Director: Woody Allen
Starring: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson, Ed Begley, Jr., Henry Cavill, Michael McKean
Running Time: 92 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Could there be possibly a better idea than having Larry David star in a Woody Allen movie? He does a better Woody Allen than Woody Allen. The only idea I can think of that comes close is casting Evan Rachel Wood as his wife. Your level of appreciation for Allen's latest New York-set comedy, Whatever Works is entirely dependent on how you feel about David as a comedian. If you love the brand of self-loathing comedy he dishes out on Curb Your Enthusiasm, this movie is your dream come true. If not, then you'll hate it. It's that simple. Me? I think he's a comic genius and was counting down the days until he was given an opportunity to finally star in a feature film. The teaming of these two comic minds doesn't disappoint. But what's even more hilarious than anything that happens in it is Allen actually thinking he would attempt to give a real performance. He had to know that his star would just make fun of the material.

As David would be more than willingly admit, he isn't necessarily a good actor, but he's perfect for the role and the entire reason the film succeeds. This is an unproduced script Allen dusted off from the 1970's and it really feels (and even looks) like it, with dated humor and references that when delivered/mocked by David all of the sudden become a lot less dated and much funnier. We can congratulate Allen for not only realizing he was too old to play the role himself, but casting a youngster who does a better job than he ever could in not just hiding the flaws in the script, but making them work in the movie's favor.

The primary appeal of the film is that David seems as befuddled as we are that he's starring in a Woody Allen movie. As Boris Yelnikoff, an eccentric chess teacher from Greenwich Village who "almost" won the Nobel Prize for physics, he even pauses to break the fourth wall and tell us how befuddled he is in the opening minutes. When he's not complaining about life, he's berating kids, dumping chessboards on their heads and insulting their mothers. A cynical misanthrope prone to panic attacks, his most memorable one caused him to jump out of his apartment window and shatter his leg after his wife told him she was leaving him. He now walks with a limp, which David hilariously overplays.

Boris' world of rigid routine and order is disrupted when a runaway from Mississippi named Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Wood) shows up outside of his apartment looking for a place to crash. After some coaxing he agrees and discovers the bubbly, airheaded beauty pageant contestant is just about the only person he's ever met not just willing to put up with his neurotic behavior, but loves it. Naive and unaffected by everything around her, she views his petulant diatribes as brilliant nuggets of wisdom and develops a serious crush. Just the thought of that is hilarious in itself, but how Boris' handles the information is even more priceless. They get married with Melodie becoming more his caregiver than wife. With the arrival of Melodie's estranged parents Marietta (Patricia Clarkson) and John (Ed Begley Jr.), the film goes from being funny to being so stupid that it's funny.

The introduction of all these supporting characters relatively late in the game (including a potential love interest for Melodie played by Henry Cavil) does kind of throw everything off balance, but in sort of a good way. That's because David is there to mock them and Allen's attempt to tie life lessons up in a bow before the final credits roll. There's this underlying feeling running through the third act that Allen, who's completely stuck in an Annie Hall time warp, thought he was making an enormously important picture about the transforming energy of New York and that in the face of self-doubt and chaos everyone has to find their place in the world and do "whatever works" best for them. But what's so funny about that is Allen's seemingly silly message becomes digestable and almost strangely profound because of David's performance...as himself. Or rather a slightly nastier version of the "himself" he plays on Curb Your Enthusiasm. He makes it okay for us to go along for the ride because he never takes anything seriously. Wood, more known for playing sullen teenagers, tackles a type of role we've never seen her in and perfectly compliments David's neurotic insanity. She plays it completely sweet and sincere and it's a surprise to discover she's this good at comedy.

It also helps that Patricia Clarkson is such a lively presence as Melodie's uptight, religious mother and, as usual, the underrated Ed Begley, Jr. steals the few scenes he's in as the ultra-conservative but clueless dad. Both their sub-plots are ludicrous, but they sell it like pros and David's sarcastic reaction to their arrivals helps a lot. Ironically, the end result seems close to what Allen must have been aiming for and it could be considered his most enjoyable comedy in years, ending a string of lackluster efforts interrupted only by the drama Match Point in 2005. All he had to do was dust off one of his old scripts and insert Larry David. Maybe we should just insert David into every movie from now on. At least we'd be guaranteed to laugh, if nothing else. Hardly a minute went by when David was onscreen that I didn't. Insults are just funnier when delivered in his dry, deadpan style.

Not surprisingly, public response to the film has been unfairly harsh and it's fun to imagine how much worse a review David would give it and himself than the critics who trashed it. They missed the point. He doesn't have to be a good actor. He just has to be himself. A big monologue comes at the end with Boris telling us what he's learned. Yeah, right. It's Larry David. We know he never learns anything. But thanks to him, Whatever Works works.

Director: Pete Docter
Starring: Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Bob Peterson, Delroy Lindo, John Ratzenberger
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: PG
Rating: PG

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Immediately after watching Disney/Pixar's Up I briefly visited the internet movie database and noticed something very interesting. Despite being the most universally acclaimed animated film since, well, Pixar's last universally acclaimed animated film, and riding a tidal wave of critical and commercial support as well as a potential Best Picture nomination, the movie somehow managed to be "Down 50%" in popularity the week it hit DVD. The relatively simple explanation for that: People like me who (wisely) chose to skip it this theaters are just now seeing it and probably feeling slightly disappointed. "Pixar has done it again." We keep hearing that but the connotation isn't as positive as you'd like to believe. They've essentially been repeating themselves over and over again, but exceptionally well. Only this time their effort isn't exceptional (at least from a writing standpoint) and is a far cry in depth and complexity from last year's Wall-E, which, in a way, could be viewed as a positive. Kids will eat this up even if the middle portion of the plot resembles anything they could catch on Nick Jr.

The opening minutes are magical and moving until it settles into a familiar groove and the film has some difficulties following through on its own promise, struggling some to reconcile the more serious, adult issues with the silly adventure nonsense that pads the rest of the picture. It's fun, but predictable fable that's only partially about an elderly man coming to terms with his wife's death and learning to embrace life again with the help of a little boy. The rest of it is filled with endangered birds, diabolical explorers, dog pilots and a sub-plot that plays like something out of Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Of course, because it's Pixar and they are the best at what they do within this genre, they get away with it and make it seem important. It's recommendable, if just barely, because it succeeds in being an animated feature the whole family can enjoy. Beyond that, it accomplishes very little. Best Animated Film? Maybe. But Best Picture material this isn't, no matter how many extra nominees there are.

It begins with a touching romance between childhood friends Carl (Edward Asner) and Ellie as they bond over their shared passion for exploring and disgraced adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), who we learn through newsreel footage was accused of being a fraud. In a narrative approach never employed in an animated film, in just a few silent minutes we flash forward in time to see Carl marry Ellie, fix up their dream home, take respective jobs as a zookeeper and balloon salesman, endure personal tragedy and save up to one day travel to Paradise Falls in South America. Ellie passes away before they can.

