Whatever Zac Efron goes, two things follow: Teenage girls, and big numbers at the box office. While this will no doubt apply to his new comedy, 17 Again, it’s not really deserved in this case. While the actors are all in top shape, especially Thomas Lennon as the nerdy best friend, literally entire scenes are lifted from other movies. Originality is by and far the problem here.

Mike O’Donnell is a thirty-something workaholic who regrets giving up an important basketball game to be with his high-school sweetheart 20 years ago. Present day. He’s been locked out by his wife, his kids are distant from him, and a pending promotion at his 16-year-long job has been given to a 2-month intern.

Suffice to say, he’s regretting his life, but falls into a magical pool of water and comes out as his 17-year old self, looking exactly like Zac Efron. Mike then seizes the opportunity to go back to high school to sort of ‘re-do’ his life, but he realizes helping his kids is more important. Including helping his son, being pushed around by bullies, and his daughter, whose boyfriend is a practically sociopathic jerk.

Efron is fine here. Actually he demonstrates some actual acting-chops in occasional scenes, but mostly he’s almost lampooning his goody-two-shoes ‘High School Musical’ character. A lot of cringe-worthy scenes come of him not realizing he looks 20 years younger than he is, including when he lectures everyone randomly during health class, and tells a fellow student (actually his daughter) that “You will obey me Maggie!”

Thomas Collins is the best part of the movie. He plays Mike’s best friend, who is obsessed with all things science-fiction and has a not-so-subtle crush on the school principal. (The resulting date reveals she, too, is a sci-fi geek, and they engage in a conversation of Elvish.) Collins has been in some other movies recently (I Love You Man, Reno 911) and is sort of a rising star. Leslie Mann, as Mike’s wife, is funny and sweet as she normally is. Mann has been popping up in several comedies lately and it’s nothing but a good thing.

Obviously the performances are not the weakness. The weakness lies in the plot and the script. The story is not new at all, it recalls a mixture of Big, Back to the Future, and 13 Going On 30. Some entire scenes have been lifted from these very films. And the script falls in every possible pratfall and cliche that a teen comedy would present. Now mind you, there are some really great scenes but it’s not enough to save a very tired screenplay. C

Miley Cyrus converts her Disney Channel TV series into a full-length movie with Hannah Montana: The Movie. Last year she released a 3-D concert film as both Miley Cyrus and her pop star alter ego, Hannah Montana. Now she has an actual movie, with all the characters from the show. It’s just exactly the bubbly, squeaky-clean entertainment that the TV show provides, which is actually sort of a good thing. It has cameos all over the place, from Taylor Swift (providing a musical performance) to Tyra Banks (who plays a rather important part in the film).

16-year old Miley Stewart appears to be just a normal teenager, but she has a very big secret: She’s also pop star Hannah Montana by night, and Miley’s hectic scheduele begins to affect her attitude in a bad way. Miley’s dad decides to make her spend two weeks in Crowley Corners, Tennessee to reflect on what’s most important in life. At first, naturally, she maintains a Valley Girl attitude, namely, is rather stuck-up towards the town and her relatives. But then after rekindling a friendship with her first-grade buddy, she becomes adapted to small-town life. But some people intend to take Crowley Corners’ open land and make it into a giant shopping mall. Can Miley stop it?

There’s some very, very, VERY, corny moments and lines of dialogue. For example, “Life’s a climb. But what a great view!”, and the moments where Miley exhibits her stuck-up attitude. The film bears some uncanny resemblances to another popular Disney movie (*cough* CARS!! *cough*) Sitting in the theater with two 7-year olds, my mom and I accurately predicted to ourselves about 10 events in the movie. On the other hand, there’s some really fun scenes. In particular, Hannah’s catfight with Tyra Banks over a pair of shoes, and Hannah teaching some Tennessee citizens the “Hoedown Throwdown”. Also just about any scene with Miley’s brother Jackson is pure gold.

Maybe I enjoyed it because I didn’t expect much, or maybe because of Miley Cyrus’ charms and musical talent. Or maybe because of my initial bitterness (the theater was packed with 7-year old girls, I was likely the only male) Or maybe I was just in the right mood. Either way, Hannah Montana: The Movie is throwaway fun that your little girls will undoubtedly love. B

‘The Fast and the Furious’ is an odd series. Not really exceptional in any way, except in that it started with a mediocre first movie then actually got better throughout. Not because of any good plot or good acting (uhh, Bow Wow?). First off, yes, Fast and Furious is almost identical to all 3 previous ones. Yes, the action is more intense, and yes, the cars are shinier and fast(i)er. The reason it’s so much fun is that it knows and fully accepts that it’s just a popcorn flick, and that plot doesn’t matter at all for the fourth Fast and Furious.

