In a city as vast and populated as New York, the new film Jack Goes Boating is a small story centered around four locals. Adapted from a play of the same name, the film stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as the titular Jack, a single man who keeps to himself in the basement of his Uncle’s house.  It’s apparent that Jack struggles to connect with people (a potential social disorder of some sort?), but he maintains one close friendship with his co-worker Clyde.

Jack and Clyde are limousine drivers mired in the routine of their work for years. While Jack comforts himself with the positive vibes of reggae music, Clyde is the self-medicating type who has a wife to go home to.

The story begins with Clyde and his wife attempting to set-up their respective co-workers Jack and Connie on a blind date. Both potential date partners seem ambivalent but acquiesce just the same.  There are hints at likely trauma in both Connie and Jack’s pasts, and they carry that forth into their odd but endearing interactions with one another.  Still, their relationship is only half the story.

Clyde’s burgeoning friendship with Jack is approached with a mentor and pupil mentality of sorts with Clyde leading Jack in an adult version of the birds and bees. This is emphasized while Clyde is attempting to hold together a tenuous marriage at home.  What unfolds is an interesting story about friendship, a tender love story, betrayal, and even strength where you sometimes least expect it. This also shows the growth of a man when he is encouraged to engage.

Hate to disappoint you, but 'Jack Goes Boating' not "motor-boating."

There are several laughs throughout, but the brilliance of Hoffman’s directorial debut is that the laughs are often in the awkward pauses between the characters rather than in the bizarre things that they sometimes say or the peculiar ways they express themselves.  Sometimes you suppose that Jack and Connie simply are afraid to say what they feel, and then one (usually Connie) will say something that floors you.  Good stuff.  The only drawback here is that you can see the story unfolding with the inevitable ending developing from a mile away.

The mini-dreadlocked Jack is the lead character but really equal time is devoted to the four main actors who carry virtually every frame of film. TV veteran John Ortiz’s Clyde makes an impression as a charismatic man with issues that are hidden beneath a harder, jovial exterior. Hoffman and Ortiz are co-founders of the LAByrinth Theater in New York and their easy real-life friendship leads to an uncommon chemistry on the big screen. I anticipate Ortiz’s work will steadily increase from such valued screen time in this role.

Amy Ryan continues to show she deserves more work by tackling the challenging role of Connie and convincing us that she exists on every level.  Part paranoid and tortured, the other part gentle and loving; you waste no time believing that Connie and Jack couldn’t share a relationship despite their obvious deficiencies.

This is a mature work that is definitely not mainstream but completely worthy of an audience, particularly for fans of independent cinema or quirky relationship comedies.  While the drama of how it all turns out is rarely in doubt, its still an enjoyable journey to get there, and that is what matters most here.

Knight and Day is a difficult movie to define.  It is equal parts screwball comedy and action with elements of romance and espionage thriller sprinkled in.  Director James Mangold aims to let the audience in on the fun directly and the results are a mixed bag.

Knight and Day Sees A Return to Form for Star Tom Cruise

On one hand, you have two stars with genuine chemistry between them.  Tom Cruise movies used to be an event, but his star has dimmed a bit in recent years.  Here he plays rogue CIA agent Roy Miller, a man who has fallen out of favor with the agency over what has been deemed to be behavior contradictory to the best interests of the organization.  Cameron Diaz is everyday girl June Havens, an innocent bystander who gets caught up in the web of intrigue as an unknown pawn between Miller and the CIA agents who are tracking him.

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz fire away in Knight and Day.

A third group of sinister types are also in pursuit of Miller, for he is deemed to control a prototype energy battery that is as small as a normal AA Duracell, but can power an entire city with its efficiency.  Miller has the battery and everyone else wants it, so that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.  Whose hands are truly wrong, becomes the twist beyond the action in figuring out this cat and mouse game.

Cameron Diaz Lends Notable Star Wattage to the Cast of Knight and Day

Cruise leaves a trail of bodies in his wake in broad daylight, so believability must be thrown out the door right away, but that doesn’t necessarily detract from the film’s effectiveness or lack thereof.  Mangold opens the film in an airport, and from plane to train to automobile destruction follows in this Bond-esqe actioner.

Cruise and Diaz run/ride with the bulls in Knight and Day.

Miller is a wild card with a good heart (it seems) but Havens can never know for sure.  While June gets swept up as a kidnapped pawn of sorts, it is unclear as to why she is along for the ride.  However, her feelings and desire for fun certainly play a part in that.  But what sane woman would want to entrench herself with a potentially unstable CIA operative who literally leaves dozens of bodies dead littered around her on multiple occasions?  Such is the type of film we are dealing with.

