving and the twists coming. The screenplay is written by Craig Pearce (Strictly Ballroom) and Lewis Colick (Ladder 49) from the Novel by Ben Sherwood called The Death and Life of Charlie St Cloud. The film was shot beautifully in British Columbia Canada and should definitely increase tourism through the area.

Swanner