If a movie can tug at your heartstrings, “Charlie St. Cloud,” attempts to yank them out with pliers, relentlessly, for the full, tidy 90 minutes.

Adapted from the novel “The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud,” by Ben Sherwood, this tame, supernatural romance, in which Zac Efron talks to cute dead people, features a high school graduation, a plucky single mom, a scrappy athlete, a young man sent to war, a young child in peril, thwarted ambition, thwarted romance and grieving of every kind, all over a constant swell of strings instructing you to go ahead and let in the pain.

Efron is St. Cloud, a golden boy who races sailboats (yet is mysteriously said to be poor) by a beautiful island said to be off the coast of Massachusetts, (although it is strangely mountainous for eastern Mass.). His sailing prowess has won him a scholarship to Stanford, but he throws it away when tragedy strikes. St. Cloud blames himself for the sudden death of his adorable younger brother Sam (Charlie Tahan). In a constant state of penance, he defers his acceptance to college, taking a job overseeing the grounds of the town graveyard, and taking daily trips a secluded spot in the woods, where he believes he is meeting with Sam to keep the promise he made before the tragedy, to teach his little brother to throw a baseball.

St. Cloud’s fall from grace, his morbidity, and his isolation, have given him a reputation with many of the townies as a kook, while his dreaminess and lack of availability have made him a legend among the local teenage girls. When hot young sailboat racer Tess (Amanda Crew), traipses through the graveyard to huddle in a cleavagey heap by the grave of her father, St. Cloud has to pull himself together to try to win her heart, even if it means risking his sacred mourning rituals. When Tess becomes a damsel in distress, the stakes get higher—he must really pull himself together, and really risk.

“Charlie St. Cloud” features some beautiful and genuinely romantic pictures of the Vancouver locations offered up as small-town New England. It also has some charming actors, most notably, the very funny Charlie Tahan, as young, Sam St. Cloud. But this movie is what it is: a brazen, unadulterated schmaltz bomb hurled toward teenage girls: the “Twilight” market. I overheard one, as I left the theater, say that she “cried within the first 10 minutes.” I felt like crying too, but for different reasons.

“Salt” wants so much to be “The Bourne Identity.”

It has all the elements. It has a strong lead actor, a cavalry of character actors who look good in suits, lots of hand-held camera cinematography and a dark, twisted aura.

But despite it’s excellent qualities (and there are many) there’s something missing from this otherwise rousing spy thriller. It’s got the cool factor and the look of “Bourne.” But it’s got none of the soul.

“Salt” refers to Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie), a CIA agent who’s forced to run from her employers (live Schreiber and the fantastic Chiwetel Ejiofor)when she’s accused of being a Russian spy by a defector.

Salt was originally written as a man’s role, and it’s fascinating to see how the plot adapts itself to having a woman in the role. Instead of rescuing a wife and baby, Salt sets off to find her sweet arachnologist husband (August Diehl) who’s been taken in the wake of her charges. We don’t often see this reversal in a major Hollywood picture, but director Phillip Noyce and writer Kurt Wimmer manage to navigate the startling new idea with almost blasé confidence. The only bump is when Salt actually needs to dress up as a man to get into the White House- it’s a little too on-the-nose, a little too graduate school gender theory for my taste.

Wimmer’s script may navigate gender bending with aplomb, but when it comes to a well-honed action film he tends to fall flat. The problem with “Salt” is it’s too big. There’s a conspiracy plot involving the Russian government planting long-term sleeper agents in the U.S. Plausible, especially considering the recent news that Russian spies have been spending the last 20 years hanging out in Montclair, N.J. But in this movie their mission is nothing less than killing the President and “taking over America.” It’s an old-school, dated story, based in Cold War paranoia that just doesn’t apply today. Even more, the plot loses focus about halfway through, confusing Salt’s back story and getting lost in the woods of its own twists and turns.

Jolie is probably the only woman who could pull off this plot without looking ridiculous. In one of the most memorable shots in the movie, she stands on the Staten Island Ferry, wrapped in a fur stole and wearing a magnificent Russian hat. You’re both amused by the ludicrousness of the image, but because it’s Jolie it makes a weird sort of sense. Her beauty is so unusual, so foreign, why wouldn’t she be posing, looking like Julie Christie in “Dr. Zhivago”? She’s flanked by Schreiber, doing a delightfully campy Southern accent, and Ejiofor, who I would watch reading out of the phone book (as long as he did it shirtless). All three are people who you love to look at- the way they move, gesture, even the way they sit down. Diehl, who had a small role in “Inglourious Basterds”, fits in perfectly with their coterie; he’s able to stoke the chemistry with Jolie in just a few short scenes.

The action scenes are, unfortunately, a problem. In their desperation to make the film PG-13, they appear to have edited the scenes to eliminate blood, injury and visceral power from the shots. This makes for a weirdly clean, and soulless action scene, and one where the hand-held camera simply doesn’t work. I certainly don’t need to see brains and viscera, but these sterile battles just can’t compare to better shot scenes in “Bourne” or the latest “Bond” films.

There is, however, a pretty awesome scene where Salt makes a rocket launcher out of office furniture and cleaning supplies. I wish we could have seen more scenes of that style- a sort of resourceful action sequence that doesn’t rely on tricky editing or impossible technology to achieve its ends. “Salt” wants to be “Bourne” but Noyce forgot what made “Bourne” great: dirty, raw action scenes balanced with tightly controlled plot. “Salt” is too unbalanced. It wants to do too many things. And in the end, despite it’s positives, it’s actually accomplished nothing.

Who is SALT? This is the question you’ll undoubtedly find yourself asking throughout the entire movie, should you decide to go. But at the end, see if you’re don’t come to the same conclusion that I do — who really cares?

Angelina Jolie stars in this action flick as (purported) russian spy Evelyn Salt. She’s a brilliant replacement for the original actor, Tom Cruise, who was to play Evan Salt. But while Cruise is currently fighting it up with Cameron Diaz in “Knight and Day,” Jolie slips back into the familiar ruthless killer role that made us love her in “Tomb Raider” and “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.”

The plot is this — Salt, who works for the CIA, heads for the hills when a Russian defector claims she’s planning to kill the Russian president at the American vice president’s funeral. She claims to be innocent, that she’s only running to protect her husband. The plot thickens when her husband is brutally murdered by the Russian who ratted her out. Truly pissed off now, Salt goes on a killing spree that ends with her in control of American nuclear weapons.

Now who wouldn’t be interested in that plot? Certainly, this reviewer was. But as the audience vacillates back and forth (Is she innocent? Is she really a spy? Was her husband a cover?), a more accurate thermometer for the potential popularity of this movie becomes clear — it’s really fun to watch Angelina Jolie display creative new ways to kill people.

So who cares if she’s a spy or not? The plot is a thinly-veiled reason for Jolie to leap from the tops of fast-moving trucks on freeways without getting a scratch. Her stunning killer-face is firmly in place as she yanks a motorcycle right out from under a guy with one hand. In possibly the most breathtaking action sequence in the film, she leaps into the center of a stairwell and dangles by a chain wrapped around a guy’s neck.

Sure, we never really know who Salt is — because she never speaks. Jolie’s only lines are “I’m innocent” repeated over and over again with varying levels of urgency as she moves from one killing sequence to the next. But who’s complaining? Well, maybe me, but just a little. The only weakness of the movie is that we get little real acting from a very good actress (remember “Girl, Interrupted”?). But, in part, that gets made up for with some good acting from Liev Schreiber, who plays her CIA buddy.

In the end, if you want to see some acting, go see “Inception.” But for a good old summertime romp with Russian spies and car chases, “SALT” is your movie.

If you’re a parent, you could easily find yourself watching “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”. The kiddos have reached the mid-Summer ennui, stuck between enthusiasm for being out of school and the nervous anticipation for the next year. More than that, it’s hot, and the air conditioner is on the fritz. You’ve taken them to the pool, the water park, the mall, the sprinklers in the backyard. They’re bored, you’re tired, and- hey look, a Disney movie! That’ll keep them entertained for two hours or so!

The kids might be happy for that two hours. Heck, they may even enjoy this loosest of adaptations of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” from “Fantasia”. But if, out of hope or simple desperation you decide to shell out $10 for each of your kids as well as yourself, keep this in mind: I didn’t think “Apprentice” was absolutely heinous. But about five minutes after I left the theater I promptly forgot about it. The only reason I remembered was I saw the listing in my planner saying this review was due.

One of the main problems is there’s just too much dry plot. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” stars Nicolas Cage as an ageless wizard from the time of Merlin and Jay Baruchel, the physics major from NYU who becomes his protege. There are evil wizards, which Cage’s character has been battling for the past thousand years or so, including Morgana La Fay from Arthurian legend and her biggest follower (played by Alfred Molina, who seems to be having just a whee of a time). There’s all sorts of discussions of the Prime Merlinian, and Cage’s love interest (Monica Bellucci) who’s locked in Morgana’s body, who’s been locked in a doll, and if she gets out of the doll she’s going to raise an army of dead wizards…and round and round she goes.

There are a few charms in the movie, including images of Cage riding metal eagles from the Chrysler building and Bellucci swaying and cavorting atop a fountain in Battery Park, electricity flowing from her maestro fingers.There’s a terrific riff on “illusionists” like Criss Angel (an Angel lookalike is played by Toby Kebbell). The writers (yes, all five of them) introduce some intriguing ideas about the intersection between magic and science, and reference the patron saint of mad scientists Nicola Tesla, but these themes were explored more beautifully and completely in “The Prestige” a few years back.

Baruchel plays David, the titular apprentice, like a nerdier Woody Allen, but in this he’s got none of Allen’s dubious charm. Listening to Baruchel affect a slightly autistic stutter is irritating at best and kind of offensive at worst. But it’s preferable to watching Cage trudge like a reanimated corpse through this movie, delivering his lines like a petulant child who’s been asked to behave at a dinner party. Only Molina seems up to the task of bringing life and vigor into his role as the evil Horvath (and how great a name is Horvath for a villain?) He seems to relish the bowler hat and cane he carries, drawling his lines in that divine voice of his.

Looking now at the cast list, this film should be far more memorable than it is. I of course blame director Jon Turteltaub, the man who is second only to Brett Ratner in hackery. The thing about Turteltaub is that his movies are never spectacularly horrible; they don’t explode but rather implode with a whimper, bogged down with the weight of their own inconsequence. The children at the screening I was at laughed at some of the jokes,and definitely seemed to like the steel eagle scenes. But when the lights go up and you face the long ride home to your busted air conditioner, will it stay with them? Will they want to play games where they too can harness the power emitting from a Tesla coil? I don’t think so.

Besides, wouldn’t you like to just take them back to the pool instead?

“Inception” had equal chance of being either a disaster, or the best movie of the summer. 



It clocks in at almost 2.5 hours, and it stars Leonardo DiCaprio, a talented actor with an unfortunate penchant for lumbering message movies. Nolan, the director behind “The Dark Knight”, is a visionary in some respects, but tends towards the clumsy and overwrought when he’s not carefully edited. It had all the money in the world, and a Big Idea. It could be perfect. It could be ridiculous.



I wasn’t terribly surprised that “Inception” is somewhere in between a masterwork and a mess. Though buoyed with supreme action sequences and brilliant cinematography, it threatens to tumble under the weight of its own self-importance. 



In an unexpectedly brave move, Nolan puts his Philip K. Dick-esque story in the present, or the near-future, instead of some sort of abstract dystopia. Cobb (DiCaprio) is an “extractor” a thief who specializes in stealing information from corporate heads by entering their dreams. Turns out we’ve unlocked a way to “share” dreams, and to knowingly interact within them. He’s found a man who wants “one last job” from him, and who will fix Cobb’s legal problems allowing him to return to his children in America.

DiCaprio falls into his usual trap of mistaking heaviness for gravitas. He’s wonderful in some scenes, particularly one fraught sequence involving his dead wife Moll (a thrilling, and perfect Marion Cotillard), but if he’s not careful he simply comes off as dour. Besides DiCaprio the movie has a slew of talented actors, including Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobb’s partner, and Ellen Page as an architecture student who literally builds dreams to use as staging areas. Nolan unfortunately doesn’t allow a lot of personality to filter through the big ideas his cast has; that talent is still visible but it’s muted.

And the cast, as star-powered as it is, pales in comparison to the real star: the beautiful camerawork. The dream sequences are too beautiful and haunting to describe. You should not expect accuracy-there’s no real connection to the dreams we usually see, in equal parts trivial, terrifying and drenched with meaning. These are action scenes- the fact that it’s all a dream is merely a backdrop. But just watching Gordon-Levitt float through a hotel bathed in golden light is like watching the culmination of a hundred years of filmmakers trying to simply create something beautiful.

Nolan’s story is an original- no adaptations here, in a Hollywood that satisfies itself picking the bones of the literary dead- and that’s an achievement of its own kind. The themes he presents, like the intersection of dream and memory and the way our minds betray us even if there aren’t men in black walking around in our subconscious, are thought-provoking and elegantly stated.

All gushing aside, there are serious problems with the movie as well. In these types of movies, there’s always rules governing the world you’ve created. Page plays Ariadne, the newcomer to the team, and the person that Cobb explains his world and its rules to. But the rules don’t mean anything when you break them, and near the end of the movie all the carefully constructed regulations begin to unravel.