Director James Mangold Might Have Been the Wrong Call to Lead Knight and Day

It’s a messy and inconsistent script that follows its leads through several continents and locations that cause the whole enterprise to tumble.   Mangold, who made his name with dramatic films like Girl, Intterupted and Walk The Line, might not have been the right choice to helm here.  It is unclear whether the lo-tech digital enhancements are merely there to aid in the whole feeling of cheesiness or if they are simply a result of an insufficient post-production budget.  One may never know or care.

Knight and Day is not a bad film experience, but it’s not a strong one either.  It is actually a decent time at the movies if you check your sense of reality at the door.  Mangold’s film is geared toward the date-going crowd, which it marginally satisfies, without breaking any significant ground in the process.  It is a unique film for this day and age, in some ways it feels like a throwback to the Cannonball Run days, but it just isn’t as successful in its execution as one would hope for.  See it if interested, pass if on the fringe.

With the usual summer hype surrounding a sequel of this magnitude, Iron Man 2 had a lot to live up to.  The weight of the proverbial iron didn’t crush this film, but it certainly didn’t resist said weight and reach the height of the first Iron Man.  In IM2, Robert Downey Jr. is back as the titular iron one, but he is joined by a bevy of well-known stars for the sequel. Most notably, gone is Terence Howard, Rhodey from the first film, his replacement is the venerable Don Cheadle.  Also joining the fray are Scarlett Johansson, a more prominent role for Samuel L. Jackson, the always strong Sam Rockwell (Moon), the resurrected career of Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) and usual suspects Jon Favreau (also the director) and Gwyneth Paltrow. Just getting a title card long enough to fit all these names is a task in and of itself. With such a cast, it was hard for the hype meter not to reach dizzying levels.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark in Iron Man 2.

Iron Man 2 finds RDJ’s Tony Stark in a vulnerable spot where the government wants his “weapon” and Rockwell’s Justin Hammer, a Hammer Industries CEO and competitor to Downey’s Stark Industries, is trying to assemble said weapon to sell to the government and acquire unknown riches.  Meanwhile, Stark is in meltdown mode, stressed from running the company and being Iron Man, so his confidante Paltrow’s Pepper Potts can come in and be the antidote for what ails him.  Additionally, Rourke’s Ivan Vanko (aka Whiplash) is of questionable origin, out to gain revenge on Stark for what Tony’s father did to his father.  ScarJo is a kick-ass assistant (and potentially more) to Paltrow, who has ulterior motives and Jackson’s Nick Fury plays a role along those lines as well.  Rhodey mainly in-fights with his buddy Stark who loses control at a party, which leads to further plot machinations.  Each character has their own mini-plot which doesn’t always serve the movie as a whole well.  Convolution galore, as far as the plot goes. It’s not that it’s ridiculously hard to follow, but it also doesn’t flow like a rushing river either.

The film is long and dialogue heavy, but the action sequences do live up to what those in a summer blockbuster should.  Iron Man and War Machine whiz around the sky, Black Widow has some nice fight sequences, and all in all, from that standpoint, things are lively.  Unfortunately, the action is a little too sparse between the long dialogue sequences.  For instance, Paltrow’s Potts appears to be consistently whiny, her character virtually destroying the fun in most scenes she is in. To her credit, this isn’t really all on her, it is the way the character is written, Meryl Streep (hang it up – by the way) couldn’t make Potts any more tolerable.  Alternately, Rourke is strong in his vignettes as a real threat to Stark.  Of course, Downey Jr. brings the goods, a natural acting talent, breezing through dialogue with whipper snapper flow.  Alas, there is no Ghostface sighting like in the original (deleted scene here) which would have helped for simple comedy.  Ultimately, there isn’t enough to raise the bar enough to make it a strong recommend.

ScarJo lends her assets to the "Iron Man" party.

This is average summer fare. It provides what is expected, nothing more, nothing less. It’s easy to be underwhelmed by the results, given the hype, but I find that to be a bit unfair in this case. This isn’t The Dark Knight, something I think many film fans were either clamoring for or hoping for.  Iron Man 2 is serviceable entertainment and a decent way to get the summer season moving at the turnstiles. Just don’t expect anything transcendent and with the proper mind set, you’ll be entertained.

Ed: Note, Cyrus was formerly titled Center of Attention.

In terms of my family life, my time on Earth has been fairly charmed. I was lucky enough to be born with parents that were together and have remained together to this point in my existence. They bred two older brothers and a younger sister for me to grow up around, so that I was never bored. I can’t say that I was never lonely, but certainly not for any reason I didn’t create myself. I have no idea what it’s like to be an only child. Nor do I have any idea what it’s like to be raised by a single parent. I have friends that fit into either category and even both. So, even though I’ve never experienced the sensation, I’ve witnessed it first hand. There’d just be no telling how I would’ve come out had things gone differently, especially if my single parent mom had ever brought home some other guy. That’s the situation that belies Cyrus in Center of Attention.

