JayRo Watches: Cowboys and Aliens

There's a point in Cowboys and Aliens where Harrison Ford gets told a plan and gets a look on his face whihc seems very familiar. A few seconds later, I recognized it - it was a look that Han Solo would give. It wouldn't be the last time that Cowboys and Aliens drew upon sci-fi inspirations to derive the desired feelings.

Cowboys and Aliens follows a standard western story structure until the final act, when it turns into a sci-fi adventure. It's an interesting concept behind a film; one that works well in general, but sometimes strains to keep the balance.

One of the main ways that the sci-fi/western mashup gets strained are the nods to famous sci-fi movies. Aliens, Star Wars and Return of the Jedi all get referenced in scenes. These should be little winks to the audience but eventually end up distracting the viewer from the actual story. As well, the transformation from western to sci-fi is a bit jarring. It's as though the final scene basically dropped any pretense of western, save for the clothes and weapons used. As well, the kidnapping side plot is contrived as well; when the reason for the kidnappings is revealed, you're left to wonder exactly why the kidnappings are continuing.

With that said, it is a fun film, especially if you can ignore the final act's transition to straight sci-fi. Harrison Ford basically acts as though he is an older Han Solo, and Sam Rockwell turns in a fun performance as the meek barkeep/doctor. Daniel Craig doesn't turn in a great performance, but it is a passable performance.

As a side note, I'd like to commend Cowboys and Aliens on delivering what the title implies the movie is about (unlike Aliens vs. Predator, which was inappropriately named.)

I'd recommend waiting for Cowboys and Aliens to come out on video and renting it. It is a fun film, but it isn't a film that you need to rush to see.

JayRo Watches: Captain America

I'm really an easy person to please with movies - deliver on what I'm expecting, and I'm satisfied. In that sense, Captain America was satisfying. However, there were a few big things that ended up bugging me a lot.

(Warning - kinda spoilerish stuff ahoy.)

The first was Steve Rogers' development into Captain America. He starts out as a skinny guy who is nowhere close to as gifted as other soliders. But as soon as he receives the super-soldier serum, he not only becomes a gifted athlete, he apparently also learns elite fighting skills as he immediately demonstrates. What makes it even more unusual is that the filmmaker makes sure to show Rogers fall while running really fast in a chase, demonstrating that Rogers doesn't fully understand and control his new found gifts. So why can he immediately fight like and elite fighter?

The other major thing that bothered me was the plot that got us to Captain America fighting on the front lines. In short, he was told that he couldn't fight in the war because he was the only super soldier that was created, and was much too valuable to be risked on the front lines. Instead, he is used as a propaganda tool by the US Government. When he goes to meet the troops, he finds that they mock him for not actually fighting in the war, including by the very people who banned him from fighting. What exactly happened in between thich allowed him to start fighting in the war?

These are basic plot points that could have been addressed but were either ignored or not even noticed. Either way, they drag down what is otherwise a decent movie.

The ending also felt more like a comic book ending than an actual movie ending. The serialization is expected, since this is essentially a direct lead-in to next year's Avengers, ubt it felt somewhat out of place in an actual movie.

(End spoilers)

The action in the film is pretty enjoyable, and the 3D is decently done. I don't feel it was necessary, but it was enjoyable.

I'd recommend this for a rental, unless you absolutely need to see it in 3D or want to geek out to the after credits part.

JayRo Watches: Horrible Bosses

A common theme in many comedies is that of otherwise normal people deciding to commit a major crime. From Throw Mama From the Train to Very Bad Things, you get to see either the build to the crime or the after effects of the crime.

The key to these films is not necessarily the plot; while a believable plot could be helpful, you can also have an extraordinarily far-fetched plot if the humour associated with it is good. The key instead are the characters themselves. The main protagonists need to be likable to let you sympathize with them as they resort to their criminal activities to solve their problems. In some cases it works well, in others it's an abject failure. Horrible Bosses succeeds thanks to its characters.

Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day play the characters who are looking to kill their horrible bosses. The characters are likable and relatable; everybody can relate to how horrible bosses can you cause you discomfort and pain in the workplace. And the horrible bosses in this movie are truly horrible - walking cliches amped up to a point of absurdity. Colin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston play their roles well, though they are secondary to Kevin Spacey's main antagonist role. The interaction between boss and subordinate gives you a great sense of why these characters would so want to kill their boss that they actually are moved to action. The plot does help here, as while the bosses's actions seem to be well exaggerated, the twists in the movie make internal sense and move the movie along well.

While Bateman has the lead role, Sudeikis and Day do a lot of the heavy lifting in the comedy, leaving Bateman to be more the straight man. And Sudeikis and Day deliver, with Day being primed for a bit of a Zach Galifianakis like breakout performance (thanks in part to his role being the more zany.)

I recommend Horrible Bosses - it is a fine comedy that will likely have you laughing at many parts.

JayRo Watches - Transformers: Dark of the Moon

On Grantland last week, they ran a Chris Ryan piece where he defended Michael Bay. I probably appreciated it more than most, as I don't think that I have left a Michael Bay movie and thought "Wow, that was a waste of my time" or "Wow, that wasn't entertaining in any way." Maybe I just figured out the key to a Michael Bay movie earlier than most - you have to go in expecting a spectacle. Any sort of decent acting performance or three dimensional plot is a bonus. Even when a Bay film misses completely on the basics of filmmaking (ie plot and acting and proper framing of shots), it still works. (As a friend mentioned about Transformers Revenge of the Fallen: "Revenge of the Fallen was pretty bad, but hey, big robots and explodey. Can't fault that.")

All of this is build up to say that Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the apex of Michael Bay's directing career. The plot is kind of nuanced (even if it can be boiled down to "Earth is being invaded by aliens"), the action scenes are incredible, and some of the visuals are amazing to behold. As well, you get Bay's music video-esque treatment of the female lead (in the first scene in present time, my friend suggested that it looked like a Victoria Secret's commercial, and he was right.) There are a lot of "humanizing" moments where a character delivers an inspirational speech to rally the troops and us to his side. You get many actors willing to mug for the camera, producing some memorable characters who you enjoy seeing on screen.. And yes, giant robots go explodey.

(I want to give the climax a shout out here - it gets set up earlier in the movie, but Bay allows you to forget it by putting about 30 minutes of pure action right after it.)

What was truly remarkable was how the 3D worked in this movie. While it didn't need the 3D (which really could be said for any movie, including Avatar) Transformers 3 uses 3D in the best way I have seen it used, except maybe Avatar. The difference between Avatar and Transformers 3 is tha Avatar used 3D to try to immerse the viewer in the planet's environment; Transformers 3 uses it seemlessly, so that it isn't a distraction but you know that it is there. It doesn't really use the cheesy "here comes an object flying at you" effect, instead it uses 3D to actually provide some physical depth to each scene which helps to provide some perspective on what is going on around the characters.

In all honesty, if there was ever going to be a film where Michael Bay received a best director nomination, this would be it. With that said, he isn't going to be nominated, but it is a remarkable achievment that he should be proud of.

I highly recommend Transformers: Dark of the Moon to those who can accept a movie that does not challenge them intellectually at all, or who like things that explode.

JayRo Watches: The Green Hornet

I went into watching the Green Hornet with much trepidation. Most everything I heard about it was horrible, with reviews shitting all over it. To my surprise, I did not mind it.

I should be clear - this is not a fantastic film that people should hunt down immediately. The action was pretty pedestrian, the development of the Britt Reid character was forced, and the swerve of the big baddie at the end was pretty obvious. But this was balanced with Seth Rogan's performance of a bumbling super hero pretending to be a villain, along with the general greatness of the Kato character.

The plot of the Green Hornet is pretty straight forward - father dies, son turns to crime fighting then avenges father's death. The twist is that the Green Hornet pretends to be a villain to get closer to the actual villains. Along the way there are twists and turns, but the feel of the movie is very familiar.

In all, this is a mediocre film which you will end up sitting down and watching one day when it is on television. And after it is done you will wonder where your time went. It won't move you to buy a DVD, nor will it encourage you to want to see a second Green Hornet film, but you won't feel as though you have been ripped off on your time.