Yes, at 2.5 hours it’s about 20 minutes too long. But it’s so damn gorgeous to look at, by the end you’re ready to let that, and all its other sins go. There’s something to be said for Nolan’s vision. It’s imperfect but it’s his and only his. And I’m more than happy to share his dream.

Summit Entertainment’s THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN will be filmed in both Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Vancouver over the next year starting this fall. The next chapter of THE TWILIGHT SAGA will be released as two separate films with the first of the two slated to be released in theatres on November 18, 2011.

Academy Award winner Bill Condon will direct both films starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner along with Billy Burke as Charlie Swan as well as returning members of the Cullen Family including Peter Facinelli as Carlisle, Elizabeth Reaser as Esme, Jackson Rathbone as Jasper, Nikki Reed as Rosalie, Ashley Greene as Alice and Kellan Lutz as Emmett.

The project, based on the fourth novel in author Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series, is currently being written by Melissa Rosenberg with Wyck Godfrey, Karen Rosenfelt and Stephenie Meyer producing.

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN illuminates the secrets and mysteries of this spellbinding romantic epic that has entranced millions.

The third film in the franchise, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE, is currently in theaters.

“The Kids Are All Right” is not a film about lesbians. It’s not a film about gay marriage either. This funny, superbly acted character study, starring Annette Benning and Julianne Moore as a middle-aged couple with two teenaged kids fathered by the same sperm donor, is about far more universal challenges.

It’s about the way our identities are formed and fractured by our loved ones, about familial power struggles of all kinds, and in particular, about the destructive selfishness that often underlies the impulse to nurture.

The topics are serious, but the film, while provocative, never takes itself too seriously. There’s too much fun to be had with it’s characters, who are at one satirical and emotionally complex. There’s Nic, Benning’s, take on the classic passive-aggressive control freak, the well meaning smotherer, there’s her wife Jules, a lovable bumbling new-ager played by Moore, and then there’s Paul, the incidental father of their children, a narcissistic and oblivious stud of organic farming, played by Mark Ruffalo.

The kids referenced in the film’s title are Laser (Josh Hutcherson), the “sensitive jock” type, who, while he loves his mothers, finds himself longing for a father as he comes of age, and his sister Joni (Mia Wasikowski of “Alice In Wonderland” fame), who has plenty of identity issues of her own to work out as she prepares to leave home for college. Laser, a minor, convinces his older sister to make contact with their father through the fateful sperm bank that made them possible.

“Won’t this hurt Moms,” she worries. But she complies, inviting Paul into their lives.

The meeting begins awkwardly, but before long, it grows into something as potentially healthful as Paul’s groovy organic produce. Much to his surprise, Paul finds that he suddenly likes the idea of being a father, and he like his children’s mothers. He even gets Jules’ new, semi-realistic venture into landscape architecture off the ground by inviting her to redesign his space. But Paul’s helping hands are not part of Nic’s plans. She fears he is subverting her master plan and sabotaging her family.

There’s no doubt that “The Kids Are Alright” takes a hard look at challenges inherent in the situation of two women raising children without a father—and that do so at this particular moment in American cultural history, can be controversial, even political. Refreshingly though, this film is saved from veering too far into the didactic both by it’s humor and by it’s tight focus on rich characters, not emblems of homosexuality, but complex individuals with problems specific to who they are as people.

An engrossing film with plenty to unpack—this one is better than just “Alright.”

Blast got a chance to talk to one of the “Twilight” experts on the subject of all things Team Vampire and Team Wolf. How does this latest film measure up to the books? And will it keep fans happy? Jen Yamato, formerly a Senior Editor for Rotten Tomatoes, and current film critic at Movies.Com, has followed the series from its beginnings. Yamato has written feature articles and essays on the subject and its fans. We spoke to her last week about her thoughts on the LA premiere, its fans, and the movie, “Twilight Saga: Eclipse.”

BLAST: You were at the premiere of “Twilight Saga: Eclipse” in LA, I heard people were lining up.

JEN YAMATO: It was insane. It was huge, and it was the biggest they’ve had yet for “Twilight.”

BLAST: How was the experience with fans? Did you interact with any of them?

JY: First of all, there were 500 people who camped out on Sunday…and that number only grew for the premiere on Thursday. I have so much respect for the fans dedicated to “Twilight.” I love they are so excited about it. I totally get it! I spoke with the fans who were at the head of the line, who camped out for four days. They were in such good spirits, and they were rewarded by their devotion with great spots along the red carpet, or rather the black carpet, which they had for the premiere. These fans were happy to be there. The great part is that every “Twilight” actor who walked the carpet took their time with the fans by taking pictures, hugging them, and signing autographs.

I think for fans it’s worth it. They even make signs, and (become) friends with one another. It’s a really fun atmosphere for them, and it’s kind of a once in a lifetime event for them.

BLAST: It’s amazing how devoted these fans are for the franchise and its books.
You’ve followed this from the beginning with the first film, so has the phenomenon has changed over the years? Because it seems as if it’s always been really big.

JY: You know what’s interesting to have followed this all along is that the franchise has grown with each film. I think a lot of it started with the first film because of its fans from the novels. (The success) came out of nowhere. I think Twilight was such a huge success because it parlays the fans from the novels and capitalized from that as a based and just grew and grew.

BLAST: How has it been with the actors too? When “Twilight” first came out and became such a huge success, it seems Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson were caught in headlights. It seems as if they’ve grown into their own. How has that been for you? You’ve been on the red carpet and done interviews.

JY: I think the phenomenon that came with the first film “Twilight” caught them off guard as much as it did with everybody else. So with the press on the first film, they were still getting used to it while being the center of the world’s attention. (They) are the center of this ardent fan love. Over the years, you can tell by how they’ve presented themselves in public and in interviews both Kristen and Robert have really matured in many ways. Especially in how comfortable they seem by all the attention from it. Kristen was (particularly) nervous and shy when we talked to her on “Twilight”, a little less so when “New Moon” came out, and now she’s completely confident. It’s really nice to see that with her. So there’s been a discernible maturity with all the stars of the film. I think they’re getting used to the game, I think they are now sort of owning it rather than getting carried away. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are very serious and protective of their private lives. So what you see now with them now is the confidence that wasn’t quite there from the beginning.

BLAST: When you were on the red carpet for “Twilight Saga: Eclipse”, what did you hear from them about the film?

JY: By the time this film rolls around, the love triangle is the high point. It interplays the three of them: Kristen (Bella), Robert (Edward), and Taylor (Jacob). They all talk about how it was fun for them. There’s an infamous scene known as “the Tent Scene” by fans that’s actually really funny. They shot it for days. They talk about how much fun it was to make that scene.

BLAST: Did the movie “Twilight Saga: Eclipse” live up to what you expect? At least between the books and the film? Until now they (Edward and Bella) haven’t really done too much.

JY: I can definitely say the “Tent Scene” will definitely satisfy fans! It will be one of the favorite scenes fans will definitely want to see over and over again. It’s got Bella literally caught between Edward and Jacob. Jacob is shirtless. And it’s actually one of the film’s funniest scene. They did actually a good job of pulling (the scene) off. And it is one of the enjoyable scenes of the films.

BLAST: Well that’s going to make one of the more interesting scenes at next year’s MTV Movie Awards. Should it be nominated somehow for best kiss.

JY: Inside the tent scene there is no kiss, but you’re right it should be especially for Kristen. One for kissing Robert and one for kissing Taylor.

BLAST: So far, the hype has been this is the best in the series so far. Would you say that’s true?
Having watched it, and seen it all.

JY: I do think it fixes a lot of problems the first two films had, it definitely has more action ramped up considerably. I think it can pull in a whole new demographic. I think fans will be really be satisfied because what “Twilight” has done is remain faithful to the books. “Eclipse” does it as much as “New Moon” and “Twilight”. I think David Slade (director) pulls it off in the film.

BLAST: We haven’t brought up the topic about one of the significant parts of the books which are the werewolves. How do you think the storyline evolves in this film?

JY: A lot of different forces come together. Edward and Jacob come together to work together. The Cullen vampires work with their sworn enemies, the werewolves. So it’s good to see them work towards a common good to protect Bella and the newborn vampires. The werewolves definitely have an important role, but what is somewhat disappointing is that you don’t see much of the werewolves in their human form as Wolf Pack fans would like…you more of the CG (computer graphic) wolves. There’s a tender scene with Jacob the Wolf and Bella…you get a sense for the size of the wolves.

BLAST: How is the graphics for the wolves this time around? In “Twilight Saga: New Moon,” they are a bit softer than what you would expect from a werewolf. With “Twilight Saga: Eclipse” have they improved this time around ?

JY: The wolves are much the same, but I think they’ve fixed a couple of issues with the wolf CG and animation. It’s an issue with how weighty an animated figure appears to be in a real world setting.
The wolves are really well integrated into live action vampire fights. And I would say the most impressive effects in “Eclipse” are the vampire effects. You get to see in battle what it’s like when vampires limbs are being ripped off. David Slade, the director, spent a lot of time developing the look of the vampire physiology. The way he describes it is as if their muscles are made of crystalline substance. So when we see them in the heat of battle, and vampires take causalities, it’s not bloody because they don’t have blood exactly. It’s interesting to see.

BLAST: How much of the books’ mythos plays in the film? I know the subject of imprinting is important. Does that come into play here? Because “Breaking Dawn” is being split into two movies. So you have to wonder if they’ve saved some elements for that later on. Because films don’t always go in the order it should sometimes.

JY: Yes. Every “Twilight” film has stayed faithful to the books. Important conversations and events that happen in the book make it to the movie. In “Eclipse” we learn more about imprinting as Jacob explains to Bella. We learn more about the Quileute tribe and legends.

BLAST: As a critic you’ve seen a lot of films, of course, so what would you say makes “The Twilight Saga” a success? Most films based on successful books do not always translate well onscreen.
Would you say it has to do in part to the collective fanbase surrounding the films and books?

JY: The “Twilight” franchise is unlike any other franchise in terms of genre. “Twilight” is first and foremost a love story than a supernatural or even a horror film. I think it’s the romance that keeps fans hooked, I think that’s why they keep coming back to see the story continued through Bella’s eyes.

BLAST: It seems with the build up to the release of “Twilight Saga: Eclipse,” the promotions have been a lot more aggressive than previously.

JY: Summit, the studio, have been very smart about its treatment for the saga from the beginning. The fandom has grown steadily over each film, and that’s because people love the books. Secondly, people love seeing those books come to life onscreen. Beyond that, they (the fans) enjoy projecting their love for the actors who play them: Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. So now the fandom has become this larger than life entity of its own in terms of “Twilight.” It’s fun for fans to celebrate it. Summit has done a really great job encouraging the fandom itself. They have Stephenie Meyer and the source material in mind throughout the franchise because they know that’s important to the fans. Summit has made the “Twilight” movies an experience for fans.

And an experience it has been this week as “Twilight Saga: Eclipse” continues to heat up ticket sales. The only disappointment for fans will be waiting for the last installment,“Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn.” Unfortunately, the final chapter of the “Twilight Saga” won’t start production until 2011. Until then fans will continue to swap stories, debate on which team they love best, and keep close to all the latest updates! For more details on Yamato’s review on “Twilight Saga: Eclipse” and all her other work, check out http://www.movies.com/movie-reviews/jen-yamato .

“Twilight Saga: Eclipse” is currently playing nationwide in theaters and IMAX.

It’s got a flying yak and a whispering dragon, mystical powers and an epic scale, but for all of this, “The Last Airbender” is surprisingly dull for a martial-arts-based 3D summer action flick.

For one thing, you might as well leave your 3D glasses at the door—no one’s going to be breathing fire into your lap or karate chopping at your date. The graphics pretty much stay within their celluloid cage once the credits finish their flight, only popping back out for the closing credits.

Setup to be a fantastical thrill-ride, this plodding children’s fare (based on a Nickelodeon cartoon) could have used some more impressive visuals to bale out its pat storytelling. It’s not that Shyamalan’s tale is without imagination: Blending together elements of Buddhist mysticism and Chinese kung fu lore, it offers a battle between pan-Asiatic tribes whose respective champions have control of earth, wind air or water (no, they do not combine their powers and summon Captain Planet). At the film’s center is the requisite “chosen one,” The Avatar (Noah Ringer), the latest incarnation of an ancient hero with potential to “bend” all four elements and presumably bring order to the warring factions. The twist, as you already know from the previews, is that this avatar is a little boy (making him a great hero for kids).

The biggest problem here is that there’s no adrenaline. The child actors are very talented, but they’re not given textured enough characters to arouse our loyalty and they’re never really put through much palpable danger. While we know that the tribe of the ‘fire-benders” is an evil empire who has conquered and enslaved the others, we just don’t witness enough of this to get sufficiently worked up about it.

Part of the problem is that the film’s villains, led by Dev Patel (“Slumdog Millionaire”) as Prince Zuko and Osif Mundvee (TV’s “The Daily Show”) as Commander Zhao, are far too likable. They’re charismatic without being scary. Sure they snarl a bit and make some wicked decisions—but they’re pretty chilled out for super-villains. Nothing we see them do gets our vengeance-juices flowing, and they don’t have any haunting weapons or even menacing costume pieces.

They are very clearly no match for Anng the Avatar, whose real challenge is to man up and own the responsibilities of being Spiderman—I mean, a hero. Meanwhile, our other protagonists, Katara, the young girl who is last of the water-benders (Nicola Pelz), and her brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), are mainly charged with the task of building up Anng’s confidence. They scurry about with earnest concern and repeatedly pledge their loyalty.