Cyrus isn’t actually the main character of the film, but it certainly revolves around him. Instead, we are first introduced to John. I’d tell you John is recently divorced, as that’s what it seems, but it’s actually been seven years since his wife, Jamie, left him. He’s lonely and depressed and really John’s only friend. She still has a key to the apartment they once shared and after not receiving a response to repeated knocks and calling out of his name, she enters his place to find pizza boxes strewn about and hot wing bones tossed around. As if she’d never left. To top if off, she finds John in a compromised position (think Costanza in the “Seinfeld” episode, “The Contest”). She makes one thing clear to him. He needs to get out.

After repeatedly denying her, John ends up at a party with Jamie and her soon-to-be-husband, doing their best to expose him to other forms of life. He’s less than reluctant, as he sits in front of the fireplace and tosses bits of the label from his beer bottle into the flame. He finally makes a pact with Jamie’s fiancée to get drunk and after a little alcohol flows down his throat, it’s officially on. Strike one comes in the form of a botched conversation butt-in that ends with a broken thermostat. Strike two comes from a hail-mary drunken profession to a girl far below even his standards that even though he’s lonely and depressed, he’s still a fun guy. John awaits strike three to come while he relieves himself into some plant life. This is where he meets Molly. He wonders why a gorgeous woman would speak to a schlub like him, especially given his current act of defiance. Nevertheless, they continue conversing into the night.

Tomei's "Molly" applies a "sleeper hold" to Hill's "Cyrus" as Reilly's "John" looks on.

Of course, conversing leads to an invite into John’s home and an invite into John’s home leads to sex. Everything seems to be going great, except when John wakes up the next morning, he’s in bed along. However, Molly leaves a note to let John know he wasn’t completely abandoned. They go through the same routine the next day, but this time when Molly attempts to sneak out in the middle of the night, John spots her. He asks if she’s married. She denies it, but assures him he needs to leave. John tails her home in an effort to discover her reasoning and falls asleep in his car. He wakes up the next morning to find a 20-something year-old young man patrolling the house. Molly’s son, Cyrus. That’s the rub. John soon finds out exactly why Molly thought it necessary to sneak out and keep him a secret from her son.

John C. Reilly has made a living of playing a likable losers. He was a down-and-out homeless man in Paul Thomas Anderson’s debut, Hard Eight (aka Sydney). He won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for being a whipping-husband to a strong-willed woman in Chicago. He was a 40-year-old child in Step Brothers. Here, he’s a similar character, but Reilly always brings a certain charm to him, which makes you actively root for him, no matter how low the circumstances he finds himself in. Here, he can’t help it. He’s captivated by a beautiful Marisa Tomei as Molly, and although she carries baggage other men might not be willing to put up with, John cares enough for her, but has a certain desperation as well. Jonah Hill seems to get more understated as he goes along and Cyrus is a difficult character to figure out. Hill imbues him with a creepiness, but has a wonderment about a world he hardly knows, as well.

Center of Attention combines a mainstream comedy plot, but told in an independent style. The plot of two men moving under the same roof and going to war with each other mainly reminded me of Step Brothers, which certainly isn’t hurt by the fact John C. Reilly stars in both. The visual style takes a hand-held approach however, giving it an indie and more enveloping feel. Mass appeal, this isn’t. As funny as I found the film and as great as the performances were, I would have wanted a slightly broader take. The war between Cyrus and John is a ferocious one as indicated by the characters traits, but isn’t stressed very much in the story. I would’ve have wanted to witness more of the one-upmanship between them.

Brothers Mark and Jay Duplass have created an intimate character study, which still manages to bring the funny. Their camerawork, as mentioned above, is deliberately shaky at times, using zooms and canted angles. Some might think the style clashes with the plot, but it truly adds another dimension to help encapsulate the audience in the environment of the picture. There’s a particular moment when John discovers something about Cyrus that makes him appear untrustworthy and the camera zooms toward his visage, leaving the identifying object out of frame. The film is infused with this little moment of discovery for the viewer, not shoving information down your throat.

Albeit not deathly funny, Center of Attention packs humor into what ultimately amounts to a character piece about three individuals who find themselves in a situation they’d rather not be in. John would rather have Molly to himself, much as Cyrus would. Molly is the one who finds herself stuck in the middle, with the only two men in her life vying for her attention and love. It’s a love triangle far less cliché than what most romantic comedies bring in droves. Center of Attention deserves yours, but choose who you see it with wisely, you wouldn’t want a war to break out between them.