This entire sequence is as powerful as anything I've seen in an animated feature and the rest of the movie works largely because those images never leave the mind. Now a lonely, bitter old man cut off from the world, Carl grieves over the loss of his late wife, turning their run down house into a memorial even as recent neighborhood industrialization threatens to destroy it and send him to the Shady Oaks Retirement Home via court order. Rather than face that, he uses thousands of his helium balloons to lift the house from is foundation and send it soaring into the sky. Accidentally coming along for the ride is Russell (Jordan Nagai), an 8-year-old Wilderness Explorer trying to earn his final merit badge for "assisting the elderly."

The adventure that unfolds when they arrive in South America is fun, if also totally pedestrian, at least when stacked against the magical set-up. It mostly involves them rescuing rare, flightless bird named Kevin from the evil clutches of Carl's childhood idol Charles Muntz and his pack of wild dogs with talking translators for collars. The talking collars are more creepy than inventive. Why not just have the dogs talk? It is an animated film. Were they worried it would seem too unbelievable in a story where an old man attaches helium balloons to his house so he can fly out of the country?

In spite of my reservations during this section of the picture (at which I occasionally caught myself clock watching) the story is bolstered greatly by the friendship that develops between the two characters. The opening minutes of the story are so powerful and the central idea of escaping life's problems by just flying away in your house is rendered perfectly onscreen. Carl is curmudgeonly but the script smartly doesn't go too far by painting him as an inaccessible scrooge. Supposedly, Carl Frederickson is at least partially inspired by Spencer Tracy while you could easily say young Russell is based on every cute, but sometimes annoyingly precocious 8-year-old kid you've ever met.

As per the norm with Pixar the animation is astounding, this time with an even more vibrant color palette, even if I found Michael Giacchino's musical score overbearing at times. For what its worth, I do think they went in the right direction following up Wall-E with a lighter effort likely to have more broader appeal and be less to digest thematically for kids. It does deal with serious issues like death and child abandonment, but the social topics aren't all encompassing like they were in Wall-E, which could have been categorized as a Disney movie doubling as an adult science fiction parable. This isn't. It's very much a kid's movie with some appeal for adults. Obviously, I saw this in its regular format, but imagine the gimmick of 3-D would be more likely to lessen than bolster its impressive visuals.

While the actual adventure at the movie's center seems average compared to what leads them there I'd have a tough time coming with any alternatives that would have worked better. It is what it is. If this seems to be just about the most unenthusiastic endorsement I could possibly give a film, in its defense I had very little interest going in and had problems mustering up much excitement at the prospect of Pixar repeating themselves again. They've gone as far as they can go and you've got to wonder what's even left. I enjoyed myself, but aside from the opening minutes, didn't share in the deeper experience everyone else seemed to have watching the picture. Up is a good time, but not much more.

I don't even know what to say here. It's best you just read it...then try to forgive me.

DVD REVIEW: THE INFORMERS

Directors: Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore
Starring: Zach Creggger, Trevor Moore, Raquel Alessi, Craig Robinson, Molly Stanton
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: Unrated

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

With a 4.9 rating on the internet movie database and a 0% score on Rotten Tomatoes it's a pretty safe bet that the vulgar but frequently hilarious American Pie clone Miss March won't be showing up on many year-end top ten lists, nor are the performances likely to receive awards attention. But we knew that. Truthfully, this is a BAD movie and one I wouldn't even attempt to defend on any basis of technical merit. The writing, the directing and acting is all pretty average at best and bad at worst. Only it's bad in the most fun way possible and with all the movies I see it's kind of a relief to know that at least I haven't completely lost the ability to check my brain at the door and enjoy garbage. Sure, my IQ may have dropped a couple of hundred points when it ended, but damn if it didn't feel good.

After this I'm starting to think that maybe after this and Crank 2 I should just watch and review trash. It's definitely of a lot more fun. There are times when you're in the mood for a fancy five-course meal at an expensive restaurant and others when you just feel like eating at McDonald's. This film is a Big Mac. It's terrible for you and loaded with empty calories, but if you're in the mood, nothing tastes better. Usually, I'd be surprised that a Direct-to-DVD release could be so entertaining, except, much to my shock, this had a short run in theaters a couple of months ago so a few people actually saw it. There's no need to over-analyze things. A movie like this is only made to make you laugh, and I laughed my ass off throughout. That's the only standard it should be held to.

High school senior Eugene (Zach Cregger) is moments away from losing his virginity to longtime girlfriend Cindi (Raquel Alessi) when a drunken fall down the basement stairs causes him to slip into a coma. He awakens four years later partially paralyzed and unable to control his bowels (as we're graphically shown). His goofy best friend Tucker (Trevor Moore) was the only one who stayed by his side as his parents abandoned him and Cindi disappeared. It isn't long before Tucker makes the shocking discovery that Cindi is now a Playboy centerfold, news that horrifies the prudish Eugene who hilariously used to host assemblies with her to scare kids away from sex. From a very early age, the two friends have always had wildly differing outlooks on sex, as we're shown in a really clever opening flashback scene. After a crazy accident involving strobe lights, oral sex, epilepsy and a stripper pole (don't ask), Tucker is hunted by his psycho girlfriend, Candace (Molly Stanton) and a brigade of evil Firefighters as he drags Eugene cross-country to reunite with Cindi at the famed Playboy Mansion.

From this point on the movie erupts into a Road Trip-style adventure peppered with a variety of bizarre and hilarious supporting players, specifically Trevor's celebrity rapper friend, Horsedick.mpeg ( a scene-stealing Craig Robinson from Pineapple Express and Zack and Miri Make a Porno) and a pair of horny Russian lesbians (Eve Mauro and Alexis Raben) they end up cheufering on their journey. It's somewhat surprising how much of the comedy hits the mark considering how dumb it all is. Chalk it up to good editing or comic timing but for whatever reason there was hardly a scene where I wasn't laughing hard at the antics of these guys. Not every joke hits, but the majority do and the simple, but underrated premise of a high school virgin awaking from a coma to discover his girlfriend is a Playboy playmate, is simple, but effectively realized to its fullest potential.

Any way you look at it, the idea of firefighters (of all people) scheming and plotting to take these guys down, to the point where they're throwing axes at their car and hosing them down, is funny. Sorry, but it is. As are scenes when an atrophied Eugene, clad in a hospital gown, attempts to pump gas on a breezy night or when Trevor witnesses one of Horsedick's groupies have an unfortunate accident on his tour bus. Just when you think the story is running out of gas when they hit the Playboy mansion in the last act, Trevor gets a pep talk from a wooden (no pun intended) Hugh Hefner, and it's hilarious how he just completely misses the point of the entire story he's being told, choosing to instead to obsess over the wrong aspect of it as Hef looks on blankly. This is the kind of movie that makes fun of its own message and isn't afraid to fully surrender itself to how dumb it is, which is a relief in an era where most comedies feel the need to hold back and deliver a carefully choreographed sappy message that appeals to both genders. This thankfully didn't succumb to that pressure.

From what I've heard, Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore star on a sketch cable comedy show called "The Whitest Kids U Know." I've never seen it and I'm sure whatever channel it's on I don't get it, but based on their work here I'd definitely check out the show and wouldn't mind seeing them in another big screen outing. While neither will be preparing Oscar acceptance speeches any time soon, the more charismatic than expected Cregger plays a good straight man to Moore, who is very obviously mimicking Jim Carrey, circa his Ace Ventura days. Ironically he actually plays a slightly less annoying Ace Ventura than Carrey did. Moore invokes the actor so well in both appearance and mannerisms that Carrey should expect to receive residual checks from this in the mail for the next few years. As Cindi, Alessi (who played Eva Mendes' younger counterpart in Ghost Rider) isn't given the opportunity to do much as the title character but makes the most of what limited screen time she has.