JayRo Watches: X-Men First Class

X-Men First Class is definitely a Bryan Singer movie, even if he did not direct it. It follows through on X-Men 1 and 2, and ties up a lot of the loose ends. As well, it carries on the tradition of the first two movies to concentrate on characters and acting performances over action.

That isn't to say that there are no spectacular fight scenes. In particular, Magneto has quite a few scenes where he looked like the greatest assassin ever created. But what drives the movie are the performances of the actors.

James McAvoy plays Charles Xavier, and carries a lot of the heavy load in the first half of the movie. McAvoy brings a lot of Xavier's gravitas and mysterious ability to push and challenge his students. He also supplies the wisdom that you expect from Professor X. But in the second half of the movie, he hands over the movie to the true star, Michael Fassbender.

Fassbender plays Magneto with aplomb, taking what is initially a character who is driven solely by revenge, and helping to transform him into the complex character who desires to take mutant kind to rule the world. He takes us along with his own change into this character, letting us understand his motives while not necessarily tipping his hand as to where the character is going to go. It was a breakout performance for Fassbender; not necessarily an Oscar worthy performance, but on that should make Hollywood pay notice and get Fassbender many more starring roles.

I should also take a moment to commend Kevin Bacon on his performance; more often than not Bacon is treated as a bit of a joke, thanks to the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game. But his performance as Sebastian Shaw was a strong performance for somebody who normally isn't cast as a main villain.

I recommend seeing this movie, especially if you enjoed the first two X-Men movies. The acting carries the movie, though the story and action were not lacking either.

JayRo Listens To: Wasting Light

I'm going to be honest with you; I'm not entirely sure how to write a valuable review of an album. I'm not a musician, so I'm not able to get too much into the detail of the technical skills of the artists. I also think that music is much more of a personal experience than, say, a movie or a book or a television show. It is difficult to offer a review on those circumstances.

With that said, I can tell you what I like. And I really, really like Wasting Light by the Foo Fighters.

At this point it's probably fair to admit that I am an unabashed Foo Fighters fan. So it's fair to say that there is a hint of bias in this review.

For those who do not like the Foo Fighters, you should give this album a chance. It is rather accessible and more standard rock. There is less experimentation with their sound and more straight forward rock.

For fans of the Foo Fighters, this is closer to The Color and the Shape. It is a welcome improvement on Echoes, Silence, Patience and Grace, which seemed to be more Dave and the band trying to expand themselves artistically. It isn't as good as In Your Honor, but that is not a slight given the accomplishment that In Your Honor is. All things considered, it is a welcome return for the Foo Fighters.

I recommend purchasing this album.

Hotel Review: Cambridge Suites Toronto

Last weekend, I went to Toronto and stayed at the Cambridge Suites Toronto Here's a review.

Sitting Room


The room was a standard suite at Cambridge Suites. When you walk in, you are put in the sitting area/kitchenette area.



Standard fare here, with a couch which apparently folds out (I never checked), a flat screen TV with some HD content, a chair and a coffee table.




From there, you can head to the left, where you find a communal closet to store your coats and other outside wear (as seen by my fantastic photography skillz).



To the right is an entrance to the one washroom in the suite.


Another fantastic photo.

Bathroom

The bathroom is a very good size, with standard amenities. The bathtub/shower combo:



The showerhead was a bit finicky. I had to work a little bit to find my preferred pressure but once I did, all was fine. The temperature was no problem.



Standard low rider toilet. No problem with flushing or anything.




One sink in the washroom, which was no problem for me, but might be a problem for a couple or a family who need to get ready for a night out.

The bedroom

Separating the bedroom from the sitting area are a set of french doors:


When you enter, you find the bed:



The bed seemed comfortable enough, but I wasn't able to get a truly good night's sleep. I would get half an hour then wake up. This repeated for every night. I don't know if it was because of the bed, the room, or my sleeping pattern, but one way or another I couldn't get a good night's sleep.



The alarm clock. No docking station for an iPod and a bit confusing to figure out at first. Once I did figure it out, there was no problem at all, and it worked without problem.



Flatscreen TV in the room. Same as the one in the sitting area.



The closest in the bedroom. In it is a luggage rack, iron and ironing board.

Other items

Notably missing from the room was a safe to store your valuables. I don't know if the hotel has a safety deposit available, but I think the lack of safe was a downside.