There have been plenty of sci-fi related films to go around of late. We have seen The Road, Pandorum, District 9, and of course, the summer’s $400mm smash hit Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  But now, Jared and Jerusha Hess, the writing team behind the indie hit Napoleon Dynamite, bring us a different kind of sci-fi. The literary kind (that still plays itself out on screen in goofy-as-heck fashion).  Reindeer that shoot guns out of their eyes (and other orifices)? Check.  One-eyed, lo-fi, cyclops aliens?  Check.  Sam Rockwell as both a transvestite and tough guy hero to rival his dual role in another sci-fi film Moon?  Umm, check?  Gentlemen Broncos is a wacky type of work.

The new movie stars Jermaine Clement (TV’s “Flight of the Conchords”) as Ronald Chevalier, a flamboyant science fiction/fantasy novelist of some repute and notoriety.  Unfortunately, he needs a new book as his publisher is unsatisfied with his unsaleable latest effort and is threatening to drop him.  When a down on his luck Chevalier heads to a “Cletus Fest,” a writers summit where he aims to teach teenage fan-geeks his celebrity methods of fantastical scribe, a young man named Benjamin (Snow Angels‘ Michael Angarano) shows up, hoping to tap into the brain of his fave author.  All the while, Stifler’s mom from American Pie, Jennifer Coolidge’s Judith, has son Ben in the most ridiculous get-ups imaginable.  It’s no wonder dude has no friends.  Cletus Fest represents a chance for Ben to submit his “Yeast Lords” story for the grand prize, a 1,000 copy publishing deal across bookstores nationwide.  You see where this is going.  Chevalier steals Ben’s story for his own work in an effort to regain the fame he seeks.

Who doesn't want to ride a missile launching reindeer?

That simple premise alone though, does not a film make.  Ben needs friends, or so his mom thinks, so she hires a Guardian Angel to look after/befriend him.  That angel is caught up in a low-budget filming of Ben’s “Yeast Lords” work that he sells to a director who likely has no intention of paying him for his work.  The film premieres to disastrous results, even while the films “stars” and director are gaining a small level of celebrity.  The low budget movie is so cheesy though (it’s the director’s 84th film) that it’s kinda fun, but Ben is always the one on the outside looking in.  No recognition for his efforts other than being humiliated in public for his attempt at acting which results in one of many upchuck scenes in the film, though this will likely be the most memorable.

While Angarano is able, Clement is the film’s greatest strength, lisping his way through vignettes with the speech redundancy of a pair of shoes and a constant sight gag in a golden bluetooth earpiece. An amusing scene where he adds suffixes to character names for his students registers high marks.  “You can add ‘anous’ to any name to improve it,” he muses.  Illustrations for would-be book covers, including one where women with “mammary cups that shoot laser rain,” are depicted.  “Broncos” has some nice moments in the middle of the bizarre madness.

Ben's Guardian Angel has a snake with digestive issues for protection.

Throughout, the film cuts back and forth between the sci-fi work of “Lords” being narrated, and it’s rework “Brutus and Balzaak,” with Rockwell playing the lead character.  We know what reality is though, as side plots abound as the film progresses.  One particular sub-plot that never fully fleshes itself out in the form of a possible love story aside (was he taken advantage of?), “Broncos” keeps things on a zig-zag path that world-famous Lombard street in San Francisco would be proud of; it’s a little weird getting there, but you still reach your destination.

It’s similar in tone, if not scope, to “Dynamite.”  Bizarre 70’s retro meets modern day (though in a lot of ways, you’d never know it), as everything is stuck in a time capsule.  Wood paneled interior to homes.  Night gown designs by aspiring designer Judith that cross futuristic with extreme conservatism.  It’s like The Never Ending Story meets Lord of the Rings, all done in the oddest way possible.  This is by no means, my kind of story, but it deserves credit for quirk and originality, and undoubtedly for many (myself included), some dumb, stupid laughs at it’s own expense.  Hard to fault it too much for giving such a genuine effort.  This won’t hold the appeal of the Hess duo’s earlier hit, but it should satisfy their fans just the same.

As the decades turned over to the 70’s, it was time of international social and political unrest, where to rebel and to reject was to live. Some did it in a modest, harmless and nondestructive manner – innocuously listening to rock ‘n roll or experimenting with drugs – while others reacted in a more radical manner, heading straight to the source to confront it with unrelenting passion and hostility.

Che Guevara was trying to ignite a revolution in Bolivia, the United States’ intervention in Vietnam was ongoing and the Israelis and Palestinians were as volatile as ever, climaxing with the terrorist attacks at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Thus, rebellion was the order of the day, the college-age fad and the result of a tumultuous global climate. But it was one group in particular that impetuously took the next, seemingly appropriate step.