That Cregger and Moore (who are only in their twenties despite looking 35 and playing high school kids) managed to competently write, direct and star in a comedy that's consistently funnier than most of the stuff out there these days is pretty impressive and praise-worthy. Sure, it's bad but it's not THAT BAD. How do I know? Because it takes skill to make a good bad movie. That's why you don't see many doing it. It's better than it got credit for and deserved a bigger audience. This type of bathroom humor isn't for everyone and I completely understand why some would despise it but but doing so on the basis that it's too offensive or tasteless is silly. Film snobbery is a crime. After a rough week I don't want to sit on the couch with a bottle of vintage wine, smoke a pipe and watch Citizen Kane. Miss March may be dumb but it's still smart enough not to pretend to be any more than what it is. At least it'll hold me over until I watch Road Trip: Beer Pong.

Director: Tony Gilroy
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 125 min.

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Considering the talent involved in the making of it, Duplicity is a shockingly dumb film. And it's the worst kind of dumb film in that it delusionally thinks it's intelligent. Worse yet, it conveys an attitude of smug self-importance. Almost as if we should be honored to watch two big stars play unlikable characters bickering endlessly about the same issue for over two hours in a needlessly convoluted plot. The movie just spins its wheels telling two converging stories (one personal the other professional) ineffectively. As if that's not bad enough, writer/director Tony Gilroy, in his highly anticipated follow-up to 2008 Best Picture nominee Michael Clayton, actually has the nerve to not deliver on anything he promises, defeating the purpose of the entire film.

Usually, when a movie doesn't work there are at least some things in it that make me feel like I at least haven't totally wasted my time. This is different. Here, there are so many pointless (and often predictable) red herrings that the film seems to be setting itself up to fail unless it can deliver on any of it. That would be tolerable if Gilroy presented this as what it should be (a slick 90-minute crime caper). Instead, he attempts to merge an old fashioned Hollywood screwball comedy, an espionage thriller and an epic romance.

The result is a bloated, self-indulgent vanity project made so its writer can pat himself on the back for writing cool, slick dialogue and to remind us what wonderful stars (notice I said "stars," not "actors") Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are. The sad thing is that they are exceptional actors, but this isn't designed to take advantage of that. It feels like one of those Ocean's movies and if you replaced Owen with Clooney it would be. Is it December yet? This is the kind of film that usually rolls into theaters during Awards season so voters over the age of 70 can cast their votes for safe, inoffensive material starring big names. At least Michael Clayton was exciting...and didn't have a stick up its ass.

The movie opens five years ago in Rome when MI-6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) has a one-night stand with CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Roberts) in which he wakes up the next morning having been drugged and outplayed. Their paths cross again as we cut to present-day New York and both are now working as spies for two rival pharmaceutical companies. Ray is a corporate spy for Equikrom, led by its unpredictable CEO Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti), while Claire is the head of security for Burkett & Randle, whose CEO Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson), is sitting on a huge secret that could change lives.

Despite their opposing allegiances and a complete mistrust of one another, Ray and Claire make a pact to go into business together in the private sector, a decision primarily based on mutual physical attraction and the potential monetary benefits. What unfolds next is a series of double-crosses, fake double-crosses and twists all built around whether Ray and Claire can trust one other and which side each is actually on. Are their feelings for each other real or is it part of the con? That question grows tiresome when its repeated in scene after scene and situation after situation for 125 minutes. Anyone expecting a big payoff to this elaborate, overwritten and labor-filled set-up will be greatly disappointed.

Owen and Roberts are charismatic and likable leads who share a breezy chemistry. So the movie coasts on it, offering little more. We know from the beginning that Ray and Claire can't trust each other and there's no reason why they should considering both are spies. It's up to Gilroy to sell us on their potential romance, which is difficult because the two characters can't stand one another and continuously throw cranky fits. When they're not doing that they're busy congratulating themselves for delivering cleverly written dialogue that feels and sounds like cleverly written dialogue. Their exchanges are too snappy and movie-like, to the point that they draw more attention to the writer than the actors actually delivering the lines. And it always seems like lines are literally being "delivered." As are the all-too complicated details of the plot, which at times are impossible to follow, even though the story is as simple as can be.

It's tough to pick what Gilroy falters worse with; his tale of corporate espionage in which he can't decide whether this is a farce (Duplicity!) or a dead-serious Hitchcockian thriller or the would-be romance between two lying spies who hate each other which means they really love each other. My vote goes to the espionage portion if only because he makes the screenwriting mistake of introducing a huge SECRET (the contents of which the two companies are battling over), only to reveal it as a huge letdown. It was supposed to be humorous...I think. You can never tell with the film's uneven tone. Gilroy was trying to make about three movies at once and his "twist ending" wasn't just obvious, it was pointless and if you think back on the whole thing, at the end every character is essentially exactly where they started off. Nothing happened.

I don't know what's going on with Owen. After a promising career start he's really found himself in a rut, also starring in this year's equally awful espionage thriller, The International. Here he's playing the familiar role he seems to have mastered lately...himself. Roberts fares much better if only because she's at least cast against type (as she was opposite Owen in 2004's Closer), even if her character is too bitchy and uninteresting for us to care much at all what happens to her. To Roberts' credit though, as she pushes past forty she's much more believable now as a sexy spy than she would have been in her supposed prime. Unlike Owen, she escapes this disaster completely unscathed and reminds us that she's capable of more than she's often given credit for. Wilkinson and Giamatti unsurprisingly impress with what limited screen time they have as the movie definitely could have used more of them. Wilkinson, such an integral part of Clayton's success, is criminally underutilized, hardly appearing at all. The entire film would have been better off if it were just about those two.

Gas is expensive. Movie tickets are expensive. So is soda and popcorn. Paying actors' salaries and promoting a movie is even more expensive. Too much of everyone's money is at stake to deliver a film that accomplishes nothing other than entertaining the director and actors who made it. The leads are appealing, the scenic locales look good and I'm glad they seemed to have had a nice time. Now Gilroy should get back to business. Luckily, audiences knew enough to stay away from this and it was released at a time when intelligent adult dramas are bombing left and right. The biggest trick Duplicity attempts is trying to convince us it is one.

Director: Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor
Starring: Jason Statham, Amy Smart, Efrem Ramirez, Dwight Yoakam, Bai Ling
Running Time: 96 Min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Sometimes there's nothing like great trash. 2006's Crank was great trash. Crank 2: High Voltage is dirtier great trash. When I found out about this sequel my first thought was, "HOW?" But I should have known that you just don't ask any questions. The sequel picks up literally where the original left off, without skipping a beat or pausing to worry about how our hero could have possibly survived a 10,000 feet fall from a helicopter. Just as the tagline says, "He was dead...But He Got Better." That's all we need. The first movie was jacked up, high adrenaline fun that lacked any semblance of logic, but succeeded because it understood that and proudly rubbed our faces in it. It was more a video game adaptation than most films actually adapted from video games, knowing its place as a wicked satire of action films and never taking itself seriously.

Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor's follow-up provides more insane awesomeness while adding bonus humor and vulgarity. It's sexist, racist and homophobic but they get away with it all by simply being in on the joke. Little needs to be said about any movie that features a shotgun being shoved up someone's rectum, nipples and elbows being cut off, a woman being shot in her silicone implants, a character with "Full Body Tourette's," a disembodied talking head and a title card that reads "9 SECONDS LATER." That time frame pretty much lets you know about the attention span required to follow the action. This definitely isn't for all (or maybe any) tastes but if you loved the first film you'll love this since it's essentially just a repeat of its prequel, even so much as cribbing individual scenes and situations, but with a nastier, more mean-spirited tone. As incredulous as they were, the events in the first movie did at least seem to spring organically out of the craziness the protagonist found himself in. Here, they're just piled on one after another for shock value which makes for a slightly inferior film but does nothing to lessen how entertaining it is. The novelty may be gone, but the thrills aren't.

Hitman Chev Chelios (Jason Statham), who in the original film was injected with a deadly Chinese cocktail that would kill him if his heart stopped pumping adrenaline, is scraped off the L.A. pavement after his deadly fall by Chinese mobsters. He wakes up three months later to discover they've replaced his indestructible ticker with an artificial battery-powered heart just long enough to keep him alive to harvest the rest of his organs. He escapes and finds out from Doc Miles (Dwight Yoakam) that he must keep electricity running through his body to stay alive and hopefully reclaim his real heart from crime lord Johnny Vang (Art Hsu). Meanwhile, his girlfriend, Eve (Amy Smart), thinking he was dead, wasted no time getting on with her life and took up an interesting new profession, which effectively adds another layer of sleaze to an already very sleazy movie.

Whereas the original somewhat resembled an action movie of sorts, this one is a full-on parody loaded with rogues gallery of bizarre characters and weird events, jumping a mile a minute from one scenario to the next as Chev has to find creative ways to keep his artificial heart charged. Like him, we don't even get a second to catch our breath. This is the best example of an achievement of style over substance if there ever was one but Neveldine and Taylor do deserve credit as writers for coming up with a clever scenario to keep the franchise running and recognizing that the only way they were going to pull this off was to throw caution to the wind and turn the volume up on everything that worked in the first.

At the end of that film no one could stop talking about the infamous Chinatown scene and this time no one will be able to stop talking about the racetrack scene, which is really just an encore of it, except far crazier and more graphic. Amy Smart, so memorable in the first film, is given more to do this time around and plays an even larger role. We can hope she's paid really well for these movies considering the amount of sexual degradation her character endures, which she admirably never backs down from. And while the first interspersed classic rock songs over the soundtrack (i.e. Jefferson Starship's "Miracles") at the most insane moments, you'll have similar problems listening to The Marshall Tucker Band and REO Speedwagon the same way again after this.

You don't have to have seen the original to fully appreciate the sequel but it helps since there are many subtle and not so subtle nods to it throughout. In addition to Smart and Yoakam reprising their roles, Efren Ramirez returns, but as the twin brother of his flamboyant character from the previous movie. There's also a parade of welcome appearances from the likes of Gerri Haliwell (in something resembling a flashback scene), porn star Ron Jeremy, an unrecognizable Clifton Collins Jr., Corey Haim (in a mullet!) and a well disguised David Carradine in one of his final completed roles. Bai Ling's weirdness is utilized the best it's been yet as psycho Asian prostitute Ria.

Is it hypocritical of me to slam something like Transformers: ROTF while praising high-octane garbage like this? No, because this knows exactly what it is and doesn't pretend to be anything more. It actually pretends to be a whole lot less, playing more like a low-budget grindhouse exploitation flick than a mainstream action movie. Plus, this has Statham who's always a reliable bad ass and it capable of selling just about any crazy situation. The film's wildest moment is a power plant brawl that cleverly spoofs the Godzilla movies. No one can watch that scene and tell me the filmmakers aren't just out to deliver a fun time, nor can you hold the final product on screen to any normal standard of good taste. It might be slightly messier and uneven, but Crank 2 is riskier, succeeding exactly where its predecessor did in providing the ultimate mindless thrill fix.

When I recently reviewed Adventureland I noted that the big surprise of the movie for me was the performance of Kristen Stewart. It was the kind of perfectly written part any young actress would dream to play and she hit it out of the park. Those who know Stewart only from THAT OTHER THING she starred in will be equally surprised. Unfortunately for her, due to that really dumb choice, her reputation as an actress is pretty much shattered and she'll now have to work about a million times harder to prove herself. This got me thinking.

When the right actor or actress meets the right role magic can happen, but more often then not that's like hitting the lottery. And to be able to build on that momentum and sustain a consistently successful career is nearly impossible. The fact is many of these actors probably have agents who don't have a clue what they're doing and the ones that do might not listen because their egos are too big. Angelina Jolie doesn't have an agent. Neither does Bill Murray. And they've done just fine. They're two of the smart ones.

The actors/actresses on the list below don't have careers that are in dire straits, nor do they necessarily need a "comeback" (that's a different list entirely) since they're still planted firmly in the public's conciousness, but if things keep going in the direction they are, it won't be long before they do. Yes, they're all making money but they could be making MORE MONEY and MAKING GOOD MOVIES also. In a perfect world, they go hand in hand. The good news is that the situations of these five (with the exception of one) could be considered "fixable" and don't have problems a simple change in representation or a dose of reality couldn't quickly solve.

At one time or another I was fan of all of them and if anything they should take it as a compliment they were singled out because it means I think they're talented and still have a lot left to offer. If I didn't I just wouldn't have wasted my time. This list could easily be expanded but I've chosen to narrow the focus only on these five because their careers are most worth salvaging. Two of these sting because I was a huge fan of theirs, but only one makes me furious with disappointment (it'll be obvious who). This person has been torturing us with her shitty choices for nearly a decade and it's time for an intervention. As a special gift I'll be giving all of them some free advice as to how they can turn things around. They'd be wise to take it.

5. Nicolas Cage-Okay, so he lucked out with Knowing which, thanks to a good director, turned out to be a successful despite on paper carrying the hallmarks of his embarrassing blockbuster action choices over the past decade (frequently featuring him with crazy hair). That minor success aside, things have been very bad for Cage, who basically traded in his Oscar for cash.

He's an action star now not an actor, which would be fine if the movies he made weren't Ghost Rider, Next and Bangkok Dangerous. Things don't look good for the upcoming Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (wow, what a dumb freakin' title that is). Seeing his name on the marquee is practically a dead give away that the film is going to blow. Only The Weather Man and Lord of War stand out as anything worth writing home about in the past few years.

I think it's great that he used the Oscar to leverage for bigger paydays in action movies, but I wish they were good movies and that he mixed it up occasionally with dramatic roles (like his brilliant turn in Adaptation) that remind us he is a very talented actor. Compared to others on this list he isn't in such bad shape because the public actually likes him and wants to see him do well. All he needs to do is pick better scripts and work with better directors and he's set. Easily fixable.