The room does have a microwave and a mini fridge to use for storing food. As well, it comes with more glassware than normal. 6 drinking glasses were available. It also has a desk you can sit and work at. As well, there's a continental breakfast in the restaurant in the morning. If it's included in your room, it is a nice bonus. If you have to pay to add it, I would not recommend it. It is very basic.

(It's also worth noting that coffee and water is available free throughout the day.)

Finally, the view from the room:



Overall thoughts:

Overall, I did not mind my room. It served my purposes well. I would definitely return for the right price, though if I look to stay downtown Toronto in the future, I would likley lookat another hotel first. It probably has most value for more than one person than a single traveller.

JayRo Watches Movies: Thor

Yesterday, I talked about the theory of the summer popcorn movie. Last night I saw the prototypical popcorn movie in Thor.

Thor's the retelling of the comic book superhero from Marvel. It's not so much of an origin story as it is an introduction story. Taken on it's own, it is a fine film. It's not going to win any Oscars, but it is a step above a normal action film.

It tells the story of how Thor became the great god that he is today, and his growth from a powerful warrior, to a more worldly god. Through it, Thor is also thrown to Earth as a mortal, left to learn humility and other methods beyond fighting to solve conflict. Luckily for him, he meets Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman) and her friends.

The strength of the film is actually the fish out of water scenes on Earth. Between Thor's lack of understanding of regular human interactions and everybody else's reaction to Thor, it is comedic gold.

There is also a fair bit of intrigue in Asgard, where most of the film's gravitas comes from. Kenneth Branaugh draws from his Shakespearian background to lenda fair bit of credence and value to these scenes. It does break down at times, especially when it comes to trying to determine Loki's intentions through his various actions. That is more of a weakness of the story than it is the fault of Branaugh or the actors.

A special mention for Chris Hemsworth, who does a great job in playing Thor. He seemed to know which notes he needed to hit in a role which could have easily given way to extreme overacting in the wrong hands.

A solid thumbs up and watch it for Thor.

On the Mike Croft "Go" rating system, this scores a 2.
For the "Avengers" movies the rankings are as follows:

Iron Man
Thor
Iron Man 2
Hulk

Note: There iso another setup for the upcoming movie version of "The Avengers" in this movie. Stay until the end of the credits (much like every other Marvel movie)

JayRo Watches Movies: Fast 5

The term popcorn movie gets thrown around a lot for most summer movies. It means a movie that you can go into and not have to think about. Instead, you just watch the action and enjoy it for what it is. This is the essence of Fast 5.

Fast Five is the fifth installment in the Fast and the Furious. By now, you know what to expect. Cars, testosterone and violence. It hasn't changed at all. What has seemingly changed is the tone. The movie seems a bit more fun, with everybody seemingly being in on the joke that yes, the movie is ridiculous, the script is cliche ridden, and the actors are there to chew up the scenery. It's conceit is that it basically tells you that it's okay to laugh at it; in reality you are laughing with them.

That isn't to say that this movie won't challenge you - it will, but not in the way you would expect. Instead of questioning your values or anything like that, you are questioning how many laws of phsyics are broken, along with how 5 foot nothing Vin Diesel is apparently the same size as six foot three the Rock? It will dare you to find your own plot holes in the movie. It will do all this while winking at you.

In the end, I really enjoyed Fast 5. It is a bad movie that doesn't pretend to be anything but. It basically tells you "Of course this is terrbile. Would you have it any other way?"

No, no I wouldn't.

JayRo Reads: The Bullpen Gospels

The Bullpen Gospels
by Dirk Hayhurst

This is by far the most interesting book I have read in the last year. It is one of the best baseball books that I have read. It might be one of the best books that I have read.

The book is a recounting of Hayhurst's 2007 season, which was spent in the San Diego Padres' minor league system. In it, you get a great look at what minor league baseball is like, with most of the stories of sex, drugs and alcohol you would come to expect.

What isn't expected is Hayhurst's own story of overcoming his anxiety, his overcoming his family situation, to produce results on the field. Hayhurst approaches this in the same way that he approaches the minor league portion of the book - with honesty. What could have been a book that was filled with the antics of a minor league is instead an honest portrayal of not only the minors, but one man's struggles to exceed at baseball but also determine what his ultimate goal is for his life.