On one hand, as an adult, I want to commend “Airbender” for a remarkable lack of gory violence, but on the hand, I can’t help but wish this was replaced with some sort of lively danger — some flying and tumbling, some exciting chases with narrow escapes, some balletic fight choreography a la crouching dragon—instead of tiresome posturing between dull exposition followed by moments of mystical hand-waving, which conjures up some pretty tame water bubbles, icicles and flamey warning-shots.

The very young might enjoy this film’s super-empowered youth on a hero quest, and it may inspire them to play fight without actually hitting each other—but if you’ve been waiting for the next incarnation of James Cameron’s “Avatar” to take you on a thrilling ride, your savior has not arrived.

I am not a Twi-hard. I am not a Twilighter, a Twi-fan or even a Twi-mom, given I have no children. I am not a variation on any of those titles. But I am also not a hater. But in a world of film critics who love to hate Twilight, I stand apart. I am a huge fan of the books and by connection a tentative fan of the films. As this is an anomaly in film critic-dom, I feel it’s necessary to share my findings and my regrettably unique perspective — that being that I was probably one of few critics not going into “Twilight: Eclipse” completely ready to hate it and one of the few fans not going in to deify it.

The notes I took during the film read much like the truncated exclamations that punctuate the Twilight books — “Campy,” “Thrilling,” “Sexy,” “Scary.” But the one word that preceded more nouns than any other was simply “Better.” No one can say that the Twilight films, separately or together, make a completely respectable piece of art. But they’re getting better.

David Slade takes the helm on the latest film in the franchise and with his background in the horror genre (“Hard Candy”) brings back the campy feel that made the original “Twilight” lovable in its own way. This isn’t the gold-flecked, Italian painting style that we saw in New Moon. We aren’t watching a series of sappy, dialogue-less montages set to a soundtrack of Muse tunes. “Eclipse” brings back the dark, (and yet, somehow lighter with more quippy one-liners and less vampiric, love-lorn brooding) sopping wet Forks, Washington readers fell in love with in 2007.

The greatest improvement in Eclipse is the writing. Slade thankfully got rid of all the pain-drenched kissing and whiny declarations of love. He replaced it with (at times) witty dialogue, and what’s more, he used LINES FROM THE BOOK. What a revolutionary idea. As “Eclipse” was my favorite book, it pleased me to no end that the tent and bedroom scenes were left verbally in tact. After all, this why we go to see movies made from our favorite books in the first place — to see the complete incarnation of the scenes we’ve imagined a thousand times, without any interference from less-than-stellar screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg.

But Slade doesn’t just succeed by sticking to the books — he weaves in themes that are absent from the books but completely fitting. This is a relieving change of pace, especially when you’re watching a film where you’re certain there won’t be any real surprises. Slade knows his strengths, too. He gives Oscar-nominee Anna Kendrick the spotlight to deliver a, in the hands of a less-talented actress then Kendrick, generic graduation speech that draws uncomfortable parallels between Bella, who is about to become a vampire, and other normal teenagers (“This is our time to make mistakes, because nothing is permanent.” Well, except that whole undead thing).

The film has an air of self-deprication that saves it in many scenes. Slade gave the characters the freedom to make fun of themselves, which alleviated so much unnecessary tension. He did this primarily through one-liners that smacked the characters back in place just as they were about to head down a path of overly-moody dialogue.

“Oh, believe me, I want to,” Edward (Robert Pattinson) says, cracking a smile after denying Bella (Kristen Stewart) sex before marriage. The moment needed a lift, especially when trying to convince audiences that two people in love shouldn’t make love is a hard sell.

“I kissed Bella,” Jacob (Taylor Lautner) growls at Charlie (Billy Burke). But then he falters. “….and she broke her hand. Punching my face. It was a little misunderstanding.”

“I’m a VIRGIN!” Bella exclaims to Charlie during one of the best scenes of the film where Charlie and Bella have “The Talk.”

But it’s not all one-liners. Slade doesn’t sacrifice emotional intensity. At the climax of the film when the furious, red-eyed vampire Riley Biers (Xavier Samuels) growls “You’re dead” at Edward, you believe him.

Slade also centers much of the film around newborn vampire Riley, who was virtually nonexistent in the book. Riley, a Forks native, plays the right hand man of “Eclipse”s villain, Victoria. Shortly after she turned him, she sent him off to rally a vampire army that would take on the Cullen clan. “I will end the Cullen clan,” he says, flashing his sharp new vampire teeth. Slade draws a comparison between the story of Riley and that of Jasper Hale, who had a similar beginning to his vampire life. Unlike Riley, Jasper and his hokey southern accent made it out of his first bad vampire relationship alive. There is, however, an unnecessary and unsettling scene in Jasper’s flashback where he kills a newborn vampire who couldn’t have been more than fourteen years old.

Some other tid-bits that Twilight fans (who aren’t going to read this before they see the movie anyway, because they’ve all been lined up outside the theaters since yesterday morning) will be glad to know — the sparkle effect is tasteful and rarely used, and the accompanying wind chime sound effect is noticeably, and thankfully, absent. Jacob has his shirt off for most of the film. This will be a relief to fans and critics alike, since fans will appreciate his abs and critics will appreciate not having to see him take off his shirt at every potentially quivery moment. And there is a lot of making out. That’s all I have to say about that (to borrow a line from a much better movie).

If you’re not waiting in line at this very moment to see “Eclipse,” give it a shot. It’s better than the first two and is at least worth it for the action scenes.

I feel almost like I should grade “Eclipse”, the third in the “Twilight” series, on a curve.

While viewing the movie, I was reminded of my thoughts regarding books the series is based off of. I read the first one. I didn’t particularly like it, and I didn’t have the urge to read more. But all in all I found the novel thoroughly inoffensive. Good to see young girls (and their mothers) reading anything, I thought. It’s not progressive in its views or even terribly well-written, but why should boys get all the fanboy fun? Bring on the hot vampire action!

I feel the same about “Eclipse.” The third installment of the vampire sensation that’s sweeping the nation is a fun diversion, and even sometimes enjoyable for the non-Twi-hard viewer. It’s got humor, a healthy dose of self-awareness and a surprising poignancy.

The story takes place during the last few months of heroine Bella’s (Kristen Stewart) time at Forks High School. She’s already made her icy soulless beloved Edward (Robert Pattinson) promise to change her into a vampire once she’s graduated, something he’s endlessly trying to persuade her not to do. Jacob (Taylor Lautner), her Native American/Werewolf friend is trying to convince her that she belongs with him and his pectoral muscles. Meanwhile, the vamp Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard) is busy raising an army of bloodsuckers in Seattle to make war on the Cullens, with the ambivalent aid of the Volturi (or, as I like to think of them, the Vampire Vatican.)

One of my colleagues made the comment that this might be the Twilight episode that boyfriends of Twi-hards might be able to enjoy, or at least tolerate. I’m not totally sure I agree, but the action sequences are riveting, with expert use of hand held cinematography and smooth CGI. I could have used more time dedicated to the climactic fight- you couldn’t shave off a few minutes of Edward and Bella discussing yet again how dangerous it is to become a vampire?

Writer Melissa Rosenberg, God bless her, does her very best with translating Stephenie Meyer’s eggplant purple prose onto the screen, and managed to inject some much-needed humor into the mix, much of it extremely self-aware. “Don’t you own any shirts?” growls Edward at the perennially half-naked Jacob. For the most part, though the dialogue is pretty painful, with Pattinson repeating “I won’t let anything happen to you, Bella.” or “It’s too dangerous, I can’t let anything happen to you, Bella.” or “Bella’s in danger?!” over and over with varying degrees of urgency.

Pattinson, Lautner and Stewart don’t seem to act so much as pose their way through the film provocatively (and in Lautner’s case, shirtlessly). Their performances are less wooden than in “Twilight” and “New Moon,” but I still found myself cringing through a lot of their exchanges. Stewart especially seems incapable of letting any emotion cross her face, assuming that “determined” means she can never crack a smile or display any signs of personality.

There were some profoundly touching moments, however. The scene where Edward tells Bella that he wants to wait to have sex until marriage was incredibly sweet. “I’m from another time,” he says. “If I had met you then, I would have courted you.” Also lovely was a scene where Jacob gets into bed with Bella to keep her warm during a snow storm, while a jealous and resigned Edward watches. I’m an active member of Team Jacob, but dammit if Pattinson didn’t make me feel for Edward’s tortured sparkly soul.

As a feminist, I suppose I’m obligated to comment on the “message” of the movie. But I’m not going to, save for one comment: one of my favorite things about these silly films is that contrary to most mainstream movies the eye candy is decidedly not female. In “Eclipse” Bella’s almost always dressed in sweatshirts, flannel and jeans, her hair hanging in her face. The boys on the other hand are so very pretty, with their chiseled abs, brooding eyebrows and sparkly faces. In a world where the term “male gaze” is shoved down the throats of film students on their first day, the “Twilight” movies are attempting something that might actually be perceived as radical: they make the men the sex object.

So what the hell — it’s not great cinema, just like the books aren’t great literature, but it’s fun, and relatively satisfying. It’s the summer! Let’s crank up the Twi-mania to 11! And those werewolves look awfully uncomfortable in their shirts…

Fans in Phoenix and Scottsdale gathered at the Desert Ridge Marketplace to rewatch the first two beloved Twilight films on a large outdoor screen as well as get the chance to play some games, win some prizes, and get their questions answered by “Twilight” star Justin Chon (Eric Yorkie). Watch the video below to see what he has to say about the next installment in the “Twilight Saga.”

San Diego is one of several cities (see our coverage in Phoenix and Denver) chosen nationwide to host Summit Entertainment’s “Twilight Night.” It’s free event that includes a double feature of the first two movies (“Twilight” and “New Moon”), guest appearances from the cast, live music, and exclusive sneak peeks of “Twilight Saga: Eclipse.”

Whether you’re a fan or not of Stephanie Meyer’s explosive vampiric series, there is little doubt as to the significant impact its followers have in pop culture right now. An event such as “Twilight Night” is proof positive the franchise is not slowing down any time soon. In San Diego, fans camped out the previous night just for the chance of being inches closer to a Cullen or to support the Quileute werewolf tribe known as “The Wolf Pack.”

The Park closed its iron gates off to the public after reaching maximum capacity in less than an hour. Several families who arrived late stood (literally) on the outside looking in. Some pleaded by explaining, “I left work hours early for this…” or “I won’t get too close.” Children cried; parents threw tantrums, but all were rejected admission.

Usually a fanaticism left for rock stars and concert tours, “Twilight” is one of the few pop phenomenons which continues to bring in droves of people and cause hysterics. Proper planning at events like “Twilight Night” is crucial in maintaining safe crowd control and ensuring a good time. The organization at Park in the Park from all parties involved was great, and easily could have turned into mayhem without their efforts. As for the fans, their energy added to the electric atmosphere as they waited for the cast appearances. Many walked around proudly in black shirts with the words “Twilight Saga: Eclipse” written across their chests in the trademark “Twilight” font face. Whispers and sighs from many of the younger fans could be heard as they debated over their favorite characters. Some even took it a step further and wore the “bite mark” prosthetics which showed more than the classic two, small dotted marks of a vampire; it looked as you would expect a real bite to appear: bloody, fleshy, and slightly gory.

Hosting the event was Jenna Busch from Moviefone and Quddus best known for his previous work in MTV’s “Total Request Live (TRL).” Fans even cheered them on as they set up for their live event, showing their love isn’t just left for the stars of the films. Local San Diego band War Stories set off festivities playing a live set to a frenzied crowd which could be heard easily within several city blocks, perking the curiosity of many locals who stepped over to the gates to catch a glimpse. The music of War Stories is reminiscent of band Interpol but with the lead singer, Evan Robinson, blasting out amazing vocals it feels as if he were channeling Michael Hutchence from INXS. Their song “Insecure Boyfriend” was a highlight, and judging by the audience reaction they’ve got themselves a whole slew of new fans.

As War Stories’ performance came to an end, the focus quickly shifted to the main stage area where Busch prepared to go live on air. Meanwhile Quddus connected with several select attendees whose questions were sent to Taylor Lautner, Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart.

It was worth the wait as members of the cast made their way onto the red carpet, and fans reacted with a swirl of ardent screams. Edi Gathegi (vampire Laurent) was originally schedule to appear but could not attend at the last minute. In his place was the lovely Christian Serratos, who plays Forks’ human resident, Angela Weber. Joining her was none other than Dr. Carlisle Cullen himself: Peter Facinelli.

Serratos wore her long brown hair in a simple braid. Dressed in a white strapless gown, she looked exquisite despite the chilly weather.

Peter Facinelli followed shortly afterwards sporting a dark ‘do, a change from Dr. Cullen’s trademark blonde hair. He dressed casually in dark denim and leather jacket while carrying a smile for all the fans. When Facinelli was asked about making it to San Diego, the crowd burst into screams, and the actor couldn’t help but note the audience attendance was as enthusiastic as the “Twilight: Eclipse” LA premiere days ago.

As soon as their time on camera was finished, both Serratos and Facinelli took an extended amount of time to sign autographs, and chat briefly with some of the people at the front. It’s the cast’s patience and respect for fans that makes the film so successful. There was even a moment were Facinelli held a baby, making him appear more like a politician than actor.