4. Sandra Bullock-Anyone who thinks that the moderate success of The Proposal in any way signifies some kind of return to form for Sandra is kidding themselves, especially considering that her latest, All About Steve, is sitting at 0% (!!!) on the Rotten Tomato Meter. Everyone (at least the ladies) saw The Proposal because of Ryan Reynolds, who probably could have co-starred with a corpse and still opened it huge. But the good news is that no one stayed away because she was in it and the public will always like her.

It's now just a matter of finding the right projects, which is difficult because of how Hollywood tosses actresses aside when they hit 40. A select few like Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep have been able to overcome this but they have more talent and versatility than she does. Bullock is more similar to Meg Ryan in that while she's a solid actress, she was popular throughout the 1990's primarily on the basis of her cuteness and likability. Performers like her struggle to land good parts as they get older because they just can't play the same youthful, fresh-faced characters they did in their 20's and 30's.

What Sandra should do is the opposite of Cage. Take a huge blockbuster type role in a mindless action franchise to get audiences accustomed to seeing her as a big deal again. Playing an ordinary woman thrown into extraordinary circumstances is what drew audiences to her to begin with so there's no reason to think it can't happen again. Four words: SPEED 3 JASON STATHAM. Then after that she can attempt to stretch a little dramatically (which she once did to awesome effect in 2005's Crash).

3. Harrison Ford-It seems these days the only way you're going to see Ford in a good movie is if he's being referenced in a sight gag or used as a punchline (like in Fanboys and (500) Days of Summer). Who can forget his "accent" in K-19: The Widowmaker or his ludicrous roles in Hollywood Homicide and Firewall? No matter how much money Indy 4 raked in it didn't do anything for him as far as a career resurgence. That's probably because the film was awful.

What he needs to do is stop taking silly comedies (he isn't funny) and cool it on the action roles. Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone can still get away with it at their age. He can't. Not because he isn't in the shape to do it or isn't believable but because he's a different kind of actor than they are. He's a lot quieter and more low-key, making him difficult to cast. The answer at this stage is to take more gritty, independent character driven parts, even if they're supporting roles. He needs to take a page out of Stallone's book and pull a Cop Land (but of even higher quality). Ford is lucky in that he's a big star and age isn't nearly as much of a factor for actors as it is for actresses. It's perplexing that he's struggled this much.

2. Katie Holmes- Katie, Katie, Katie. When The Dark Knight opened last summer, one of the biggest surprises to come out of it were the amount of Holmes fans coming out of the woodwork claiming that they actually preferred her Rachel to Maggie Gylennhaal's. I disagree, but it was a much closer call than expected. While she was definitely the weak link in Batman Begins, looking back the performance wasn't as bad as I had originally thought if Maggie barely managed to top it.

No one could possibly claim the sequel would have been any worse off had Katie chosen to return so that's cause enough for her to celebrate. What isn't is that she backed out of one of the most critically and commercially successful movies of all-time so she could co-star in Mad Money. That's cause for alarm any way you look at it. But the public outpouring of support (misplaced or not) proves that moviegoers might finally be willing to put concerns over her personal life aside to give her a chance again.

Many forget that she was really on a roll for a while and could have possibly achieved the fame she has now through her work if things had continued down the path they were going. Make all the jokes you want about Dawson's Creek but she was amazing on it and there would have been no show without her. She had small but memorable turns in The Ice Storm, Go, Wonder Boys, Phone Booth, Abandon and The Singing Detective. And of course an appearance in Sam Raimi's The Gift that's legendary for reasons completely unrelated to her acting. Her career high point came in 2003's Pieces of April, where as the title character she delivered her best performance to date.

She may have been woefully miscast in Thank You for Smoking but at least she had the foresight to work with a future Oscar nominated director. What's interesting is that the parts weren't showy or huge, just great fits for her. Her agent deserved a raise, a new house and a yacht. Instead, she got her walking papers when YOU KNOW WHAT happened in 2005. As tempting as it is to accuse Cruise of trying to control her career or hold her back we don't have any solid evidence to support that. For all we know she could have been calling her own shots the whole time. Either way, she needs to turn things around and if anything you'd figure sharing the house with a mad genius when it comes to picking the right roles would have rubbed off a little.

Taking a couple of years off and keeping a relatively low profile may have been the best possible thing she could have done in terms of her public perception. If Kidman survived this, so can she. The timing feels right now. I'd start with really good supporting roles and then work my way up. If under a good director she can find a role that somehow combines the girl next door we originally fell for with her new mature persona it would be a first step. Even though she cheated a little, her name alone is now big enough to open a movie whereas just a few years ago it wasn't. As much as it pains to admit it, that's an opportunity she has to take advantage of.

1. Kate Hudson-

A DECADE OF DESTRUCTION
2002- The Four Feathers
2003- Le Divorce, Alex & Emma, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days 2004- Raising Helen
2005- The Skeleton Key
2006- You, Me and Dupree (I actually liked this one but it was still an unquestionable box office flop and even caused one attempted suicide)
2008-Fool's Gold, My Best Friend's Girl
2009- Bride Wars

I don't even know what to say about her anymore. If we combined all the pitiful choices of everyone else on this list it wouldn't equal an eighth of the damage Hudson has done to her career in the past five to ten years. Most frightening of all is how someone so young could have amassed a filmography of such utter shit. Even if I refuse to believe she's Goldie Hawn's biological daughter until I see a birth certificate, she's insisted on taking roles her mother would of played 20 or 30 years ago. The difference: Her mom was funny.

I guess this finally settles the debate as to whether Kate was just "playing herself" in Almost Famous. She wasn't. Penny Lane would have never been dumb enough to sign on to those movies listed above. Nothing she's done can erase the magic of that performance but you can't say she hasn't been trying to. Would it be wrong if my advice was to quit acting? Yes, it would. Which is why I'd tell her to just take a little break and then give Cameron Crowe a call. On the bright side, a lot of moviegoers like me refuse to forget that role and would be happy to have her back

Director: Greg Mottola
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Ryan Reynolds, Martin Starr, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Margarita Levieva, Matt Bush
Running Time: 107 min.
Rating: R

★★★ 1/2 ( out of ★★★★)

What a year for coming-of-age films this is turning into. It's infrequent that I see two movies in a row that are so similar thematically and manage to strike such a personal chord. Both Adventureland and (500) Days of Summer were both misrepresented as fluffy romantic comedies, the former more severely. Both deal with a transforming summer workplace relationship. In each, music is a character in and of itself. And both focus their gaze on a twenty-something male protagonist wrestling with post-grad blues, invoking recollections (one very literally) of The Graduate. It's impossible for me to review one of these films without at least occasionally comparing it to the other not only because I saw them back-to-back but because they arrive at a curious time.

Talking to a lot of people and reading various opinions it seems that everyone agrees that during the last few weeks, 2009, which was feared to be heading down the same underwhelming path as '08, has turned some kind of a corner and it's been really fun to watch the reaction. I've yet to see all the films triggering this widespread enthusiam but at least now I can scratch two more off the must-see list and report that they met expectations. However, unlike (500) Days of Summer, Greg Motttola's Adventureland received mostly mixed reviews when it opened in April and didn't connect with audiences who mistakenly went in expecting another Judd Apatow-style comedy in a year when even Apatow didn't feel like making a Judd Apatow-style comedy. We had I Love You, Man to fill that niche, which it did quite well.