Uli Edel’s The Baader Meinhof Complex has been, and could fittingly be described as, the true story of the birth of terrorism. It chronicles the establishment and decade-long struggle of the Red Army Faction (a.k.a. “The Baader-Meinhof Group”) against the fascist, imperialistic state of West Germany and the general world order of governmental authority. This was a new generation of Germans, citizens who were adolescents or non-existent during the reign of the Third Reich. As Stefan Aust, a member of this generation and the author of the source novel, (which bears the same name as its adaptation) says, “The moment you see your own country as the continuation of a fascist state, you give yourself permission to do almost anything against it.”

The calm before the storm -- German communist activists protest the war in Vietnam.

The film traces the origins of the group through its leaders in the social unrest of West Berlin society, which reflected the worldwide anxiety and general disapproval of government power-flexing abroad and at home. (Protests and the resulting police brutality across the globe are shown in one of many news-style montages.) Ulrich Meinhof (Martina Gedeck) plays a well-known journalist who shares uncommonly radical, anti-governmental, views amongst her media peers. She meets Gudrun Ensslin (Johanna Wokalek) for an interview after an arsonist display in a high-rise department store, where she first hears of minor, premeditated terrorist attacks in an attempt to gain exposure and express distrust and disapproval. The arrogantly boisterous Gudrun and her cocky, confidently adamant counterpart, Andreas Baader (Mortiz Bleibtreu) form the foundation of the Red Army Faction (RAF), whose hierarchy and long-term business plan is hardly an envious model.

The first half of the film is a seductively rebellious political-bruiser. Our militant revolutionaries, with their wigs and aviator glasses and hip-hugging jeans, rob banks, bomb state buildings, break out their comrades when they’re in a tough spot and spread their anarchist views through writings and recruiting. As the stakes get higher and the tasks more extravagantly violent and reckless, The Baader Meinhof Complex takes on a more reflective tone, focusing on the consequences, influences and results of this initial wave of RAF expression. Baader, Ensslin and Meinhof, as well as the film as a whole, may not come to the conclusion that one would expect and it counteracts almost all of the flashes of glamour and bravura that came before it, hinting that these acts may have been impulsive, misjudged and underdeveloped.

Gudrun Ensslin (Johanna Wokalek) and Andreas Baader (Mortiz Bleibtreu) fight the power in West Germany.

A 2008 nominee for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars but unreleased in the United States until this year, The Baader Meinhof Complex is a capably committed portrait of political unrest and a really good political action-drama. With its worldview and broad scope, it carefully and rightfully captures the era as an evolving, emerging and budding anti-political landscape and the foundations that were laid out to be felt to this day. Therefore, whether intentional or not, it gives the film an extra dose of relevance when viewed within the framework of our current society.

Pacing is a bit of an issue, but not in the immediate sense that you might be thinking. It moves at breakneck speed, actually, but to the film’s detriment. It’s a good deal of mischievous West Berlin RAF activity and when it isn’t focused on the key members of the group, it’s advancing the story through time-lapse montages or newscast footage reels. Spanning an entire decade, even at 154 minutes, the film is too condensed and it never breathes.

The performances, on the other hand, are top-notch, especially from Martina Gedeck (The Lives of Others) as one-half of the titular “Baader-Meinhof Group.” She starts out as a fighter and a revolutionary with her words before turning into the leader of this terrorist group, taking on a more physical, activist role. The fact that her ideals and agendas may have been lost in the translation is one of the film’s strengths.

The Baader Meinhof Complex is compulsively watchable in the way that a fascinating account of history or a gripping historical documentary would be. It’s extremely well-acted, well-crafted, uncompromising and fit for its subject, but it doesn’t ever completely take off. Similar to the result of the RAF’s futile acts of aggression, the film’s desired impact and effort is never truly felt by its audience. It’s a silenced handgun – it gets the job done, but it doesn’t resonate very loudly.

Christian Alvart’s Pandorum is an attempt to tap into the science-fiction realm of paranoid claustrophobia while still maintaining an accessible veneer of an aggressive sound mix along with the usual modern, new age horror tactics. The result is a preposterous amalgamation of a psychological sci-fi horror-action film which is so flaccid and loopy that you’ll be shocked it isn’t based on a video game. After all, Travis Milloy’s script displays all the necessary characteristics of an adaptation; equal parts uninspired and tediously dim-witted. It’s more “Dead Space” than Alien, without any of the formers ingenuity or instinctive feel for atmosphere and legitimate dread.

In the film’s opening prologue, we are informed through a time-lapse that Earth is becoming overpopulated and under-resourced to the point of extinction. It is the year 2174 when we are given a glimpse at the Elysium, a thoroughly extensive ship capable of carrying thousands of willing human beings – where to and what for? Well, surely our two protagonists will know, right?

Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) awakens from hypersleep aboard the Elysium.

Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) awakens from hypersleep to an apparently abandoned ship, his clothes almost molded to his body, which are discarded the way a snake would shed its skin. After grazing for signs of life and a quick, blade-free shave, Bower is treated to the company of a Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid), who is awoken in similar fashion. The problem is that the two can’t remember anything besides their instinctive training – no memory of the mission, family, time, date, etc.

Conveniently, the one thing that the Corporal can remember is a psychological side effect of emerging from hypersleep in deep space called ‘pandorum’, which causes its victim to experience severe paranoia, anxiety and hallucinations. After discovering that the door to the bridge must be opened, Bower climbs through the vent system and with the voice guidance of Lt. Payton, finds more than he bargained for on the other side, along with a feisty temptress named Nadia (Antje Traue).

Along the way, Pandorum slowly reveals (as the characters regain lost memory) certain aspects of Bower’s pre-Elysium existence and the crisis facing all of mankind. As a result, the film is heavy on back story and light on interpretation. Sometimes I just wanted the film to shut up for a second, but when it isn’t bending over backwards trying to explain itself, it’s parading scene after scene of supposedly pulse-pounding action like a dagger to the sternum.

Dennis Quaid (as Lt. Peyton) just stumbled onto the set of another bad movie.

There is no sense of intended paranoia, anxiety or claustrophobia because the filmmaking is just inconsistent, unfocused and bumpy – shifting from psychological horror to Resident Evil action to descriptive end-of-the-world shenanigans. By the time a disheveled and dishonest cook named Leland (Eddie Rouse) shows up, Pandorum has crossed over into a full-blown mess all the way to its disappointing climax.

Ben Foster (Alpha Dog, 3:10 to Yuma) is an actor who always plays psychotic blood-boilers with short fuses and wide-eyed stares. Here, he’s not even given the confines of his own typecasting. He barely even registers a blip on the radar and not even obvious attempts at humanizing him through flashbacks can help matters. Dennis Quaid is still in an extended, almost Nicolas Cage-like slump of ineptitude. You almost have to go back to Todd Haynes’ Far From Heaven to find his last memorable performance.

But you’ll forgive the two lads for coming up with something so uninspiring given the material, which offers plenty of promise and no execution. Despite its best efforts to shake things up and deliver a bloodcurdling, moody piece of horror interlaced with psychosomatic undercurrents, Pandorum pulls off neither. Instead, it boils down to the equivalent of a second-rate survival-horror action game with one too many cut-scenes.

There are several routes one can take when making a zombie film. The most widely used approach would be the serious take on the genre, such as Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later or Zack Snyder’s remake, Dawn of the Dead. The second approach, and the most fun, would be the comedic approach used in Shaun of the Dead and in Ruben Fleischer’s new zombie killing opus, Zombieland.

Zombieland follows a world overrun with the living undead. Everything we once knew has been destroyed, even the U.S. is no longer has a functioning government. The film opens with one of the most creative title sequences in recent memory. There are multiple slow motion zombie kills accompanied by Metallica’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls.”  After seeing the amazing title sequence, it’s obvious that first time director, Ruben Fleischer comes from a background of music video direction and title sequence design.

It's hard enough to find your car keys in the dark, let alone while being chased by flesh-eating zombies.

The film follows Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), a young man who has survived the zombie apocalypse by adhering to his own set of strict rules. His rules include helpful zombie survival skills such as – when shooting a zombie, use the double tap method, once in the chest and once in the head, to make sure they’re dead. He also has a phobia of getting caught with his pants down, so one must always be careful in bathrooms.  Columbus was a college student before the world was turned into a zombie land so he decides to travel back to his hometown. He knows the chances of his family still being alive are slim but he is starved for human interaction. While traveling across the country, he meets zombie-killer extraordinaire, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson).

The two are complete opposites, Ohio is the shy, nervous kid; Tallahassee is the completely out there, zombie hunter. Even their views on zombies are completely different. While Ohio laments what the human race has come to, Tallahassee only wants to bash them to a pulp. The two travelers soon happen across another pair of survivors, sisters Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). (Are you seeing a pattern with the character names?) The sisters, who initially trick Ohio and Tallahassee, soon realize that they are safer joining forces with the two men.  Wichita and Little Rock are heading to an amusement park in California, which they believe is in a zombie free town. The four survivors head off to the west coast, and on the way encounter many zombie infestations. The film includes several enjoyable zombie killing sequences but all are played for laughs. In the film’s most hilarious – and what will be its most talked about sequence – the crew, while traveling through Hollywood, decide to seek shelter at the home of Hollywood’s top star, Bill Murray. The star’s cameo is a hilarious one and it’s the best portion of the film.

The only thing scarier than a clown, is an undead one.

This being a zombie film, horror fans are probably wondering, “Yeah, but what about the zombies?” Well, in Zombieland the undead are mostly glimpsed while trying to attack the films protagonists. There are a few gruesome close-ups of them devouring flesh, but the film is more focused on delivering laughs than being a classic zombie film. The film does however feature zombies being dispatched with everything from bullets to banjos. It’s obvious the writers, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, had a great time coming up with all the ingenious ways the film’s zombies meet their demise.