Yet the most dramatic turn was about to unfold as a sudden stillness spread through the crowd, and a stretcher was brought in by some medics. Although it’s uncertain exactly the cause for the situation, it appeared one of the fans may have passed out while Facinelli came by to sign autographs. After the situation was resolved, and no serious injury caused, the crowd returned to its excited state, proving again that nothing holds back a good time at a “Twilight” event.

“Twilight Saga: Eclipse” will be the last film of the year as the final installment “Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn” won’t start production until 2011.

“Eclipse” hits theaters and IMAX June 30.

The event featured a screening of The Twilight Saga: New Moon, along with special appearances by two supporting cast members, Booboo Stewart and Tinsel Korey. The two play Seth Clearwater and Emily, members of the Quileute tribe and the Wolf Pack, the werewolves of Twilight.

(Don’t miss Blast’s “Twilight Night” coverage in Phoenix and San Diego)

Fans of all ages showed up at the park as early as 4:00 to show their excitement for Eclipse. Groups of teenagers and families with young children huddled under umbrellas in the pouring rain. They clutched dog-eared copies of Stephenie Meyer’s novels, along with water bottles, cell phones, magazines, posters, jewelry, T-shirts, and notebooks all emblazoned with the Twilight logo.

One large group of fans from Lakewood, Jefferson, and Creyton high schools started chanting “We want the Wolf Pack!” The girls were decked out in Team Jacob shirts and soaked to the skin. Tanya Castillo, age 13, said of the group’s love for Bella’s werewolf friend: “He’s so sweet and he takes his time for Bella. Plus his abs. Plus, he’s loyal… but also his abs.”

Not all the fans were rooting for Twilight’s hunky werewolf. Team Edward had a strong presence as well. Denver woman Kandy Coleman, staying dry under a Twilight umbrella, had a compelling reason to support Edward. “He’s a good example for every man from age eight to eighteen of what makes a good mate,” said Coleman.

Three lucky eighth graders from Littleton, Colorado won VIP passes from a Vitamin Water promotion to an advance screening of Eclipse on Tuesday. Sophie Iannac, Laura Wagner, and Emily Redmon won the passes because of the amount of “Twilight bling” they wore to Twilight Night: T-shirts, buttons, jewelry, and even shoes.

Margareto Costello, 23, who was visiting friends in Denver, identified herself as “not a fan.” When asked why she thought the books had become so popular, Costello said, “Because literacy rates are going down and it’s quite easy to read.” The New Jersey native was one of the few in the crowd who weren’t there for the love of Twilight.

Around 7:30, the rain stopped, the sun came out over the lake, and hundreds of fans screamed happily as Korey and Stewart finally arrived. The pair made their way along the barrier, signing autographs and taking pictures with fans. Stewart ran along the crowd, slapping high-fives, before greeting a group of fans who won the privilege of going “backstage” to meet the two Twilight cast members.

Korey and Stewart got on stage to say a few words over screaming support from the crowd. The two members of the Wolf Pack expressed their excitement for the premiere of Eclipse and their appreciation for the fans.

The giant screen lit up, and the opening narration of New Moon began to play, breathless fans mouthing along with the words.

“The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” opens nation-wide on Wednesday, June 30.

The event, which is being hosted by Summit Entertainment, will include screenings of both “Twilight” and “Twilight: New Moon” and clips from “Twilight: Eclipse” on a giant outdoor screen as well as a guest appearance by Justin Chon, who plays Eric Yorkie in the films.

Fans will get a chance to play games, take photos in front of a Forks, Washington backdrop and on a red carpet as well as enter for a chance to win tickets to a screening of “Eclipse.” Not a bad deal, considering the entire event is free!

The event officially begins at 6pm, but bracelets, which guarantee chairs at the screenings, will be handed out on a first-come, first-served basis, so make sure to get there early.

You know when you’re at a family reunion, and there’s that one goofy uncle? Let’s call him Uncle Adam. Uncle Adam likes to tell jokes. Actually, he likes to pigeonhole you and subject you to his “jokes,” which are really heinous puns and borderline racist/sexist/homophobic one-liners. Then he takes a break for another swig of scotch, and you take the opportunity to run away, leaving whatever poor cousin in your wake to take up the slack.

Watching “Grown Ups” is like listening to Uncle Adam. Except there are five of him. And you’re stuck with all of them for two hours. In a darkened room, where you can’t run away because afterward you need to write about the awful, awful jokes they made you listen to. For two hours.

This is the part where you would normally hear about the plot. Unfortunately, there is no plot. A bunch of middle-aged guys (Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider) learn that their childhood basketball coach has died. They go to the funeral with their respective families and then hang around a lake house for a weekend, telling their terrible jokes and embarrassing everyone who’s watching them.

There are jokes about old women with painful bunions. Old women who still have sex. Fat people. Breastmilk squirting in someone’s face. People covered in cow dung. Men who stay home while women work. Guys getting hit in the crotch. Old women who fart. Adorable children who don’t know the meaning of the word “wasted.” Guys peeing in pools.

Mind you: all of these topics can be covered in a way that’s hilarious. But for a film that has five established and well-known comedians, the comedic timing and delivery is amateurish and frankly painful to watch. By the time the seventeenth “Take my wife, please” equivalent rolled out I felt desperate to get out of the theater.

And then there’s what they did to the women.

Sandler managed to array a coterie of gorgeous, talented actresses: Maria Bello, Maya Rudolph and Salma Hayek, as well as character actress Joyce Van Patten. Bello is the overprotective mommy who can’t say no. Rudolph is the ball busting career woman, and Hayek is the woman who has the temerity to be annoyed that she has to stay at a lake house when she has a fashion show in Milan. Van Patten is the old woman who still has sex (eww gross!). None of them are funny. Let me say that another way: Maya Rudolph wasn’t funny. When your script is so bad that even Maya Rudolph can’t save it, you really need to reevaluate your career choices.

It’s very unclear exactly who “Grown Ups” is made for. The trailers make it seem like a family-friendly film, but there’s a lot of sex jokes I wouldn’t think appropriate for the 12 and under set. The jokes aren’t raunchy in the way that teens or the 18-24 groups would enjoy. That leaves those who are older, and middle aged. Those who have families of their own, who could maybe “relate” to the plight of Uncle Adam and his friends. Frankly it’s hard for me to imagine anyone who could feel warm and fuzzy about a bunch of unfunny people sitting around a lake.

As for me, I made a beeline for the door as soon as the credits rolled. I didn’t want to take the chance that Uncle Adam had another joke in him.

Justin is swinging by Phoenix this Saturday to talk to Blast, and we want to give all of you Twilight fans out there a chance to ask him anything you want. Dying to know if Taylor Lautner’s abs are as impressive in person? Want to ask questions about Eclipse, which comes out next Wednesday? Leave your questions in the comments section below or email them to us (info in the contacts section).

And be sure to check back to see your burning questions answered by your favorite Twilight human!

I have to admit these kind of movies kind of annoy me. The whole mock spy story has been played over and over again, until now record has warped and melted to the turntable, the remnant spinning pointlessly on its axis while a producer bathes in a pool of money in the other room.

I’m bored with the whole genre. Add in Peter Sarsgaard slumming and a romance plot with Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz (because “Vanilla Sky” was such a great movie!) and I’m ready to give this whole enterprise the red card. For God’s sake another mock spy movie was just released last month!

But I must judge each overplayed storyline according to its own merits, and much to my surprise “Knight and Day”, about a woman who accidentally falls in with an international spy, has some pretty delightful, and even outright hilarious moments.

The plot involves Roy Miller, a spy who meets June Havers, who’s on her way home to Boston to go to her sister’s wedding. He’s been protecting a young scientist (a sweet, mustachioed Paul Dano) who’s being hunted for his newest invention. Roy’s partner (Peter Sarsgaard, doing his very best sleazy Southern accent) has gone rogue and is attempting to steal the boy’s invention and sell it on the black market.

Cruise especially seems to have a gotten a second wind as a comedic actor, since his truly inspired role in “Tropic Thunder”. Instead of smooth entrances and coy double entendres Roy’s character relies on simple good-guy charm to seduce us. At one point he lands sprawling on top of a car containing June that’s speeding through a tunnel and being shot at. But instead of a great action line a la James Bond, he simply looks up and brightly says, “Hey June! Open the door for me?”

Unfortunately then there’s Diaz, who’s just a hot mess if there ever was one. Due to what I can only guess is some brutal Botoxing, Diaz’s face looks haggard and unhappy. Watching her trip over things adorably and scrunch up her nose while she prattles her lines manically is not cute anymore; it’s undignified. Diaz can be a serviceable actress when she’s allowed to be, but director James Mongold has committed the usual sin of relegating her to the tough/vulnerable hot chick who just needs a man.

That said there is a pretty kickass scene where she’s outrunning bad guys in a GTO.

Mangold has a spotty record: he’s directed both “Girl, Interrupted” and “Walk the Line,” but also the snoozer epic “Kate and Leopold.” “Knight and Day” falls somewhere in the middle. The action scenes are expertly choreographed and the music is truly wonderful (a Latin-infused medley by John Powell). But Mangold cuts a lot of corners and leaves a lot of holes to be filled in. In a film named “Knight and Day,” would it kill you to name the female protagonist June Day? (Miller’s real name is Knight, so at least that makes a little sense.) June’s sturdy firefighter ex-boyfriend Rodney (Mike Blucas) is introduced and then dropped about two scenes later, never to be heard from again, along with June’s sister. He has an inspired scene involving an action montage viewed through a drug-induced haze, but then lapses into the cliched romantic play fight/sexual tension scene.

It has a satisfying ending, centering on that fabulous GTO, and that counts for a lot. But so much of the middle grazes the surface of parody without actually taking a dive. The jokes just aren’t funny enough. “Knight and Day,” was a surprise, but it’s not enough of one to pay $10 at the cineplex. Wait for it on DVD. It’s charms will still be fully visible.

When “Toy Story” appeared in 1995, seemingly out of nowhere, it immediately presented itself as the future of children-oriented cinema. It was Pixar’s first, and crowning, achievement; a breathing, gorgeous rendition of a child’s reality. I remember seeing it at 10 years old and being fascinated with the curve of the figures, the computer-generated shadows, and the cartoonish representations of some of my favorite childhood toys.

The story wasn’t half bad, either. “Toy Story” was first and foremost about the power of imagination. It described a universe where toys not only came to life, but yearned to be friends and loved ones to the children who possessed them. It’s a beautiful sentiment.

I didn’t see “Toy Story 2,” or if I did, I don’t remember it at all. Chances are it has faded into the mists of my own childhood, buried under memories of birthday parties and fights with my little brother. But “Toy Story 3″ does not list the first two movies as prerequisites. It is its own man, so to speak, and the remarkable thing is it stands very well, and very charmingly, on its own.

The first chance they took with the film was keeping the story in real time. In this episode, Andy has grown from a doe-eyed boy to a 17-year-old on his way to college. His toys, led by cowboy Woody (Tom Hanks) and spaceman Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), haven’t been played with for years. Their demeanor is that of long-time employees facing possible layoffs — will they be safe in the attic, or are they relegated to the garbage bag? “Toy Story” has always been good at farce-style mishaps, and it’s through a series of mistakes that the toys end up at a day care center, run by Lotso Love (Ned Beatty, a genial-seeming pink bear).

The whole abandoned-toy shtick is a little melodramatic, but it’s lightened immensely by the characters. Lotso runs the day care much the way a mob boss runs a corrupt trade union (the new toys are relegated to the Caterpillar Room, to be mauled and dented by the smaller children, while the veteran toys get to lounge around in the older kid’s playroom.) There’s a sexually ambiguous Ken doll (Michael Keaton, in his best work since “Beetlejuice”), and a method actor porcupine aptly named Mr. Pricklepants (Timothy Dalton? What are you doing here?!) Though written by four different people, the lines are consistently funny and touching by turns. Is it weird that I really care what happens to Jessie? Because it feels so right.

Because I wear glasses and have an unfortunate predisposition to mind-bending migraines, I’m not the biggest fan of 3D. That said, these are some of the least-offensive 3D effects I’ve seen — the animators seem more intent on shaping the scenes rather than simply having them pop out at you. The animation, as usual with Pixar, is gorgeously rendered, with a meticulous eye for perfection I can’t even begin to comprehend. I envy these animators gift to create space, depth and proportion, with little details that just make it better, like Rex the Dinosaur’s delicately worn tail, slightly bent from too many hours being played with.

This is the film that meets the grown-ups who originally loved “Toy Story” as children. It’s funny, sweet and slightly sad to be facing adulthood. But there’s a new generation that will also love “Toy Story 3.” The smartest thing the creators did was make sure that those who hadn’t seen the first two films could follow the third with little difficulty. The ending of “Toy Story 3″ seems to address this head on in the conclusion of the film. The world only spins forward, it seems to say. But in terms of this movie, there’s certainly no harm in looking back.