Unfortunately, when you splash the words, "FROM THE DIRECTOR OF SUPERBAD" across a film's posters, certain expectations will accompany it, all of which Adventureland couldn't have delivered on because it just isn't that kind of movie. But those who had actually seen and liked it didn't just merely like it. They LOVED it. No matter what it was marketed as, it was clear that it really spoke to them in a big way, piquing my interest in it further. This is a deep, meditative drama with very few huge laughs and you'll enjoy it best if you prepare yourself for that before tackling it. What it does expertly instead is succeed at invoking a very specific time period, mood and atmosphere that makes it easy to see how it's connected with certain viewers on the level it has. In avoiding many of the pitfalls that plague this genre and choosing to go a more subtly intelligent route, the film definitely deserved much more attention than it was paid.

It's 1987 and recent Oberlin College graduate James Brennan (Jessie Eisenberg) is looking forward to touring Europe for the summer before attending Columbia University grad school to study journalism in the fall. That is until his parents (Wendie Malik and Jack Gilpin) break the news that they can't subsidize him and he'll have to put his dreams of going to Europe on hold to instead spend the summer working in his hometown of Pittsburgh. He lands a gig at Adventureland, the local amusement park run by an eccentric married couple (SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig), that employs a wide variety of interesting, colorful characters.

Despite his desire to work on RIDES, James is incorrectly sized up by management as a GAMES guy. Or as his t-shirt reads, GAMES GAMES GAMES GAMES. In a just world where this movie did well, millions of those shirts could have been sold. The awkward, intellectual James immediately befriends the even geekier and more awkward Joel (Martin Starr) and despite still nursing a broken heart from college, starts to develops serious feelings for the captivating Em (Kristen Stewart). Besides wrestling with a troubled home life, she's been having a fling with the park's married maintenance man, Connell (Ryan Reynolds), a former musician who dubiously claims to have once jammed with Lou Reed. Things are complicated further for James with the return of seductive rides operator Lisa P. (Margarita Levieva), a Madonna clone who transfixes all the guys at the park. Whether he likes it or not, James' worst summer ever is clearly on a path to becoming the best and most memorable of his life.

Adventureland is the kind of movie likely to dredge up a lot of memories (some painful, others bittersweet) for those who watch it. What laughter there is comes from the situations where you can stop and say, "Yeah, I've been there." And even if you haven't been there, it kind of feels like you were. Unlike (500) Days of Summer, it doesn't go for the jugular in its depiction of romantic relationships and is more sentimental, unapologetically drenching itself in nostalgia. It also fits into one of my favorite movie sub-genres: Cool workplaces.

It's always been compelling for me to watch people who would have never otherwise met be thrown together by chance in a job to forge friendships that last a lifetime. I've gravitated toward these films a lot in the past (whether it be Clerks or Empire Records) I think in part because I've never truly had that experience, or at least had the experience when I most needed it, like James did. I have recently, but by then it was too late. The damage was already done. And a lot of that damage is shown realistically by Mottola in regards to James' post-graduation struggles before taking this seemingly lame, dead-end job.

The cold, hard fact that college can't possibly prepare you for life is thrown in James' face when the English lit major is simultaneously overqualified AND underqualified for every menial job for which he applies. Having been there, I always found ridiculous that everyone blamed the major and other external factors when they really should have been blaming me. Similarly, James is the kind of person who would have struggled no matter what. He's too introspective, too observant, and too sensitive for his own good. In a way, his sincerity is his own worst enemy and he needs something or someone to break him in. That's what this experience and his relationship with Em provide.

Eisenberg (who impressed in 2005's The Squid and the Whale) has been criticized for giving a performance here too reminiscent of Michael Cera in its awkwardness. While I'm sure Cera would be flattered (offended?) by the notion that he actually has a "style" of acting that can be imitated, his persona didn't consciously occur to me at all as I watched Eisenberg. Cera is more sarcastic, which perfectly fits a raucous film like Superbad, but would be ill-suited for more dramatic material like this. It's insane to assert the two actors are interchangeable. But that's not to say Eisenberg's performance is great, since it's essentially just another variation on the same awkward protagonist role we've seen a million times since Dustin Hoffman first played it over 40 years ago. What he does bring to it is a subtly grounded approach, thankfully choosing not to play James as some kind of stuttering, stammering dork incapable of social interaction. As cliche as it's becoming to see the geek get the girl in every major comedy released these days, thanks to him it at least comes off more believably than usual.

Strangely though, the movie's success doesn't begin and end with him. Whereas Deschanel's performance in (500) Days of Summer lagged behind Levitt's, the reverse is true here, with Kristen Stewart's work bordering on being revelatory. It's the rare example of a female character being presented pitch-perfectly both in terms of writing and performance. Em could be considered Summer's polar opposite in that she doesn't play games and there isn't a phony, insincere bone in her body. She's given a difficult home situation (with a father who married a conceited bitch immediately after her mother passed away) but the card isn't overplayed and we feel bad for her because she's essentially a great person who just doesn't know it yet. You can see what James sees in her, and Stewart's capable of conveying everything Em's going through with little more than a glance.

What a shame it is then that Stewart completely sabotaged her career by starring in that franchise that shall not be named. I'd like to believe she can recover and continue to do meaningful work (as she also did briefly in Into the Wild), but I'm not holding my breath. She made a terrible, terrible career choice and it'll take a lot for her to be taken seriously as an actress again moving forward. It's also possible, despite her contribution, that this film ages poorly just merely because of her presence in it. The last thing anyone wants to do is remember this as the amusement park movie with "that girl from Twilight." Her and this movie deserve better.

Let's face it-- Ryan Reynolds getting it on with Stewart, who looks about half his age, is pretty creepy, yet somehow this very challenging sub-plot is pulled off in an effective, mostly non-creepy way, which is a real credit to the two actors. We don't hate either character and view it as the mistake that it is and they know it to be as well. When Connell finds out about James' feelings for Em his reaction isn't what you'd expect. He isn't a jerk, just a decent guy with an ego struggling through some issues, an important distinction that would go missing in a lesser script and performance. It's a relatively small part for Reynolds, but it's his most complex to date and he surprisingly finds a lot of truth in it.

Anyone who says '80's music is discreetly slid into the picture must have been watching a different film than me. Hardly a single scene goes by where key music of the era isn't blasting, whether it be Lou Reed, INXS, Falco, Expose, Husker Du, The Replacements, Crowded House and for old times sake, The Velvet Underground. It is obvious but I didn't mind since song-for-song it's the best soundtrack to come along in many years. Beyond perfectly capturing the era in terms of music and dress, this joins movies like Donnie Darko and Son of Rambow in not only harnessing the feel of the '80's, but looking like it was actually made during that period, with Terry Stacey's cinematography and Yo La Tengo's score only reinforcing that feeling.

What laughs there are come from the painful truths of growing up more than anything else. The rest come mainly from Hader and Wiig (who are crazy but kept in check to the right degree) and James' former childhood friend Tommy Frigo (Matt Bush), who remains in a perpetual state of adolescence. The one character who didn't really work for me was Lisa P., who seemed more a walking stereotype for the decade and a plot marker than an actual human being.