The performances here are uniformly good, and while we only get a little background on each character’s motivations, none of the roles are underwritten. Each actor gets numerous laughs and equal time to shine. Jesse Eisenberg has gone from Adventureland to Zombieland, and he perfectly captures Ohio’s neurotic tendencies and longing for a human relationship, as Ohio and Wichita begin to fall for one another. Even Little Miss Sunshine star, Abigail Breslin gets a lot of laughs, especially when we see the child star wielding a shotgun. Emma Stone is also worthy of mention as the tough, protective older sister to Breslin. Stone continues her rise after catching my attention in 2007’s Superbad.

The film’s best performance is easily given by Woody Harrelson. As Tallahassee, a cowboy hat wearing Zombie killer, he steals every scene he is in. The actor, who hasn’t been in much recently, could be in the position for a career resurgence with Zombieland (trailer), as well as the upcoming Defendor. He doesn’t just play Tallahassee as a one note joke; we also see the reason behind his zombie hatred. I also thoroughly enjoyed Tallahassee’s search for what could be the world’s last box of Twinkies.

Zombieland is sure to be a crowd pleasing film for one reason – it’s an exciting time at the cinema. While the film’s amusement park climax doesn’t quite live up to the buildup it receives, and the plot is pretty thin, Zombieland’s running time is a brief 80 minutes, so it never overstays it welcome. I’m sure this will be a hit with movie goers; the audience I saw it with loved it. If you’re in the mood for some zombie splattering mayhem, go see Zombieland. You might be a pulse-less zombie if you don’t get a kick out of this film.

This film, Jennifer’s Body has a lot of expectations riding on it. Especially for its writer, Diablo Cody, and star Megan Fox. For Cody, this film marks her first script since winning a Best Original Screenplay Oscar for 2007’s Juno. With Jennifer’s Body, she has to prove to everyone that she is not a one-hit wonder. Star Megan Fox is out to prove that she can carry a film, while also proving that her acting abilities extend beyond wearing tight clothes and talking to robots, as she did in the two Transformers films. Does either woman prove themselves worthy of their almost overnight success? For me, the answer would have to be no.

The plot for this high school-meets-horror film surrounds the title character Jennifer (Megan Fox) and her best friend Anita “Needy” Lesnicky (Amanda Seyfried). These two characters have been friends since they were young girls, even though they are polar opposites, Needy is the nerdy one and Jennifer is the hottest, most popular girl in the entire town. The reason behind their enduring friendship, we are told through Needy’s voice over, is “sandbox love never dies.”

The events of the film are put in motion when one night Jennifer decides to drag Needy away from her boyfriend, Chip (Johnny Simmons), and go to their town’s only bar, to see her favorite band, “Low Shoulder.”  As Jennifer tries to attract the attention of the band’s lead singer, Nikolai Wolf (Adam Brody), the bar catches on fire, and after Jennifer and Needy escape to the parking lot, the band convinces Jennifer to get in their van. Needy is left wandering what has happened to her BFF until Jennifer shows up hours later at Needy’s house, covered in blood. Jennifer says nothing and only vomits up an inky, black liquid before leaving.

Needy routinely got frustrated when Jennifer failed to make the bed.

The next day at school, Jennifer is seemingly fine and mentions nothing of the previous night’s events. Something however, is terribly wrong with her, as she was the victim of a botched satanic sacrifice by her favorite band (they mistook her for a virgin) and becomes possessed by a demon. This is a demon that requires human flesh to survive and soon the town’s teenage male population begins to disappear. It’s up to Needy to stop Jennifer before she consumes the entire male population of Devil’s Kettle, Minnesota.

The film’s dialogue is signature Diablo Cody, everyone speaks in a hyper-witty, sarcastic tone that anyone who saw Juno will know as soon as they hear it. The problem with Jennifer’s Body, unlike Juno, is that the dialogue that was fresh and fun then - sounds forced here.  It seems Cody is trying too hard to make the film funny and quirky, and it doesn’t work. The dialogue isn’t done any favors by Megan Fox who, while delivering some decent lines, doesn’t add any emotion behind her delivery. I think Fox, who has complained so much to the press about not being able to show her true talent, was proven wrong. I’m now certain we have already seen her range as an actress with the Transformers series.

Fire. It does a body good.

It also didn’t help Fox look any more capable by putting her opposite Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!). Seyfried proves that she is miles above Megan Fox in the acting department by putting in the film’s only genuine performance as the heroine of the movie. The rest of the cast is decent with J.K. Simmons’ comedic talents going to waste in such a small part. The only other notable performance besides Seyfried, is Adam Brody’s comedic cameo as the band’s lead singer.