Set five years after the events of the first ‘Fast and the Furious’, former street racer Dom (Diesel) is now an international criminal, hijacking oil tankers for cash. Brian O’Connor (Walker), once a fellow street racer, is now an FBI agent. When Dom’s girlfriend is murdered, Dom links evidence to a man named Arturo Braga. Meanwhile, Brian is investigating a drug ring led by Braga. When they track him Dom and Brian once again cross paths, and team up to take down Braga. The only way they can get to him is via street racing.

Not much of it makes a lick of sense, does anyone actually care? They want some cool action, cool stunts, and cool cars, and this delivers. Fast and Furious is forgettable. I won’t remember much in about a week. It’s kind of like cotton candy – sweet when you eat it, but melts on your tongue. Pretty good cotton candy, I’d say. B+

Monsters vs. Aliens is just one in a seemingly endless cycle of 3-D animated films, and doesn’t really do anything to distinguish itself from any of the others. It reportedly cost about $175 million to make and doesn’t really show, given that it’s 80 minutes and has about 2 or 3 action sequences.

My guess being that the money went to the actors, such as Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogen and Hugh Laurie. The only ones to show any personality are Seth Rogen as the shapeless, brainless yet charming blue blob B.O.B., and Stephen Colbert as the President. If it sounds like I hated the film I truly didn’t, there just absolutely was nothing that stood out at all.

An ordinary woman named Susan is about to be married to a boring jerk when suddenly an asteriod falls near her and she grows to about 49 feet tall. The US government seizes her and she’s branded a ‘monster’. She is locked inside a top-secret facility with other monsters, including B.O.B., a super-genius called Dr. Cockroach, a fish/ape named The Missing Link, and Insectosaurus, a big dumb adorable insect that’s about 400 feet tall and really really dumb. Suddenly, aliens drop onto the Earth and the government needs help. This is where the title comes in.

Another amusing cast member is Kiefer Sutherland, (Jack Bauer of ’24′) as a Southern, cigar-chomping General. His role is small, but memorable. The best scene is where Susan, adjusting to her new height, decides to use some cars as rollerskates to defeat a mega alien boss.

The animation is somewhat impressive, especially in the last half-hour, which is injected with action. Rather formulaic action sequences, but somewhat impressive.

Monsters vs. Aliens is a likable movie, how much you like it depends on your age. However, at least for me, it was too formulaic and bland. Seth Rogen as B.O.B. as well as Kiefer Sutherland have amusing roles, but it’s not enough. C.

I have a certain liking, and at the same time apprehension when it comes to disaster films. The thought, the idea that the world could end under extraordinarily violent circumstances gives me something of a chill. Nicolas Cage’s new film Knowing is very much a mixed bag in this area.

Nicolas Cage, despite being a fantastic actor, has starred in a whole lotta junk lately. National Treasure 2, Ghost Rider, Next, Bangkok Dangerous…He’s sort of carved out a little niche in Hollywood of starring in bad action movies, which is unfortunate. However, he remains a great actor, and he’s effective in his role here as an MIT professor who realizes the world may end.

In 1959, to celebrate the opening of a new elementary school, a class puts into a time capsule drawings of what they predict 2009 will be like. 50 years later, they open the capsule. One little boy gets not a drawing, but a paper with rows and rows of numbers.

His MIT professor of a father, John Koestler (Cage), sees an eerie pattern in the numbers: They document, in perfect sequence, the days, dates, and coordinates of every major disaster of the last 50 years, with only 3 left. What happens when the numbers run out?

The film has a great first hour. It maintains a tense atmosphere, and sports an incredible, 3-minute long plane crash sequence. But in the end is where it runs awry. The majority of the last hour is exposition, but there’s a GIANT science fiction twist which is completely ridiculous. It destroys all the tensity and believability the film masterfully builds itself up towards. However, the visual effects, although sparsely used, are really incredible, especially the final scene. (which, ironically, is the worst scene in the film) The dialogue is rather underwritten, as well.

Knowing is ambitious, moreso than many recent action films. But it’s incredibly uneven, at that. Although Nicolas Cage is good, the visual effects are great, and it has an excellent first hour, Knowing self-destructs towards the end. What a shame. What a disappointment. C-

Watchmen is an oddity. It partially mocks comic-book films, but at the same time its a landmark for that very genre. Its action sequences are over-the-top and cartoony, deliberately so, but also features some really breathtaking sequences. One moment there’s blood and bullets flying everywhere, another there are moral decisions and actions that will question many. It’s really quite mature, so lets make this clear: This is no Spider-Man 3.

The most interesting aspect of the film is that it basically takes the idea of the perfect superhero and rips it to pieces. It’s set in an alternate 1985. Superheroes are a reality. People indeed have dressed up in costumes and fought crime, calling themselves the Watchmen, until they were outlawed in the 1970s. Richard Nixon, in his fifth term as President, won the Vietnam War many years ago because of these ‘superheroes’.