For many, the 1984 classic “The Karate Kid” signals a time in pop culture when coming of age films were fast reaching their pinnacle. Just to have an idea, other teenage classics, such as “Sixteen Candles” and “Footloose,” also came out that year. It was such a phenomenon that Pat Morita was nominated for an Academy Award in his memorable role as the wise fly-catching Asian mentor Mr. Miyagi. It introduced to the world the famous “Crane Kick,” a fictional karate move that for anyone at that time between the ages of eight years and older was at least attempted once in their backyard. Yet what made “The Karate Kid” so well-received by audiences has a lot to do with its underdog formula. It is a fish out of water story about Jersey teen Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio) who moves to California, fights off attacking bullies, and finds love through the “art” of learning karate. It renewed America’s love affair with martial arts which had not been as popular since Bruce Lee came out with “Enter the Dragon,” and is ranked amongst the American Film Institute’s Top 100 Inspiring Films. With so much significance, the news of “The Karate Kid” remake produced by Will Smith set off alarms for fans of the franchise. How would this story be revised? Was it even necessary? The answer comes this weekend as the film makes its way nationwide.

It’s been 26 years since the original film hit theaters, and the world is far less ideal onscreen. The daunting task of remaking this classic comes in the aftermath of a year already spent in an 80s reboot havoc from “Nightmare on Elm Street” to “The A-Team.” So does “The Karate Kid” measure up to its predecessor? Here are some things you need to know first: The film is directed by Harald Zwart (“Pink Panther 2”) and the scale for this production is grand, as in it’s actually shot in China. The fights are a lot more violent, and the film is 140 minutes. So parents, if you plan on bringing the kiddies, make an exit plan as it’s certain there will be fussing around. The film stars action hero Jackie Chan as Mr. Han, a maintenance man, who also happens to be a secret kung fu master, and Jaden Smith (yes, Will Smith’s son) as Dre Parker, a troubled young American who seeks his guidance.

As it turns out, Dre is in China because his mother Sherry (Taraji P. Henson) has been transferred from her job at an auto manufacturing factory in Detroit to Beijing. Much like the original film’s protagonist, Dre has a hard time adjusting to his new home. The stakes are raised because there’s the language barrier and cultural divide. This becomes apparent in Dre’s star-crossed love story with Mei Ying. While trying to impress Mei Ying in the park where they meet for the first time, Dre gets on the bad side of the local bully, Cheng. Cheng is described by Mei Ying as the son of a “close family friend.” He’s someone who potentially has feelings for her which means this can’t end well. Cheng and his gang make Dre’s life hell, harassing him at every opportunity and beating the boy into a pulp. It’s a wonder Dre isn’t in a body cast at some point with the amount of kicks he takes to the chest. It isn’t until Mr. Han intervenes in the story that the film picks up speed. After defending Dre from Cheng, Mr. Han plans to remedy the situation by approaching Cheng’s kung fu instructor, Mr. Li (Yu Rongguang), whose take-no-prisoner mentality is a perfect counterpart to the John Kreese instructor in the original version. Things don’t end as planned, and Dre finds he must enroll in the city kung fu tournament if he plans on being left alone. If not, he’ll be harassed mercilessly. Mr. Han offers to be Dre’s teacher. We quickly find instead of waxing up a car like in the original, Dre practices putting on and taking off his jacket. Apparently, repetition is the key in being a kung fu master, especially if it relates to anything resembling a chore. The montage sequences of training are fun and satisfying, living up to the hype.

There will definitely be two camps of fans for this film: those who love it for its fun factor and action scenes, and those who find the flaws glaring and the length excessive. So what’s the verdict? If you’re determined to watch the film in theaters, make it a matinee: it definitely isn’t worth a regular ticket price. It’s enjoyable if you keep your expectations low, and don’t expect to see something entirely original. It’s a typical summer blockbuster film with all the elements you’d expect to find: big names, big production value, and lots of action — although most of the fight scenes happen very late in the film. If you’re on the fence, here’s a breakdown of the pro and cons.

Why it works

Casting – The actors chosen for each role are great. If anyone could flawlessly work those action scenes, it’s Jackie Chan. Chan flawlessly plays the mentor role, and makes it his own. Then there’s Taraji P. Henson, who deserves a lot of props for playing Dre’s strong mother, Sherry. She’s a very likable scene stealer. Zhenwei Wang plays Dre’s bully, Cheng. He’s remarkable in playing the villain, with his death-like dagger of a stare. Jaden Smith shines in showing his range. The film clearly pitches his range and marketability by showing his comedic and dramatic skills. The young actor handles the waterworks spot on in a calm and restrained style, reminiscent of his father’s brand of acting. He has a unique way of connecting with audiences in his more somber scenes, and when you see Jackie Chan cry alongside him, it’s moving. Smith has you genuinely rooting for him when the scene demands it.

Action – The action sequences live up to its dramatic promise, and in later parts of the film we’re shown a bit more of the origins to real “kung fu,” the part where we understand the nature of it behind the violence shown by Cheng and the bullies.

Location – The landscape and cinematography are some of the film’s strengths as we view sequences of mountainsides and sleek city streets. One particular scene takes place in China’s Forbidden City: the beauty of the architecture is stunning. The camera sweeps through massive tall doors, and suddenly it’s a déjà-vu of Bernardo Bertolucci’s “The Last Emperor.” China is its own character in the film, and the director spares no expense in reminding the audience.

Shout-Outs to the Original – It was nice to see little elements thrown out there, like Dre using his skateboard, and the Cobra references. For fans of the original, the film does acknowledge it despite being heavy-handed at times with the plot.

Why it doesn’t

Storyline/Plot – The main problem with the film is its attempt to bottle elements from both the original in with its new direction. It’s almost as if they fused the entire love story element from “The Karate Kid II” and mashed it up with the training from the original “The Karate Kid.” When a remake goes to great lengths to stand out as “new and improved,” it doesn’t need to entirely hold onto its original platform. The film could have been redeemed by simply taking out excessive chunks of the love story, like when Dre and Mei Ying sneak out of school and travel through the city. The next ten minutes feels forced, as if you’re watching a commercial spot for Beijing’s department of tourism. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just unnecessary and easily could have been saved for the film’s inevitable sequel.

East vs West – You can’t escape the clear line drawn between the “us vs them” mentality the film showcases. While kung fu may be a beloved art form, the film gives in to the stereotypes we’re used to associating with Asians: The disciplined parents, submissive daughter, the honor code, and even “ancient Chinese remedies” for healing the body. “The Karate Kid” isn’t an in-depth film by any means, but it doesn’t go out of its way to prevent further stereotypes. The only thing it lacked was the mathematically-gifted sidekick.

Another awkward moment happens when Cheng basically tells Dre in no uncertain terms to stick to his own kind. Now, what kind is that? On the one hand you can take it for face value and say it’s because he’s a foreigner and Westernized, so Cheng is acting territorial. On the other, some can see it as hinting towards the fact that Dre is black. It’s not unheard of in China, considering an article in last year’s UK Telegraph which exposed the racial stigma over blackness and interracial relationships.

As long as you suspend your disbelief and buy into the heart of the story, the film is enjoyable, but doesn’t surpass some of the more charismatic elements of the original.

Halfway through watching Kevin Asch’s debut film “Holy Rollers,” I realized that I didn’t really care about the drug deals.

I’m supposed to care about them, of course. But the plot, based on the true story of a small group of Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who become involved in an Israeli drug cartel, is really about an insular world few get to see. I cared far more about the first half of the movie, an incisive, funny, well-documented picture of the Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn in the 1990s.

The story revolves around Sam Gold, a young man facing his impending arranged marriage and entry into Rabbinical school. But he is sidetracked by the lure of money, flashed by his best friend’s older brother Yosef, who says he has a job bringing “medicine” into the country for rich people. When his marriage falls through due to his family’s bad finances, he decides to make some extra cash. In keeping with the good-boy-gone-bad storyline, Sam quickly gets in over his head selling what he learns is not medicine but grade A ecstasy.

Asch has an eye for details in the early scenes of Sam’s life, from the way the Gold men have to turn the stove on with a pair of pliers, to the immaculate home of Zeldy Lazar, the girl Sam is set to marry. I don’t know if Asch is from a Hasidic background, but he seems to intimately understand how insular communities can be both suffocating and comforting in equal measure. As Sam enters the murky world of the 90s club scene, he becomes both ambivalent to his faith yet still strangely grasping for it. Eisenberg has real poetry in his performance, playing Sam as a mensch, but still very much a vain, ignorant child.

The drugs, the raves in Amsterdam, the deals with dark, terrifying people in abandoned warehouses seem like carnival novelties, a cut-in from another film set on fast-forward. They’re beautiful scenes, but generalized. They could be from any film about drugs, and the latter part of the movie is sloppily edited. The end especially is too hastily done; I’m reasonably certain Asch simply didn’t know how to end it.

It really is a great story; the whole point of using Hasidic Jews as drug mules is that the TSA circa 1999 would never check them. It’s also a story of a family and a community. I just wish the drug deals had been a little more… exciting.

Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and his family are dazzling. The intense and brooding Edward is front and center, flanked by an oddly dark looking Emmet (Kellan Lutz), a guarded Alice (Ashley Greene), an always pensive Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), a serious Rosalie (Nikki Reed), and concerned parents Esme (Elizabeth Reaser) and Carlisle (Peter Facinelli).

Edward, Bella (Kristen Stewart), and Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) each have their own poster. Edward is sporting his infamous heartbroken intensity. Bella is her conflicted, introverted self, and Jacob is confident and focused. The trio is also on a new poster together.

The villains of the story aren’t left out of the new line of “Eclipse” posters. Riley (Xavier Samuel) rises from the water, bringing a dark aurora tainted with certain death. Behind him is Victoria’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) army of newborn vampires, which she created to destroy Edward and Bella.

Volturi vampires Jane (Dakota Fanning), Felix (Daniel Cudmore), Demetri (Charlie Bewley) and Alec (Cameron Bright) also have a poster of their own.

The original “Eclipse” poster also featured main characters Bella, Edward and Jacob.

I don’t know where to begin. Perhaps with the sense of repulsion, betrayal, and disappointment I felt after I struggled to remain awake for the midnight opening of “Sex and the City 2.” Or maybe the flagrant disregard and insensitivity to Arab and Muslim culture. No, I’ve got it, the utter lack of plot. This 146-minute festival of overdone fashions, forced comedy that fell flat on its face, and frivolous dialogue left a bad taste in my mouth. Even my five inch silver peep-toe Stuart Weitzman pumps, entirely encrusted in crushed Swarovski crystals, were disappointed.

I went into this movie with high hopes of glamor, the declaration of unfaltering friendship, and life-like struggles of characters we’ve seen evolve from silly, uncertain girls into mature women in real relationships leading fulfilling and meaningful lives. Alas, what ensued after the previews was an incessant barrage of unnecessary whining, faux problems that were never fully presented and never wholly resolved, and an array of awkward and ridiculous dialogue that fell like a ton of bricks out of the characters’ mouths. Why producer Michael Patrick King and the gang felt the need to make another movie after the first one converged their stories into a beautifully-composed package tied with a neat and crisply perfect bow is beyond me and any comprehension I possess.

Within the first 10 minutes we are treated to the Connecticut wedding of once-enemies Anthony Marantino (Mario Cantone) and Stanford Blatch (Willie Garson). This old Hollywood movie musical-inspired scene is something out of the extravagant guidebook to weddings. Top hats, tuxedos, musical numbers, and none other than Liza Minelli, the holy grail of gay culture. Minelli, playing herself, was the wedding officiant and performed a cabaret-style (no pun intended) number to Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies” with two lookalike backup dancers. It was actually one of the more entertaining points in the movie. When best man Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) is chatting the night away with Anthony, he loudly explains that they are getting married because he will be allowed to cheat in his marriage. When Carrie brings it up to Stanford he confirms, citing that every relationship is different. Interestingly enough, it’s as if the movie condones cheating, with “make your own rules in your own relationship” being a theme in the first movie. I’m all for individuality and forgoing labeling and trying to be happy whatever way that may be, but I’m sorry, if you are planning on cheating before the hors d’ouvres are even passed out at your own wedding, why the hell are you getting married? The whole point of marriage is stability, consistency, and fidelity; unless I’m missing something here, is it just to file taxes together and have someone to share your petty thoughts out loud with?

On the wedding night, Samantha (Kim Cattrall) sleeps with Anthony’s gorgeous brother Nicky, Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and her husband Harry are kept wide awake to the shrill screams of their daughter Rose while they share the bed with her and adopted daughter Lily, while Carrie and Big try to drown out the noise they must endure while sandwiched in between the aforementioned guestrooms with a romantic old black-and-white movie. Honestly, if you need birth control you should watch a clip with Rose in it, she really is an obnoxious toddler.

Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is the only character I can stomach throughout the entire movie. She quits her job after becoming completely fed up with the way her male superior treats her disrespectfully on a constant basis, even giving her “the hand” during a meeting involving several partners and other coworkers. It is one of the only female empowerment moments in the entire film. Her relationship with Steve seems to be completely open, honest, and happy while she does the one thing she never allowed herself to before: put her family first. It seems it was 100 percent the right choice for her.

Carrie is disgruntled with her relationship with Big. After two years of marriage she feels they have lost their “sparkle.” She wants night after night of red-carpet movie premieres and openings at impossible-to-get-into NYC restaurants and all Big wants is to cuddle while watching television after he cooks them a lovely dinner in one of their TWO apartments. After 10 years of wanting nothing but utter commitment from Big she has it, and is unsatisfied. I understand that being in your 40s and 50s makes you an active part of society and there is no reason to stay in every night, but it has been my experience that once you get married things do change, even if just slightly, as you spend more time doing everyday activities with your significant other. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that since you made a commitment to fully be with another person (I will note I am unmarried).