The ending of the film lacks the raw emotional punch and exclamation point that (500) Days of Summer did, almost to the point where I almost thought it could have been a dream sequence. (500) Days of Summer featured a protagonist who put his love interest up on pedestal in thinking she could fix everything he doesn't like about himself. Here, Em and this job really do fill that void for James. It's a more optimistic film, if a lot less complex. What both have in common is an understanding that life can be filled with disappointment and darkness but every once in a while something really incredible happens and you just want stop time and hold onto it for as long as possible. Both films are putting their hand on your shoulder with the knowledge that life can suck, but you'll survive. And neither is doing it in a condescending way or succumbing to sentimentality.

It's a shame this suffered the same box office fate as the equally underrated and mismarketed Funny People, another coming-of-age drama with comedic elements. I'm not entirely sure how you can even market movies like this, which is a shame, because it can be the most rewarding genre of all when presented this well. Why it's even rated "R" or why it wasn't given a more advantageous summer release date are mysteries that unfortunately won't be solved. If this has something in common with any Apatow project, it's with his TV masterwork, Freaks and Geeks, which also managed to perfectly capture a mood and time period not too far off from this one. This movie will hit hardest for those who were teenagers in the '80's but everyone else will probably relate to a lot in it. I wish I was able to relate to it even more. Had I, this would be a very different review. Probably a far better one.

Greg Mottola really put himself on the line. It would have been easy money to follow Superbad with another vulgar comedy but he instead chose to tell a story that personally meant a lot to him. This is one movie where I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel. I cared about these characters and want to know what they're up to now. It isn't good for anyone when Adventureland flops and junk like Transformers: ROTF cleans up because there are already too many people out there who sadly think that no one cares about their lives or what they have to say. The last thing they need is another reason not to write.

Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Chloe Grace Moretz, Geoffrey Arend, Matthew Gray Gubler, Clark Gregg, Minka Kelly
Running Time: 95 Min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

"This is a story of boy meets girl. The boy, Tom Hansen of Margate, New Jersey, grew up believing he'd never truly be happy until the day he met the one. This belief stemmed from early exposure to sad British pop music, and a total misreading of the movie, The Graduate."

So begins the opening narration of the anti-romantic comedy (500) Days of Summer, a movie that stirs up all sorts of crazy emotions and one I've been struggling to articulate my feelings on since the final credits rolled. Despite starring two of my favorite actors I couldn't have guessed that there would be so much to discuss when it's over that their onscreen pairing would be the LAST THING I'd feel like talking about. Forget about the film merely being worth the price of admission, I'd pay just to listen to two people have a conversation about it. When it's over it leaves you thinking...hard. And it's going to hit very close to home for many with portions connecting more with some than others. That's to to be expected when the subject at hand is the disintegration of a relationship over the span of 500 days. There are more than enough scenes and situations for everyone to relate to that the film becomes almost an entirely emotional experience.

There are also a lot of myths that have been spread about the picture since its release, most of them untrue. But for the truth you only just need to read its tag line: "This is not a love story. It is a story about love." And in being that it joins an exclusive club of movies that could be labeled "chick flicks for guys," which frequently feature an unlucky-at-love male protagonist struggling with relationships against the backdrop of great music (of which there's plenty here). Included in this increasingly rare genre are films like Almost Famous, Say Anything, High Fidelity, Rushmore, Annie Hall, and yes, The Graduate. This deserves to be mentioned alongside those, if not in terms of quality, then at least for the complicated feelings it explores.

My one hang-up with the film was that I walked away from it despising one of the characters and I've been trying to figure out if that was an intended consequence of the writing or performance, or more frighteningly, if it was a reflection of me rather than the film. I'd assume it was just me if not for the hilariously biting "dedication" that opens the picture, hinting that the filmmakers are taking the same stance. No, this is most definitely not a love story, or even a "date movie" for that matter.

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a hopeless romantic whose job as a greeting card writer in Los Angeles couldn't possibly be a better fit since you get the impression he's the kind of person who actually believes the sentiments he's writing. But like many twenty-somethings, he feels as if he's just punching the clock. He went to school to become an architect but things didn't work out, as they sometimes don't. His entire world is turned upside-down when his boss' (Clark Gregg) new assistant, Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) arrives on the scene from Michigan and within the first few seconds of seeing her, he instantly knows she's "THE ONE". And he doesn't think he has a chance. Sadly, he's proven right, just not in the way he expects. The movie makes no bones about the fact that this won't end well for him.

After some initial awkward posturing, they kind of fall into a relationship, if you can even call it that, since one of them seems far more emotionally invested in it than the other. The major problem is the cynical Summer is Tom's opposite. She doesn't believe in soulmates or even the very notion of love and let's Tom know this from the start. She just wants to have a good time. No strings attached. Nothing serious. No commitment. On the surface he seems fine with it, but of course he isn't.

The movie is not necessarily told out of order as you may have heard. It opens at the end of the relationship and through flashbacks we're given the chronology of events that lead to the break-up. A counter shows up letting us know where we are in the course of Tom's 500 days so it's mostly a pretty straightforward narrative. The device works because it enables us to see bits and pieces of their time together before finally putting together the entire puzzle of what went wrong. We only have a general idea of the ending but this enables us to discover along with Tom the "how" and the "why." It isn't just a gimmick. In a particularly clever sequence toward end of the film Tom describes in excruciating detail all of Summer's notable physical traits. What represented perfection to him earlier are now ugly, disgusting flaws as the relationship heads past the point of saving.

First-time director Marc Webb (working from an unusually observant script by screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber) employs many more devices (such as split screen, voice-overs, title cards, and musical numbers), none of which are groundbreaking, but feel like they are since we've rarely seen them utilized as bravely or brazenly as this in a romantic comedy since Annie Hall. The omnicient narrator reminded me a lot of the detached narration that objectively underlined 2006's Little Children. It's used more sparingly here but the impact is felt effectively.

Since Webb first carved a niche for himself directing Regina Spektor videos that her music would play a major role in the picture and it does with her song "Us" very memorably showing up in the opening credits. He may be playing favorites but he's forgiven since no other song could have possibly fit this opening as well. While many cringe at the constant name-dropping of bands in indie romantic comedies (this time it's The Smiths) the fact is that people (especially young people) have the tendency, rightly or wrongly, to define themselves by the music they listen to. To ignore that would be much more unrealistic than acknowledging it.

Besides being completely mislabeled as a quirky Juno-like indie comedy the largest misconception about the film is that Tom is playing the girl's role while Summer is the guy. You could argue the possibility of that is even explicitly acknowledged in one scene, but there really isn't anything to that theory. I'm willing to bet there are a lot more guys out there like Tom who do want a commitment and are looking for "the one" but aren't allowed to show it because of society's expectations of them. Similarly, there are probably many Summers who have no desire for any kind of commitment and like using guys for a good time. We've been weened on an unhealthy dose of dumb romantic comedies and stereotypical gender roles for so long that we've had it in our heads how male and female characters should behave. In that sense, this story re-invents the wheel by simply being truthful.