Even if you aren't a baseball fan, you should read this book. I can not recommend it enough.

JayRo Watches: Kick Ass

Kick Ass is almost the perfect popcorn movie. You go in, essentially shut off your brain, and enjoy yourself. Yet, there's something distracting while you're watching the movie, especially the climax. That's what happens when you are watching an 11-year old girl get beaten up by a middle age man.

This is the dichotomy of the movie - if you can get past the 11-year old girl - who is admittedly the most threatening fighter in the movie - getting beat up, you'll have no problem with Kick Ass, and you will enjoy it. Otherwise, you might want to take pause; the movie has its merits (especially with the evolution of Kick Ass as a crime fighter), but Hit Girl might end up distracting you from the film and stopping your enjoyment.

(In a related note, if Roger Ebert had just stayed on this line of thought, I would have had no qualms about his review. Instead, he went down the "won't you think about the children" route and the "controversy" ensued.)

JayRo Watches: Salt

I remember when I first watched the Sixth Sense, I figured out the twist almost immediately. I noticed the little things throughout the movie to lay the back story for when they revealed the twist. It was a well produced film that unfortunately launched the career of M. Night Shyamalan to a level that we are still recovering from.

I bring this up not only for the unnecessary shot at M. Night Shyamalan, but also because the Sixth Sense might be the last great movie that had a twist which worked within the context of the movie and as an actual surprise. Salt is the latest to attempt to give the shock twist, and the latest to fail.

It fails because we're conditioned to expect a twist ending out of our thrillers; a misdirection which is supposed to shock us. What saves the movie is that the story itself is strong enough to last on its own, even with the knowledge that something will be flipped on you at the end.

Angelina Jolie stars as Evelyn Salt, a CIA operative. She gets a visit from a Russian operative who claims to have information on how the Russian President will be killed. Salt's interest isn't piqued until he reveals the name of the assassin: Evelyn Salt. This launches the movie into a frantic half hour chase, where the CIA attmepts to bring Salt back into custody. The story is at its strongest here, with Salt escaping not only by outsmarting her pursuers, but by getting lucky as well. We then follow Salt as the story of how we got to this point is unraveled.

Jolie is fantastic playing Salt, being able to balance the kick-ass heroine role with the emotional gravitas of being concerned for her husband's well being. Knowing that the role was first offered to Tom Cruise makes me thankful that he chose to do Knight and Day; if he were to have played the same role it could have come off as derivative of Mission:Impossible.

All in all, I recommend Salt, even if you won't be surprised by the end. The story is structured that it does not depend on the shock factor, and leaves you satisfied with the resolution.

JayRo Plays Batman: Arkham Asylum

Many comic book franchises produce video games that rely on the name of the comic book to sell the game, and then ignore gameplay all together. (Superman Returns springs to mind immediately.) Batman: Arkham Asylum actually goes the opposite way, producing a game with rich gameplay, multiple modes, replay value and oh, BTW, you are playing Batman.

The story begins with Batman escorting Joker into Arkham Asylum to be locked up. Of course, Joker escapes, and the story then revolves around Batman trying to take down the Joker. Along the way, you learn some things about what was happening at Arkham Asylum, and some come back to haunt you.

Gameplay is interesting. There's the standard brawling which takes up a lot of the game. There's also some puzzle solving, trying to find your way around barriers, etc. But the most intriguing part of game play is the Predator mode, which is a stealth mode. The point of this is to take down the enemies without being noticed. What makes it stand out from the others is the way it uses the Batman character. You are able to not only sneak around silently, but you can use the vents and any convieniently placed gargoyles to sneak around. The gargoyles are especially good, as you can swing from them, and (once you upgrade to it) use them to take out the enemies. There are also "challenge missions" that let you use these predator tactics in as quick as possible. This is the most interesting aspect of the game, and playing the challenges is all the more enjoyable.

Along with the Joker, you encounter some more of Batman's Rouge Gallery. The most interesting is the Riddler, who you never actually see. He leaves you with trophies to find and riddles to solve. These are in unusual places, and involve doing some interesting movements to get to them.