It just seems that Carrie doesn’t want to let go of her single life and cannot embrace getting older. Samantha is truly in denial about her age as she takes a cocktail of pills, hormones, and creams to fool her body into believing it is younger by staving off menopause. Just seems unhealthy to me.

When we catch up with Charlotte, she is overwhelmed and stressed with the burden of having to care for and pay attention to her two daughters. I should mention she is a housewife with a full-time nanny and is married to a wealthy lawyer. They live in an extravagant and epic NYC apartment. Oh, the woes of privilege. It really is embarrassing to watch her character have an utter breakdown when Lily gets red frosting hand prints on her vintage white Valentino skirt. It’s a skirt, who cooks in designer clothes, lady?

I feel I have to stop a minute to mention I am the biggest fan of “Sex and the City.” I have the DVD special box set of all six seasons in all its pink suede glory. I saw the first movie twice in 13 hours at the theater, and was emotionally affected both times. I am not one of those women who can take it or leave it, I am emotionally invested in these characters and feel a strong connection to the plot, dialogue, and plight of these women. Correction: felt.

Back to the matter at hand.

At Samantha’s ex-boyfriend, Smith Jerrod’s (Jason Lewis) movie premiere, Samantha meets the Middle Eastern businessmen who want to treat her to a trip to Abu Dhabi in the hopes she can perform a PR miracle, as she did with Smith’s career, for one of their hotels. She gladly accepts, so long as she can take the gals, which she indeed does. This sets us up thinking they are going to spend a week exploring a new culture and people and have wildly fantastic adventures. What we get is an almost impossibly luxurious hotel experience which may as well have been a mirage. At this point I’m hoping the fact I’m at the movie in the middle of the night is a mirage as well.

A personal butler for each of the girls, as well as their own sedan, is that really necessary? I understand the point of extravagance isn’t about need but rather about flaunting superfluousness, which hey, there is nothing wrong with, but when I take a vacation with my girlfriends I want to be in the same car with them and not have four foreign men waiting on us hand and foot (well, that part might be acceptable). The hotel is gorgeous and the girls indulge in poolside meals and ride camels through the desert and eat with a bedouin tribe in the middle of the sand dunes. It’s all well and fine but it seems that only Miranda has done an ounce of research into the country they are visiting and gives due diligence to the fact that women wear more conservative attire in the Middle East.

Needless to say, many faux-pas ensue, and lo and behold, who does Carrie run into in the middle of an old world Arabian souk (marketplace) but none other than her ex-fiancé Aidan Shaw (John Corbett), while she abandons a shoe shop, her spices and her passport (I was the only one in the theater to actually notice this when it happened). He is as handsome and charming as ever as they catch up and make tentative plans to have dinner while they are both in town, halfway across the world from where their romance started. When Charlotte warns Carrie of the possible dangers of going to dinner, it seems that Carrie wouldn’t go to this dinner if she felt anything would happen, she fought so much for Big and to just squander it away because she is bored is unfathomable … or is it?

Needless to say, they have dinner, and she wears a gorgeous dress with a slit up to her waist (I kid you not). It’s literally time for these characters to start acting their age; this is just inappropriate whether in Abu Dhabi, NYC, wherever. And then as they walk and talk about his three sons and their respective happy marriages, they kiss. Oy. Total hand to the forehead in confusion. She feels guilty, as she should, and sprints off into the night and back to the hotel where she immediately consults the girls. She ends up calling Big the next day and telling him on the phone that she kissed Aidan and it meant nothing. He curtly gets off the phone, seemingly apathetic.

Charlotte and Miranda have been having cocktails and letting loose on how difficult it is to be a mother and wife and deal with everyday burdens. Again, I really just cannot empathize with Charlotte; maybe someday when I have kids. Miranda offers up a toast to women who handle their families and lives everyday without full time help as the two of them have. “I just don’t know how they do it.” Growing up with a mother who worked full-time my entire life, attended every dance show, track meet, play production I was in, and cooked a homemade meal every day of the week I know that not only can it be done, it can be done with gusto. However, it seems privilege and wealth make you a little less strong when handling “commoner” problems. I was really frustrated.

I’d have to say I did think it was hilarious that Samantha got arrested for “kissing” a dishy Dane in the dunes. As Miranda forewarned, men and women do not embrace in public in the Middle East and the hospitality of Sheikh Khalid abruptly ends after this fiasco. We find out the hotel is $22,000 a night that the girls must pay for from that night onward, so they pack in a hurry and head to the airport. Gone are the glimmering cars and handsome chauffeurs; they are replaced with decrepit taxis, transportation that the rest of the world has to take. How utterly pedestrian and beneath these glamorous women. Only one small problem: the idiot Carrie has lost her passport. They return to the souk where the kindly and adorable older shoe shop keeper won’t accept payment for holding onto her passport (he is so cute and sweet, it warms my heart for the elderly).

As they finally try to weave their way through the streets of Old Abu Dhabi to try to make the new flight and still be on first-class, because god forbid they are in coach, Charlotte gets lured by someone selling watches into an upstairs area filled with what we must presume is fake bags and Rolexes. Again, they were forewarned about this, but Charlotte is like a child that has spotted something shiny, since all she can think about while they try to make their escape back to New York is getting souvenirs for Harry and her daughters. Needless to say they could’ve been in a much worse situation as the men let them leave without buying anything. However, once they hit the streets everything starts falling apart as Samantha’s purse flies through the air spilling condoms. Not to mention she is clad in shorts and a tank top because they confiscated her pills and creams upon arrival at the airport and she is getting hot flashes (clearly your body is ready for “the change,” accept it.) There are dozens of male onlookers who become infuriated with this flagrant sexual exhibition and begin to cajole and follow the girls. Samantha flips out and is giving the finger left right and center and saying she has sex (in a not so polite way), and is absolutely in a rage.

I have to say this scene was unrealistic because as sad as this truth is, had this actually happened, she would have been beaten and murdered. I’m sorry, but you do not enter a country and blatantly and loudly scream your opposition to its culture. You wouldn’t walk into a Catholic church and yell about the reasons pro-choice is important. It’s just a matter of respect for your surroundings and people. Of course there are millions of different opinions in the world and everyone is entitled to his own, but you have to have self-awareness in the situations you put yourself in.

Burka-clad women rescue them as they motion with their eyes to follow them into a quiet room right off the street. After all, this is a movie and we’re already at the two hour mark. The women remove their burkas, showing off their couture clothes from Christian Dior to Louis Vuitton, and happen to be reading the same book in their book club that Samantha was back home in New York. So we’re not all so different the girls realize, we just live our lives in a slightly different way.

Finally back home, Big doesn’t come home for nearly a day and when he returns he has a punishment for Carrie. She has to wear a gorgeous black diamond ring so she can “remember” she’s married. Is this real life? You get a piece of jewelry for cheating? It seems outlandish that he is not a little more upset; albeit, the kiss really didn’t mean anything, as she has no desire to speak to or see Aidan at all after their encounter.

Charlotte is happy to be back home but takes a “vacation” from her life every once in a while retreating to Carrie’s apartment for respite. I didn’t realize married life and motherhood was something you needed a vacation from after you just took an actual vacation 6,000 miles away. Miranda gets a job at a wonderful firm where she loves her coworkers and they are having a meeting on some gorgeous roof deck and laughing and smiling. Samantha has her way with the Dane on the Fourth of July on the hood of his Jeep. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that against the law here in the United States as well?

The fashions, always one of the main components, if not a character in and of itself, was extreme, and while at times beautiful and elegant, at some low points it was hard to distinguish the line between fashion forward and costume wear.

All seems right with the world as the unrealism continues with the girls’ perfect little endings. It seems to me this movie should never have been made and Sex and the City’s reputation would never have been blemished because of it. If there is a third movie I won’t be able to do anything but look on in horror as the car crash bursts into flames. While I was completely displeased with the second movie, I’m still a fan of what Sex and the City was up until this point. For now I’ll just have to retreat to my DVD set and the first movie in the hopes of maintaining those good feelings.

For something that was ever so fabulous for a decade, the lack of substance is just too much in the movie. My sparkly Stuart Weitzman shoes are retiring until my trip to Vegas.

In 2005, director Christopher Nolan released “Batman Begins,” and a new film-making commandment was born: “Thou shalt not smile.” Whatever that film’s excellent points and gifts to the film canon (and believe me, there are many), it will forever be known as the picture that killed the fun in making a superhero movie. Producers, looking for their next cash cows, mined the DC and Marvel universes for their darkest, most nihilistic tales, and found actors who could deliver the best glower to be their protagonists.

Then came Jon Favreau, a man best known for following Vince Vaughn into a pit of sin in “Swingers.” He wanted to make “Iron Man.” But more than that, he wanted to make “Iron Man” what it should be: a comedy. And what do you know, it turns out American audiences also wanted to have a laugh.

“Iron Man 2″ is more of the same- a lot more. This episode has Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) fighting on several fronts: he’s battling the U.S. Government for control of his Iron Man suit, a rival businessman (Sam Rockwell) who’s trying to build his own suit and a crazed Russian physicist who’s trying to avenge his father’s ruined career. It’s a crowded docket.

There’s no great changes to film culture, no Oscar-winning performances, or fascinating forays into psychology. Stark is a manic, self-serving and self-destructive billionaire playboy. He has a giant suit that fights evil, usually by blowing shit up. It’s simple. It’s straightforward. And it’s awesome.

It’s major gift, of course, is the cast. Downey, reprising his role as the crusader, puts on all of his performances like a well-tailored suit- he always looks good, but it’s never like he’s trying to hard. He’s there, first and foremost, to have a good time. Don Cheadle makes a good replacement for Terrance Howard as Lt. Col. Rhodes, and even Scarlett Johansson, who I usually barely tolerate, is likable (probably because she’s best in films where all she has to do is look hot and try not to talk too much.) And Mickey Rourke, enjoying an actor’s second summer, is terrific as Ivan Vanko, the Russian who might just be smarter than Stark. Rourke, of course, is best when he’s just playing himself. He may not be a physicist (or Russian, for that matter), but he is a hulking, intimidating form, which belies unexpected intelligence. I simply enjoyed watching Rourke move throughout this film, striding confidently through a laboratory wearing a sleeveless shirt that exposes his many worn tattoos along with a snappy pair of spectacles.

Writer Justin Theroux and Favreau both wanted to create something driven by good styling and a sense of fun. One could read into the plot lines- the private business owner versus Big Government, the nature of war in the modern age, blah, blah, blah. Lame, and done before. But you know what is entertaining? A ten-minute long scene where Col. Rhodes and Stark, both in Iron Man suits, gratuitously destroy Stark’s fabulous home in Malibu.

Favfreau’s not a great director, but he is one who delivers on his promises, which is almost as important. He promised us a spicy, funny action flick with nerdy in-jokes, sexy women in catsuits and tons of Shit Blowing Up. He lets “Iron Man” be what’s it’s supposed to be. These days, that’s an art form in itself.

If you’re looking for a sophisticated comedy, look elsewhere. As promised by the trailers filled with cheesy sexual jokes, “MacGruber” delivers 90 minutes of fart jokes, 80s puns and glaring nudity. (But honestly, what did you expect?) And while the laughs my not last once you get out of the theater, SNL fans will find themselves chuckling in embarrassment and amazement throughout the film.

SNL’s Will Forte is a stupidly charming lead character. The film plays constantly off of the 80s series McGyver. Forte sports a mega-mullet and constantly carries around a Blaupunkt cassette deck. Wiig is introduced as a Farrah Fawcett-haired blast from the past as MacGruber walks in on her playing her Casio, writing original songs. (“Four is a perfect number for sure, if it’s two kids and me and you.”)

Lieutenant Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) plays the straight man well and has his moments, especially during the ongoing gag between him and “MacGruber” where they play rivals. Phillippe doesn’t stand out however, and it’s not because there’s just so much talent shining around him. His presence makes painfully obvious the lack of hilarious SNL cameos in this film that are often present in other SNL spinoffs. Don’t expect Molly Shannon or Chris Kattan to hop into a scene and raise the stock of the movie. Do expect to find yourself wishing Piper hadn’t been wearing a bullet-proof vest when MacGruber used him as a human shield.

“MacGruber” may not be the next “Wayne’s World” and Will Forte may not be the next Will Ferrell, but it’s a fun way to start off the summer.

“Eclipse” hits theaters June 30. Bella will be forced to choose between the two men she cares for most, Edward and Jacob. However, before she decides they’ll have to work together to save her from an army of vampires.

A Volturi scene was released earlier this month as an iTunes exclusive. Jane (Dakota Fanning) and her crew of vampires survey the vampire army. This scene is an especially special treat for all “Eclipse” fans since it did not appear in the book.

The clip opens on a Seattle rooftop with four Volturi members – the royalty of the vampire world – surveying the newborn vampires massacring the city streets. The vampire army was created by Victoria (Bryce Callas Howard), who made appearances in both “Twilight” and “New Moon,” to destroy the Cullens and Bella.

“They’ve already drawn too much attention,” Demetri (Charlie Bewley) says.

“So has our inaction,” Felix (Daniel Cudmore) responds. “Other’s may begin to question the Volutri’s effectiveness. “

“Let them,” Jane responds with an eerily impassive face and air of cruelty.

Felix breathes deeply, looking upset. “Maybe we should consult with Aro,” he says, turning his back on the others.

Jane turns toward him a sickly, amused and intrigued look on her face. She then uses her power on Felix, which fans caught a glimpse of in “New Moon.” Jane has the ability to make others feel pain with only a thought.