The films biggest offense however, is its tone. It’s never clear what the film is trying to be. It has elements of horror, but is neither scary nor gory enough to be considered a horror film. It isn’t a comedy, as it doesn’t feature enough laughs to be in that genre. Lastly, it can’t be considered a teen sex comedy either, as contrary to what the film’s publicity and its premise would have you believe, the film features no nudity. The sexual elements are rather PG-13 (sorry, Fox fans).

In the end, the film’s muddled tone really brings the whole thing down. It can’t decide what it wants to be, and it fails for this reason. If “Body” falters at the box office – I’m sure Megan Fox will continue to get roles with her looks alone and Cody will continue to write scripts – I just hope next time she brings something new to offer and doesn’t try to replicate her Juno dialogue again.  Jennifer’s Body is not a true disaster, but it lacks any real soul.

Review written by The Film Nest “Guest Contributor” Chase Kahn (same name in the “Comments” section).

Five years after director Shane Acker won an Oscar for his animated short film 9, the director is back helming a feature-length expansion of his own premise about a group of rag dolls in a post-apocalyptic setting. The short film is a delightful slice of animation — dialogue-free, inventive, stylized and fun. As it turns out, some things are better left alone. With all of its visual and technical innovation, and intrigue to burn, 9 is nevertheless a bland, repetitive and hackneyed inflation of the eleven-minute short film with as many bad ideas as good ones, until the source material is proven overexposed.

Trying to duplicate the moderate success of Coraline ($75 million domestic gross), Focus Features has an odd blend of genres rolled into a niche package. The PG-13 science-fiction action-adventure animated film is too dark, bleak and humorless for anyone under the age of twelve, yet too undemanding, unpolished and meandering for anyone old enough to carry a driver’s permit.

Beginning with an aged, painful voiceover narration, 9 begins brilliantly with the awakening of its title character (voiced by Elijah Wood) in the workshop of a now deceased scientist. After flipping open the tapping, wind-battered shutters, we’re exposed to a hazy, smog-ridden ruin of what used to be a great city – think 1940’s London crossed with Soylent Green. #9 soon meets a resourceful old “sackboy” like himself, named #2 (Martin Landau), who is quickly snatched up during an attack by a roving machine known simply as, “The Beast”.

9 (Elijah Wood) and 2 (Martin Landau) scavenging through the apocalypse.

Wounded from the attack, #9 awakens under the hospitality of #5 (John C. Reilly) and a band of fellow “stitchpunks” (courtesy of Mr. Acker) led by #1 (Christopher Plummer) who, it appears, has been seeking refuge and solitude from “The Beast” for quite some time. Through various plot devices and tactics, we come to learn that the human race has become extinct at the expense of their own ambition. Through newspaper clippings, a scientist is identified as the man who built an army of intelligent machines for this nameless “State,” who then became self-aware, turning on their creators with unremitting numbers and hostility. This war is depicted briefly during the origin story of the numbered “stitchpunks,” much to the delight of this reviewer.

Unfortunately, 9 can’t sustain its opening passages, nor can it duplicate (not to mention expand on) the wondrous and artistically rendered short film upon which it’s based. It’s quite obvious that Shane Acker and screenwriter Pamela Pettler (Corpse Bride, Monster House) are spreading this premise thin to the point of tedium. It boils down to a series of capture-and-escape, machine-versus-rag doll monster battles spliced with a MacGuffin/post-apocalyptic, “save the world” narrative – a short film on repeat.

This happens a lot in "9."

Dialogue, all too prevalent here, is a barrage of banal moralistic debates perfectly fitting our archetypical, straight-laced, pint-sized heroes.  The voicework by everyone involved is non-essential with the exception of keeping Elijah Wood busy these days. John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly and Christopher Plumber, among others, are given no range here to make an impression, simply a vehicle for the action like everything else. The kind of exacting, strength-building inspiration for the characters and their voiceover counterparts, noticeable in any feature made by Pixar, is plainly absent here.

If there is one thing worth chewing on in 9, it is the animation, a kind of stop-motion/computer-generated hybrid. Interiors are appropriately dark and faintly lit with exterior sequences, which expose the pinkish-yellow beauty of the sky, looking gorgeous. The character design and the imagination involved with the detailing of the environment and the set pieces are undeniably impressive. For instance, the numbers on a calendar serve as a scorecard for which “stitchpunks” are still alive and a saltshaker’s silver top is efficiently used as a jousting mask.

Regrettably, only in this aspect does anything about 9 signal any stroke of inventiveness. In fact, nothing in the film is definably awful, but what you have here is a harmlessly dull and dreary piece of action-animation – stubbornly visceral and tirelessly unprogressive.