I realize I am late to the game with my praise of Batman: Arkham Asylum. Even still, if you haven't already picked this up, you should. There is enough there to keep your attention for a long time.

JayRo Watches: Nikki Yanofsky: Live in Montreal

This isn't going to be so much of a review as a plea to the music industry: For the love of everything good in the world, do not fuck up Nikki Yanofsky and try to turn her into the next Britney Spears.

(I should probably note that there isn't any indication that they are going to do this, but consider this a pre-emptive caution.)

As for the concert itself, it is remarkable. You hear her sing and her voice is amazing. Listen to her do "Airmail Special" and you will be in awe. Then she thanks the crowd for the ovation and you snap back to reality - she's only 16! It is ridiculous.

My only complaint? The crowd gives her a standing ovation seemingly after every song. Yes, she's incredily talented, but the 8th standing ovation kinda loses the impact of the first.

JayRo Reads Books: Cowboys Full - The Story of Poker

Cowboys Full - The Story of Poker
By: James McManus
Published: 2009

Writing the histoy of poker is a massive undertaking. Its origins seem obvious, though those involved in the origins are long past, and not many thought to record their history. James McManus decides to workaround this difficulty by instead choosing to argue a thesis instead: Poker is America's game. This approach helps and hurts his book.

By defining a thesis, McManus allows himself to concentrate on some distinctly American topics which are tangentally related to poker. While he weaves the stories back into his narrative, they do make the reader wonder what they have to do with the "story" of poker. This is the weakness of the book.

Fortunately, the thesis also helps the book, as it allows McManus to explore a lot of different topics in the form of essays, especially at the end of the book. His pieces about poker etiquette and AI playing poker were fun to read. His comparisons of Civil War strategy and poker strategy were inspired, if not expected.

Naturally, the piece about the UIEGA is incredibly out of date, and I'm not sure why McManus spent so much editoralizing it when he had to know that the situation would drastically. But even with that weakness, the book was fun to read.

I recommnd reading this book if you are interested in a great book about poker. Just don't expect it to be a true history of poker.

JayRo Watches Movies: Fanboys

I went into Fanboys expecting the worse - an unfunny film with Kristen Bell in a Leia costume. It delivered on the Leia costume, and for the parts not involving a cameo, it delivered on the unfunny. But for the final third of the film, the script actually carried the film, providing laughs in a more natural manner.

The movie is set in 1999, months before Episode 1 opened. After finding out that one is terminally ill, four friends decide to road trip to the Skywalker Ranch to break in and see the movie before it is released. Along the way, they have a lot of wacky episodes.

Part of what was irritating about this movie was how they treated the characters. Instead of treating the characters with respect, they are the butt of many of the jokes, making the audience laugh at them, instead of with them. This could have ruined the movie, but luckily the cameos save the movie. Kevin Smith, Billy Dee Williams, Carrie Fisher and Seth Rogan (twice!) appear and steal the scenes they are in.

Hoywever, something funny happens once the characters arrive at the Skywalker Ranch. (yes, they do make it there. No I'm not spoiling anything here.) Magically, the plot becomes interesting, the antics funny, and the characters likeable. It's as though the writers wrote the movie specifically for this portion, and then realized they needed to fill in the rest of the film.

In any event, this ended up being a much better movie than I expected. I recommend renting it for the cameos and final Skywalker Ranch piece.

And FWIW, it did deliver Kristen Bell in a Leia costume. So it half met my expectations.

JayRo Watches Movies: Accepted

I'm not sure that I've mentioned it before, but I really am a non-fan of Justin Long (to put it mildly.) His "Mac" character in the Apple ads turn me off, plus his performance in some of his other roles left me feeling non-plussed.

I say this because in spite of this, I really enjoyed Accepted and his turn as the lead character.

Accepted is a formulatic comedy with a not-so-formulatic script. General plot: Character tells lie, character must continue with lie or else be found out, character becomes good at lie, lie is discovered and everybody turns on character, character redeemed in end. In this case, the lie is Bartelby Gaines (Long) was accepted into the South Harmon Institute of Technology. The catch is that South Harmon Institute of Technology doesn't exist. Through wacky hijinx, Bartelby has to make his parents believe that SHIT (acronym of South Harmon Institute of Technology, get it?) exist, only to find that many other students believe they were also accepted into SHIT. Bartelby and his friends then proceed to run a university. Throw in Monica Moreland (played ably by Blake Lively) as Bartelby's love interest and the desire of Harmon University's dean to shut down SHIT in order to create an entrance gate, and you get your base of a plot.