This doesn't succeed primarily on the strength of the two leads' chemistry. Levitt and Deschanel share what you could almost call an anti-chemistry with Summer being the vessel through which Tom can channel all his hopes and dreams. He's doing all the work in the relationship and even during the good times (and especially the bad) you can see how hard he has to work to keep this thing afloat, a sure sign of serious trouble. It's almost exasperating to watch. He's not exactly in the "friend zone" but he isn't that far off and isn't even close to where he needs to be with her. In the biggest shocker for me, I had problems seeing what Tom saw in Summer, which is downright bizarre considering who's playing her. But maybe that was the point. Maybe we're not supposed to see it. Only Tom is.

I usually fall in love with every single Zooey character but here I didn't which shows there's definitely something different going on with this performance that sets it apart from the others. It's almost as if you took all her characters in Yes Man, Failure To Launch, Almost Famous, All The Real Girls, Elf, The Happening, The Go-Getter, Winters Passing, The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy and Bridge to Terabithia and removed their souls. I don't mean that as horribly as it sounds, and it isn't a criticism of the performance, but her natural charisma and trademark quirkiness is way dialed down, as it needs to be for this part.

For only the second time in her career the word "quirky" can't be used to describe one of Zooey's roles. Her Summer could better be categorized as cold and detached. At one point she's even labeled remarkably "average," but possessing an unmistakable aura that draws you in, making the choice of actress a brilliant one. The toughest part of the character to reconcile is that she isn't a bad person and she isn't trying to hurt Tom. But strangely, the fact that her actions are defensible and grounded in reality just made me dislike her even more. It would almost be easier to take if she was just a despicable person. Instead, she's a total enigma and the more we learn about her the more complicated and inconsistent she seems. More than just being the antagonist, when it was all said and done I realized I had just witnessed Zooey Deschanel play her first villain. It's a much more complex role than it appears on the surface.

It's also strange seeing JGL playing a normal person for a change after the dark, tortured characters he brought to life in films like Mysterious Skin, Brick and The Lookout. He's evolved so much as an actor and transformed his career so drastically since his days on 3rd Rock from the Sun that it's easy to forget he actually started out in comedy and this reminds us how good he is at it. This part brings him full circle, making it ironic and fitting that he's playing a character named "Tom." He owns the entire film with his earnestness and likability and is equally able to go to the dark, vulnerable places the story requires when necessary. This was the perfect part for him to take and the ideal vehicle for him to expose his skills to mainstream audiences who haven't gotten the memo yet on how talented he is. Make no mistake about it: This movie is a one-man show and everyone else is just along for the ride.

I've made the movie sound like it's all gloom and doom, but it isn't. What's neat is how it perfectly captures that initial feeling when you're first falling for someone and every emotion seems heightened and magnified. When you get up each morning and actually look forward to starting the day. All of the sudden you've just found yourself in the biggest competition of your life. There are moments in the movie you think (hope?) along with Tom that this could work, like their trip to Ikea where for the first time both actually seem to be on the same page at the same time. He starts breaking down the barriers and the script is so smart in knowing that the best words you could ever hear from someone are: "I've never told anyone that before."

The morning after Tom beds Summer the funniest, most uplifting scene of the film comes in the form of a Hall & Oates musical number complete with an animated bluebird. It should be cringe-worthy but Weber makes it soar, making us want to reach through the screen and high-five Tom. The sadness in the story kicks in when you realize that only one character feels like this, but the movie never manages to feel depressing. Nor is it crushed under the weight of some cutesy gimmicks, like Tom's wise-beyond-her-years 12 year-old sister (played by a scene-stealing Chloe Grace Moretz) who gives the perfect advice at just the right moments. There are some small pacing problems as the film sometimes feels longer than its 95 minutes, which could be an unintended consequence of the narrative device, but considering this is Webb's first time in the trenches, it's a minor quibble.

The only scene in the movie that really feels like it's out of a movie is when Tom takes a stand at his workplace, complete with a huge Jerry Maguire-style speech. This was strange because from all outward appearances he has one of the best jobs I've ever seen in a romantic comedy, with a great boss and really fun co-workers. And I may be a weirdo, but being a greeting card writer sounds fascinating. If Tom doesn't want the job then I'll take it. The screenwriters deserve a lot credit for coming up with a really original occupation for the protagonist that serves the themes of the story this well. Of course, the big meltdown scene goes down easier when you realize Tom's problems really have more to do with what he isn't doing than what he is and aren't so much at all related to the job. Summer has entered his life as the catalyst for something bigger and better. We're given a glimpse of that in the final scene.

The key to the entire film lies in a big scene related to The Graduate. I won't spoil it other than to say it's open for interpretation and I'm totally convinced nearly every person who sees this scene will read it differently. You could probably spend days dissecting the different possibilities of what it's exactly supposed to mean for Tom and Summer, despite my misgivings that it's even possible to "MISREAD" The Graduate (aren't all films open for interpretation?) For reasons unfamiliar to me, bashing Mike Nichols' 1968 masterpiece has always been popular, as if that movie has been chosen over dozens of other inferior titles as being somehow undeserving of its "classic" status.

Even if I couldn't figure out whether Webb was paying tribute to the film or jumping on the bandwagon of those who mock its ending, that it figured into this modern story in such a deep, impactful way should finally prove the naysayers wrong. It has stood the test of time and it was nice to see it spotlighted since it desperately needs the respect. Much like Nichols' film is used to represent the growing disconnect between the two lead characters, I could easily envision two people entering this film as a couple and leaving single.

It's a relief to see characters written intelligently enough to be able to talk about what happened honestly. Things weren't as great as Tom thought they were. As a memorable split-screen sequence in the film depicts, this entire situation revolved around EXPECTATIONS and REALITY, with the latter coldly winning out. When Summer twists the knife into him just a little more at the end we realize that what she does makes sense to her and no one else. It's a complete contradiction, which makes it that much harder for Tom and the audience to take.

The idea of fate is touched on, but unlike other movies, this one doesn't merely acknowledge the possibility of its existence, it's interested in exploring why people would believe in it. His relationship with Summer was situational. He had to force everything. One character even tries to convince Tom that them sharing similar interests doesn't make them soulmates, but by then it's too late. He's fallen past the point of no return. Sadly, you get the impression he would have been better off randomly encountering her somewhere with a clean slate rather than being saddled with the handicap of actually forging a meaningful friendship. Your outlook on the film and Tom's situation largely depends on whether your glass is half-empty or half-full, which could explain why I've been down in the dumps since I've seen it.

This film is the latest example of what I'm going to have to start referring to as "The Dark Knight Phenomenon," where initially the film doesn't make as huge a mark one me as I had hoped until I realize days and weeks later that I can't stop thinking about it. That's not noteworthy until you consider that this is supposed to be a romantic comedy. How many of those ever lend themselves to deep thought or analysis? I'm still attempting to reconcile my expectations (which were through the roof) with what ended up on onscreen, but it's easily the best film I've seen so far this year and I'm very, very curious to see how it looks on a second viewing. The question isn't whether it ends up on my top 10 of '09, but where. (500) Days of Summer, besides being a terrific coming-of age film, rescues us from the same tired romantic comedy formula we've been politely tolerating for years.