Jane incapacitates Felix. Demetri and Alec (Cameron Bright) watch as his body painfully contorts.

“Aro’s decisions are being watched,” Jane says calmly. She is speaking of Alice Cullen’s (Ashley Greene) ability to see the future.

Jane releases Felix, and he collapses with a thud.

“Either we let them do what they were created for, or we end them,” Jane says as she looks down on the vampire army attacking people in a dark alley lit by fires.

She sighs heavily. “Decisions. Decisions.”

This 40 second clip gives viewers an intriguing sight of what to expect in “Eclipse” – more of the badass Volturi! Jane and her followers don’t disappoint. Dressed in their long black robes, their red eyes shining and faces emotionless, this crew of vampires is pleasantly disturbing.

A scene featuring Jacob, Edward and Bella was released on the Oprah show. Looks like Hollywood really spiced up this cherished book scene. Twihards who have read the series might feel their heart beating a little faster than it usually does as they remember this Edward-Jacob encounter. All of Edward’s cool, suave composure is gone only to be replaced by an edgy rage that is a bit overwhelming.

“Edward!” Bella says anxiously.

“If you ever,” Edward growls, pushing Jacob, “touch her against her will again.”

Jacob shoves Edward away, and Bella places on hand on Edward’s arm. “Edward,” she tries to calm him again. “Don’t do this here,” she begs.

“She’s not sure what she wants,” Jacob says angrily. He steps closer to Edward.

“Don’t do this here!” Bella tries again.

“Let me give you a clue,” Edward yells. “Wait for her to say the words.”

“Fine,” Jacob rasps. That arrogantly possessive look he has so often shines in his eyes. “And she will.” Jacob breathes heavily, his body shaking. (Calm down, Jacob. You don’t want to go wolf boy.)

“Jacob just go, okay,” Bella begs.

“Hey. Hey. Hey,” Charlie’s (Billy Burke) voice sounds from off-screen. “Easy guys. Easy.” He puts his hands between Edward and Jacob to separate them. “Let’s take it down a notch.” He looks at Jacob. “Alright?” (Why do you like Jacob so much better than Edward, Charlie?)

“What’s going on?” Charlie asks.

Edward’s face in drained, pale. The devastatingly tortured look Pattinson is famous for wrenches at viewers’ hearts.

“I kissed Bella,” Jacob responds.

A third “Eclipse” clip was released on the Ellen Degeneres Show. This breath-catching scene features Bella and Rosalie Hale (Nikki Reed).

“Rosalie.” Bella walks up behind the blonde beauty, who is despondently looking off the Cullen’s deck. Bella’s hand is wrapped in a cast. Possibly from punching a certain werewolf?

“I don’t understand what I did to make you hate me so much,” Bella says timidly, with a quiver in her voice.

Rosalie laughs lightly, shaking her head. “I don’t hate you.”

Bella eyes dart about in confusion, but she smiles slightly.

“I don’t particularly like you but…” Rosalie continues. “Bella, I envy you.” Emotion creeps into the vampire’s voice.

“What?” Bella asks in surprise. “That’s ridiculous.”

“No, it’s not,” Rosalie responds quickly. Tears fill her eyes. “You have a choice. I didn’t. None of us did, but you do, and you’re choosing wrong,” Rosalie says, urging Bella to change her mind about being turned into a vampire.

That’s right Twihards – we get to see a glimpse of the good side of Rosalie! This scene is most likely the prelude to a series of flashbacks revealing how Rosalie was turned.

This goes without saying, but “Eclipse” is an instant hit. The film is packed with more unyielding friendship, heart-twisting love, beautifully choreographed action and classic jokes than the first two films. Furthermore, it looks like Twihards are finally going to see more of those lovable personalities they fell in love with in the books but missed in the first two films – Alice, Rosalie, Emmet (Kellan Lutz) and Jasper (Jackson Rathbone).

BLAST: I read that “Splice” was eight years in the making. What took so long to get the film made?

VINCENZO NATALI: It was a number of things. Actually it was more than eight years. It was more like 12. I almost made the film in 2000 and it didn’t work out. There were several reasons it didn’t. The main one being that the real-world technology — genetic engineering — just wasn’t part of the popular consciousness. In a way I had to wait for the real science to catch up to my fiction before people would want to see this movie. Also the film tech has evolved a lot in ten years. I was able to make “Splice” much cheaper and more effectively than I would have been in able to in 2000. Then there is just dumb luck or serendipity. Getting the right people involved at the right time. It was a lot of work getting this movie made. There are aspects to the story that are a bit dangerous or a bit frightening for Hollywood studios. Going the independent route was the only way to make it really work.

BLAST: What about genetic engineering and the scientific world appealed to you as a setting?

VN: A whole bunch of things really. Once you dip your toe in that world, it is really captivating. Life is really strange when you look at it at that level. It is just a fascinating subject.

I am a huge fan of creature movies. In a way this is a love letter to creature films. The thought that is so fascinating to me is that things that have only been imagined for thousands of years could actually come into existence, courtesy of new technology, was really an extraordinary prospect. I was seduced by the whole thing. I was kind of shocked actually that no one has made a film like “Splice” yet. It just seemed so obvious to me. I kept waiting with dread that I would wake of one day and read that someone was doing a similar project. Thankfully for me they didn’t.

BLAST: Clive and Elsa (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley) feel like very real, genuine scientists. How much research did you do in constructing the characters?

VN: When I went to visit these labs, the median age was around 30, so people are pretty young at the labs and they are not the clichéd image of scientists. They aren’t wearing pocket protectors or horned-rimmed glasses or anything like that. They are pretty hip. I thought that made sense for Clive and Elsa and I thought that would make them more relatable as characters and humanize them. On one of my tours I met a guy who became a consultant on the film and he was wearing a shirt that said “Born to clone” and I was like wow. It was like a case of life imitating art or at least it confirmed some of the things that we had put in the script that I wasn’t sure about. I made some connections about these kinds of people that had proven to be real.

BLAST: Clive and Elsa are both very complex characters and could easily exist outside a monster movie. Did you start with the characters or the monster?

VN: The reason d’être was to splice a creature film with a relationship story. I half joking call it my family film. And it is, though a really odd one. So yes it was always about the characters. And that is why I needed to get great actors. There were some fairly complex emotions being dealt with, especially for a horror film.

BLAST: There is a clear focus on the characters in the film. Why was it so important to make Clive and Elsa more realistic than the characters you usually see in horror films?

VN: I mean otherwise it would be just another Frankenstein movie. It’s not that Frankenstein doesn’t have well-developed characters, but I thought that the thing that was going to propel the Frankenstein myth into the 21st century was to make it a love triangle. And also I wanted to make Elsa the protagonist and to make it a mother-daughter story and more female-centric.

BLAST: How long did it take to conceive and flesh out your movie monster Dren?

VN: It took about as long as it took to get the film made. It was always done in fits and starts. I started drawing Dren right away when I was first writing the script. She was always a key component to selling the film because everyone wanted to know what the creature would look like. Along the way I worked with some really great artists and then great film technicians. So Dren is the child of many parents. The final and most important component of the whole process was the casting of Delphine Chaneac who plays the adult Dren. I think if Dren works as a character it is due to Delphine. She just gives so much to that character. She makes her both something that you can sympathize with and be scared of. In some ways we reverse engineered the early stages of Dren to be consistent with her. She really informed a lot of the early designs. Because Dren in the early stages is a lot different physically than in her adult phase.

BLAST: What did having to create Dren based around Delphine’s performance and practical effects rather than CGI add?

VN: Even if I had the money I never would have been able to make Dren fully digital and have that same kind of performance. There is a degree of subtlety that a real actor can give you that even in a movie like “Avatar” can’t fully give you.

BLAST: You reveal all of Dren’s different traits very slowly and it makes the film much more effective and frightening. Was that a conscious choice?

VN: That is one of the advantages of low-budget filmmaking. I couldn’t afford to do a lot so I had to be very judicious with when I showed different parts of her anatomy. Because each different part had a price tag with it and a dollar value so it was all done in a very meticulous way. And as is often the case with these sort of things I find that those limitations improve the story of filmmaking better because I end up having to be more economical as a filmmaker and I need to leave more to the audiences imagination.

BLAST: When writing and conceiving “Splice,” did you get inspiration from any particular filmmakers?

VN: The film obviously owes debts to a number of filmmakers — first and foremost David Cronenberg because I think when you make something in the biological horror world, that is territory trademarked by David Cronenberg. I think he is such and intelligent filmmaker and that is something I was aspiring to. But also James Whale who did the original Universal Frankenstein horror movies. I think that those sorts of influences seeped in unconsciously or subconsciously. They kind of entered by osmosis. “Splice” is definitely a hybrid, but like Dren, it is composed of many different components. Hopefully they add up to the greater sum of its parts.

BLAST: Horror is a genre that has certain expectations. Was it challenging not simply falling into simply reproducing the same kind of “scares” you see in most horror films?

VN: I had the great fortune of making the film independently so I didn’t have a nervous executive leaning over my shoulder saying it isn’t scary enough or telling me to do it a certain way.

BLAST: Like someone saying you need four “jump scares” or whatever.

VN: That was never and issue. We were very lucky

BLAST: That has to be challenging. You see a movie like the recently released “Nightmare on Elm Street” remake and you can almost predict every beat. It has to be tough working in the horror genre to fight those kinds of expectations.

VN: I am sympathetic. I don’t know what I would do if I had “Nightmare on Elm Street,” because we are kind of at a stage now with film being over a 100 years old where we have seen these kinds of stories a lot. It feels sometimes if you are working within the boundaries of a film like “Nightmare on Elm Street” you don’t have a lot of room to mess around. It is probably very difficult. That is why it is so liberating to work on something like “Splice” because I could set my own boundaries.

BLAST: Did you find that focusing on the characters is the best way to upend people’s expectations about horror?

VN: You can never go wrong with focusing on the characters.

BLAST: I guess with a horror film it is easier to surprise people in a way.

VN: To some degree as a filmmaker you have an unfair advantage working on a horror film because people do have low expectations. If they are going to see an Academy Award-nominated movie, expectations are pretty high; but if they are going to see a monster movie, they might be pleasantly surprised and impressed that there is a little bit of character development.

The Internet has been buzzing this week with the news that Abrams, creator of the infamous TV show “LOST,” was working on a new super-secret project called “Super 8.” The speculation was that it might be a sequel to the Abrams-produced 2008 film “Cloverfield.”

Turns out that’s wrong. Apparently “Super 8” is a film that’s a kind of homage to the ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations, like “Jaws” and “E.T.” that Spielberg specialized in the 80’s. Abrams apparently approached Spielberg last year with the idea and asked for his approval of the project.

Anyone whose stomachs got a little queasy with the shaky, handheld cameras in “Cloverfield” don’t have to worry. Abrams is shooting the modestly budgeted (by summer blockbuster standards) $45 million film with stationary cameras and will direct this one for release next summer before hopping aboard the Enterprise again for “Star Trek 2,” which is set for release in summer 2012.

Keep your eyes out for the Abrams-directed trailer of “Super 8” this weekend in front of “Iron Man 2” and check back with Blast for regular updates about “Super 8” as more information on the top-secret project becomes available.

“Breaking Dawn’s” screenplay is being written by Melissa Rosenberg and will bring back Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner. Wyck Godfrey, Karen Rosenfelt, and Meyer will produce the film.

“Bringing Stephenie Meyer’s ‘Breaking Dawn’ to the screen requires a graceful and intelligent hand and we believe Bill Condon is exactly the right steward, having shown equal and abundant talents of immense creativity and subtle sensitivity,” said Erik Feig, President of Production and Acquisitions, for Summit Entertainment.

Added author Stephenie Meyer, “I’m so thrilled that Bill wants to work with us. I think he’s going to be a great fit, and I’m excited to see what he does with the material.”

“I’m very excited to get the chance to bring the climax of this saga to life on-screen. As fans of the series know, this is a one-of-a-kind book – and we’re hoping to create an equally unique cinematic experience,” said Bill Condon.

Condon has directed “Dreamgirls,” “Kinsey,” and “Gods and Monsters,” for which we won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay in 1999. He was nominated for a second Oscar in 2003 for “Chicago.”

“Eclipse,” the third Twilight film, hits theaters June 30.

Researchers at the Department of Pediatrics and Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School questioned almost 3,600 middle-school students in 15 New England schools, and followed up with them 13 to 26 months later. During that time, only 3 percent of children who said their parents never allowed them to watch R-rated films also said they had started drinking alcohol. Comparatively, 13 percent of those who had responded that their parents sometimes allowed them to watch R-rated films said they had started drinking, as well as 25 percent of those who said their parents always let them watch R-rated films.

“The research to date suggests that keeping kids from R-rated movies can help keep them from drinking, smoking and doing a lot of other things that parents don’t want them to do,” Dr. James D. Sargent, a pediatrics professor at Dartmouth Medical and an author of the study, told Bloomberg Businessweek.

The findings were published in the May issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. The article’s introduction stated prior research has linked various forms of entertainment, including R-rated, or “restricted”, films to personality and behavioral changes in youth, including aggression, sexual behavior and tobacco use.

“We think seeing the adult content actually changes their personality.” Sargent said. The study’s introduction also discusses the consequences of those personality changes: those who start using alcohol earlier are five times more likely to develop adult alcoholism, with a subsequent increase in alcohol-related injury and death.