What makes Accepted work is that Bartelby and friends are likeable characters, and somewhat believable as well. They play on your emotion of not being accepted, and throw in general caring. Lewis Black's turn as SHIT's dean is fantastic as well; they did not try to make Black into anything different than his normal self.

I recommend Accepted for all to watch; it is a smart, funny film that has me rethinking my non-like of Justin Long.

JayRo Watches Movies: Iron Man 2

If you read reviews of Iron Man 2, you might be lead to believe that there are too many villains in the movie, and they clutter up the film. You would be lead to a wrong conclusion.

There are two antagonists in the film: Whiplash, as played by Mickey Rourke, and Justin Hammer, as played by Sam Rockwell (who channels Gary Oldman). Hammer really isn't a villain in the movie. He is introduced as kind of an anti-Tony Stark. Hammer's inventions consistently do not work, he fails at getting a contract with the Department of Defense while Stark succeeds, and Hammer is a failure with the ladies, while Stark is Tony Stark.

When Whiplash makes a move on Stark, Hammer sees this and then arranges to put Whiplash in his employ to create Hammer's own version of Iron Man suits. Both are driven by their desire to see Tony Stark's life in ruin. However, Hammer is never in control, and never shows himself to be a threat of any significence. Instead, he serves as Whiplash's enabler, providing the funding and resources to build out his "Iron Man" suit army. Hammer is never situated as a true threat to Stark; instead his role is more of foil and plot accelerator, and I'm not sure what others were expecting from his character.

One overriding theme in the movie is control. Hammer attempts to exert control over Whiplash. Whiplash wants to control (and destroy) Stark's legacy. Pepper Potts struggles with control of Stark Industries. James Rhodes attempts to control Tony Stark as Iron Man. And Stark wants to keep his self control as he searches for a cure for his poisoning. How each handls their attempts at control drives the plot and contrasts the various characters. For being a superhero movie, there is an attempt to elevate the film beyond it's simple basis.

But it's the simple base that makes the movie work. This film is the Robert Downey Jr. show, plain and simple. He owns the film, overshadowing even the effects. Without him, the weaker plot could be overrun rather easily. Instead Downey's presence lets you overlook any flaws in the film. He makes the film so enjoyable that the fight scenes are a delightful treat.

I recommend this movie for anybody who enjoys a commanding performance or who enjoyed the first movie.

Reviews

Roger Ebert did not like Kick-Ass.

I'm not able to truly contrast his thoughts to mine on Kick-Ass, as I haven't seen it. I can say that it doesn't help me to decide whether it is worth me seeing, which is a problem since what he wrote is labelled as a review.

A review should be a guide as to whether a movie, play or TV show is worth watching, or a concert is worth attending. It informs the reader of the reviewer's view of the quality of the product. The tastes of the reviewer are in play, though that is more to give the reader context when reading the review. Ebert's review of Kick-Ass did nothing of the sort. Instead, Ebert dismissed Kick-Ass because it offended is sensibilities.

(I don't mean this as a slight against Ebert's sensibilites - whle I think that 6 year olds are not likely to be seeing anything to do with Kick-Ass, the same arguments can be applied to 11 year olds and be just as valid.)

The problem with what Ebert wrote is that it dismisses Kick-Ass based upon how Kick-Ass will be received by much younger children, even though the review is targetted to be read by adults. The review does not help adults decide if it is worth watching. Instead, it leaves the reader confused as to what to expect from the movie, as Ebert highlights some positives, only to go back to his initial thought about young children.

When reading Ebert's writing on Kick-Ass, it felt as though he should have been a separate essay, with a review covering the merits of the film for the viewing public. It would also work if he dropped the star/thumbs rating system and just wrote about Kick-Ass in a traditional criticism format. The rating system implies a different type of review that Ebert seemed unwilling to provide in his case.