Sargent told Bloomberg depictions of alcohol consumption occur in about 90 percent of R-rated films, which might be one reason adolescents who watch R-rated films are more drawn to drinking. The Motion Picture Association of America ratings board issues film ratings for all films distributed in the US, bans children under the age of 17 watching an R-rated film in theaters without supervision. But in the end it is parental judgment that dictates what a child will or will not be able to watch.

“We think this is a very important aspect of parenting, and one that is often overlooked,” Sargent said.

And Robert Downey Jr. says you should bank on “Iron Man 3″ coming afterward.

“Iron Man 2,” which comes out this weekend, has a chance to unseat “Dark Knight” for the biggest opening weekend ever. After that, Marvel and its Disney owners have a busy few years with a Captain America movie and “Thor” next year and “The Avengers” in 2012. But Downey Jr. told MTV that Iron Man 3 will definitely be made at some point.

What do you think? Wanna see more “Iron Man?” Drop us come comment love.

Mr. Duffin was born in Dublin and wowed American and Canadian crowds for years with his one-man shows: “Brendan Behan” and “The Importance of Being Irish.”

He also toured with a stage production of James Joyce’s “The Dead.”

Mr. Duffin played the bartender in “The Departed,” and he had roles in “Raging Bull,” “Titanic” and “Beowulf.”

According to California Artists Radio Theatre, Mr. Duffin’s final performance was on March 17, during which he sang and acted in a production of “Hyacinth Halvey,” by Irish playwright, Lady Augusta Gregory.

Duffin leaves four daughters Laura, Linda, Ruth and Susan. Funeral arrangements have not been announced.

But that doctrine doesn’t apply to Hitler, apparently.

Constantin Film, the company that produced “Downfall,” the movie that spawned dozens (perhaps hundreds) of “Hitler finds out…” video parodies, recently ordered YouTube to take down all the parody videos.

The parodies had used a fuming monologue in the German-language movie by Bruno Ganz’s Hitler after he realizes he is about to lose World War II, changing the subtitles to make it appear like Hitler was ranting about everything from the Amy Bishop case to video game bugs.

The parodies, apparently, drew complaints from groups, including Jewish advocates.

Director Tumor Bekmembatov is looking to Kristen Stewart, of “Twilight” fame, to replace Angelina Jolie in a “Wanted” sequel. (Spoiler: Jolie died in a shooting blaze of glory in the first film.)

It would be a different role for her than the damsel who loved the vampire.

E! Online reported that KStew was his top choice for “Wanted 2,” with a returning James McAvoy.

Of course, “Wanted 2″ doesn’t exist yet. It’s not in production yet. It’s not even close to production. Bekmambetov has plenty of other films in the queue, including “The Knights Templar,” and “Moby Dick.”

“In Search of Memory,” a film by Petra Seeger chronicling neuroscientist Eric R. Kandel’s life and work, examines how one man escaped from Nazi oppression to become what one student in the film calls, “the rock star of neuroscience.”

Raised in Vienna during the onset of World War II, Kandel and his Jewish family were ripped from their home by Nazi officers just after his ninth birthday. The incident left Kandel with questions he would spend the rest of his life answering through science:

What motivates us? What makes us remember certain events over others? And how does memory define us as human beings?

“I wanted to understand how cultivated, intelligent people could listen to Heiden, Mozart and Beethoven one day,” he says, “and kill Jews the next.”

Seeger seamlessly combines Kandel’s own recollections with archival World War II footage and old photographs. The result is a film that is part biography and part history, and an intimate glimpse into the life of one of the world’s most influential and captivating scientists.

The film takes viewers through Kandel’s childhood up through his Nobel Prize win in 2000 for his work in understanding how memories are recorded and stored in the brain.

Kandel, never without a bowtie or Muppet-sized grin, is the reason the film is must-see for science and history enthusiasts. His ability to explain complicated brain processes makes the science of the film understandable. His charm and subtle comedy make his extraordinary experiences relatable. Kandel possesses the key quality of all of the best teachers—an ability to teach viewers about the meaning of life outside of the classroom.

“In Search of Memory” will open Friday at the Kendall Square Cinema. Advance tickets are available online for $10 general admission, $8 for students.

There are no A-listers in the film, but it’s a fantastic piece with comic book action and tons of quirks.

Sometimes, despite a movie’s quality, the quantity of dollars just isn’t there. That’s what happened this weekend when “Kick-Ass” failed to meet its $25-$30 million opening weekend predictions, and took the No. 2 hold at just under $20, behind another week of Dragon lore.

The opening weekend disappointment is already leading to speculation that the hinted-at sequel to “Kick-Ass” won’t be made.

“Kick-Ass” was directed by Matthew Vaughn and stars Aaron Johnson and Chloe Moretz.

Comic Book writer Mark Millar is working on a comic sequel, but we’re not sure if it’s going to turn into a movie. The next few weeks will be crucial.

Did you see “Kick-Ass?” What did you think? Do you want to see a sequel? Leave comments, damn you!

1. How To Train Your Dragon — $20,000,000

2. Kick Ass — $19,750,000

3. Date Night — $17,300,000

4. Death At A Funeral — $15,770,000

5. Clash Of The Titans — $132,984,729

6. The Last Song — $5,788,000

7. Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married Too — $4,180,000

8. Hot Tub Time Machine — $3,545,000

9. Alice In Wonderland — $3,540,000

10. The Bounty Hunter — $3,200,000

11. Diary Of A Wimpy Kid — $2,800,000

12. Avatar — $1,025,000

Source: Rentrak

The first time I saw the trailer for the re-make of “Death at a Funeral,” the 2007 British farce which had modest success in the United States, I was confused. First of all, the film was only made three years ago. Second of all, the plot and characters seemed pretty much exactly the same, (Peter Dinklage is even playing the same person) except for one obvious difference: in the latest version: the family is black.

It’s an interesting choice. I don’t know who made the decision to make the family, who in the film have gathered for the funeral of their patriarch, African-American. Presumably it was made by writer Dean Craig, who wrote the first film. But in the end it really doesn’t matter why the decision was made. And though I’m always happy to see more people of color represented in mainstream film, it doesn’t even matter that the main characters are black.

All I care about is the fact that it’s funny. And it is really, really funny.

After a terrible round of comedies at the start of the year (I’m looking at you, “Bounty Hunter”) “Death at a Funeral” is a riotous yet well-tailored bit of fun. It’s the perfect blend of one-liners and sight gags, of biting social commentary and poo jokes. It’s a simple premise: an extended family gets together for a funeral. The deceased two sons are Aaron, (Chris Rock) a modest public accountant trying to have a baby with his wife, and Ryan, a pompous writer of books with titles like “Momma’s Secret.” Their cousin Elaine (the resplendent Zoe Saldana) is bringing home her fiance Oscar (James Marsden).

At the beginning of the film, Oscar accidentally takes acid. Aaron learns that his father has been having a gay love affair with a little person named Frank (Peter Dinklage) who is now extorting them for part of the inheritance. There’s a lot more of course- this is an ensemble cast, with everyone from Tracy Morgan, to Danny Glover, to Loretta Devine and an unfortunately bloated Luke Wilson. But in all ensembles there are always a few that stand out.

Marsden’s performance, for example, is the stuff of comedic legend. Taking his matinee idol good looks and twisting them into a series of bizarre ticks and child-like mannerisms, Marsden is both hilarious and strangely charming. He spends the whole movie wandering around the funeral home grounds, admiring the view from his drug-fueled haze, and watching him gaze at a trio of lawn gnome with pure love and well-being is wonderful and a pretty damn accurate portrayal of someone on acid. And in what is perhaps the funniest moment of the film, he serenades Devine’s grieving widow with a soulful version of “Amazing Grace,” which is somehow even more inappropriate than when he knocks over the casket.

Choosing Rock as the straight man was a very good choice- I’ve always felt that Rock had a weird sense of gravitas to his performances, and even his stand-up. His one-liners are hit or miss (note to screenwriters: jokes about Facebook or Twitter are only a little funny, and should never be used more than once), but he’s best when he’s reacting to someone else’s insanity. His wife, who’s ovulating, tries to turn him on by telling him she doesn’t have any panties on. “What?” he shouts, “My God, I’m burying my father, go put some panties on! Funeral panties!”

And then there’s Tracy Morgan, the man who made a career out of playing simply a ramped up version of himself. I’m reasonably certain Morgan ad-libbed some of his lines, including what might be my favorite non-sequitor ever: “Look, everyone knows the Colonel stole his secret recipe from a black slave named Jubilai.”

Why is this line so funny? I think it’s the name- Jubilai- which could only come from the slightly cracked-out mind of Tracy Morgan. The line makes no sense in or out of context, it just sits there, perfectly formed and waiting for you to catch up, do a double take, and laugh again.

I’m going to move into TMI mode right now and admit something: I have a serious crush on Peter Dinklage. I don’t care that he’s four feet tall. I loved him in “The Station Agent.” I loved him in “Living in Oblivion.” I loved him in “In Bruges.” I loved him as Liz Lemon’s love interest on “30 Rock”. He is ridiculously talented, excruciatingly funny, and damn good-looking to boot. I would watch him read out of the phone book, and I adored watching him here. Dinklage doesn’t play Frank as fruity. There is no mincing, no delicately rendered lisp. Just a small guy in a leather jacket who happens to like “Dreamgirls”.

Frank is also ostensibly the villain of the piece, which shows you writer Dean Craig and director Neil LaBute’s sheer courage. It takes a lot of cajones to make a gay dwarf your bad guy in the P.C. world we live in. Almost as much cajones as it takes to turn a British comedy of errors into an American film with a mainly black cast, without resorting to a Tyler Perry act of minstrelsy. This movie could have easily been a disaster. But it succeeded, through good casting, good jokes and, I imagine, sheer force of will.

In what has become a tradition, the opening night film is an upcoming summer blockbuster. The premiere of “Robin Hood,” Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe’s return to the summer action epic 10 years after “Gladiator,” will kick off this year’s festival.

Hopefully, “Robin Hood” will prove to be a better film than past opening night films- “The Da Vinci Code” opened the festival in 2006 and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” had the honor in 2008. While both were blockbusters, neither was particularly well received critically.

Other high profile film’s screening out of competition include Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.” The hotly anticipated sequel features Michael Douglas returning to his Oscar-winning role as Gordon “greed is good” Gekko. The film also stars rising stars Shia LaBeouf and Carey Mulligan. Woody Allen’s newest “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger is also screening out of competition. While not much is known about the plot, Allen’s latest features an all-star cast including Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Naomi Watts.

Speaking of Watts, she is the star of the only American film that was accepted into main competition. She stars as outed CIA agent Valerie Plame in Doug Liman’s “Fair Game.” Sean Penn co-stars as her husband, Joseph Wilson. This is the second time Watts and Penn have worked together. They previously appeared together in

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s 2003 film, “21 Grams.” “Fair Game” marks an interesting shift to the serious for Doug Liman. The director has become known for making fun, breezy action films like “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” and “The Bourne Identity.”

Other notable films showing at the festival include, Mike Leigh’s “Another Year,” Stephen Frear’s “Tamara Drewe” starring Gemma Arterton, and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s “Biutiful” starring Javier Bardem.

Director Tim Burton is heading up the juror’s panel. Fellow judges include actors Benicio Del Toro and Kate Beckinsale

Many of us as kids read comics or watched superhero films and, after escaping into these worlds would want to have superhero powers ourselves; this film is born of that notion.

Young and somewhat overlooked highschool student Dave Lizewski has a massive love for comics. Bored with his life and the day to day pressures of school, he decides to become a superhero himself, though with no training and no actual powers it might be a bit tougher than he assumes.

Kick-Ass strips us to the bare bone of human capability as when a fight scene occurs, Dave (now known as “Kick-Ass”) doesn’t just beat everyone up with one punch like Batman, he takes a good couple of punches himself before he just about wins the fight. The sense of realism this film brings is one of the coolest aspects of it.

As the film progresses, we see Dave Lizewski falling for his high school crush. Yes, this may be your standard “superhero gets the untouchable girl plot” but in Kick-Ass, he does it in an interesting way; at first he pretends to be gay just so he can hang out with her, but when he reveals his true identity, she immediately falls for him. This whole “romantic” side of the film was just as funny as the rest of it, making for a perfect balance of different genres.

Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“McLovin” from Superbad) does play a similar kind of character in all of his roles, but hey, he’s brilliant at it. Acting as Dave‘s eventual rival “Red Mist,” who gives us some memorable superhero puns, he adds a necessary backbone to the film, creating a fun atmosphere. And hurrah! Nicolas Cage is finally back in good films: Wicker Man? Ghost Rider? I think we’ll be happy to let those bad memories go after this outstanding performance as ‘Big Daddy’.

There’s a hint at a sequel right at the end, and every single person who watches this will be up for the return of Kick-Ass. Sequels are always challenging, yes, but with a plot that can really go anywhere and be original at the same time, a Kick-Ass number two will be welcomed with open arms.

You could describe this film as a superhero-comedy-action flick. At times you might feel like you’re in a Kill Bill movie as you see the young child, “Hit Girl,” cutting people to bits. At other times you will be submerged into a romantic or comedy scene, always keeping you hooked.

When I hear someone in the audience laughing while shouting I know that a film is going to be a favourite with many people. Check it out, I loved it, and this film is definitely what it says on the tin, kick-ass!