The film realizes that if people actually fought crime, they’d most likely be crazy. Take The Comedian for an example. He fights crime, sure. He’s also a raging alcoholic. Adrian Veidt is the smartest man on Earth who makes money by selling Watchmen action figures. Rorschach is a man in a mask, who’s also a psycho who kills criminals to justify his tragic childhood.

The opening credits are really unique. They capture the history of these masked crimefighters, set to Bob Dylan’s ‘The Times They’re A-Changing’. It’s an extended 7-minute sequence that cleverly tinkers with how superheroes would affect history. We are immediately drawn into the action, when an ex-vigilante The Comedian is thrown out of a window by a mysterious figure. Immediately, another former crimefighter turned psychopath Rorschach suspects it’s a giant conspiracy to kill costumed heroes…Turns out he may be right.

Some of the greatest strengths and weaknesses lie in the performances. Patrick Wilson as mild-mannered Dan Dreiberg is okay. He gets the ‘aw-shucks’ aspects of the role right, but is still a little wooden on delivery. Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt tinkers with a German accent and it doesn’t really pay off. Worst of all is Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre, a woman who is only fighting crime because her mother used to. Her delivery is flat and monotonous the entire time, which gets distracting as she has a meaty part of the film.

Luckily, for every mediocre performance in the film, there is a great one. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian is fantastic. The true revelation here is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. He’s in an ink-blotted mask almost the whole time, and gives an unforgettable performance. He’s frightening yet funny. Crazy yet sympathetic. He also gets the coolest final scene of any film character in a long time.

Watchmen is based on an epic 400-page graphic novel which, incidentally, is my favorite book. It’s only natural that I felt protective of it. Director Zack Snyder (300, Dawn of the Dead) adapts the graphic novel really faithfully, like almost frame-for-frame faithful. The film never really develops its own personality that differs from the book, which can be frustrating at times.

The visual effects are also a mixed bag. There are moments like the Manhattan sequence towards the end that really push the envelope (heads up fellas – the ONLY way to see this in IMAX!) or it falls flat, like the Mars sequences that look really campy. The set direction, however, is incredibly well-done.

Watchmen does have major flaws. Some of the performances are weak, the visual effects are campy. But most of the time it doesn’t focus on action, but character development. It focuses on the story, not the blood. It’s thought-provoking, but doesn’t forget to blow our minds. My feelings on Watchmen are mixed, and perhaps a second viewing will clarify them. Until then, I remember something of a heavily flawed masterpiece. A-

The Pink Panther 2 is a tragedy of massive proportions. It stars Alfred Molina, Andy Garcia and Jean Reno. These actors are much better than this. It’s a remake of The Pink Panther series, which thanks to Peter Sellers are some of the funniest movies ever. Those movies are better than this. And it stars one of the funniest comedians ever, Steve Martin. He is most definitely better than this.

I think my biggest problem with the film is that in comparison to the original films, or any decent comedy, it’s ridiculously unfunny. Every scene revolves around Steve Martin getting hit with something or a joke about his overdone French accent or Steve Martin accidentally hitting someone or setting something on fire. The plot is the exact same as the film 3 years ago. The Pink Panther diamond is stolen and the bumbling Inspector Clouseau must recover it and through a series of accidents and elaborate sequences of slapstick, he recovers it.

It seems that Steve Martin in recent days has had two personalities. In one, he is subtle, clever, and funnier than ever. See his supporting role in Baby Mama, his presenting speech at the recent Academy Awards, and even his hilarious memoir, Born Standing Up. In his alter ego, he is a fraction of what he once was, resulting to elaborate set pieces and slapstick to garner laughs instead of actual humor. Enter The Pink Panther 2. You’ll be glad to exit. D-

Most of the time, a film has no real plot whatsoever but the film itself ends up being great fun, and a really good movie. Which makes Defiance something of a curiosity. It has the great story and actors. But the execution is where it falls stiff. Defiance has some moments of greatness, but the end result is a colossal disappointment. Which is a shame, because the cast is great and the story is compelling. It’s the true story of a trio of Jewish brothers in 1941 Poland: Tuvia, Asael, and Zus Bielski who narrowly escape the Nazi camps and build a camp of their own: one for Jews hiding in the forest.

Daniel Craig, who we know as James Bond, turns in a rather subtle but effective enough performance as Tuvia. Liev Schrieber isn’t as mind-blowing as I’ve heard, but he still retains the best performance in the film, as the aggressive brother Zus. It’s more of an ensemble film than you would think. The marketing is rather deceptive: It doesn’t focus on the brothers killing the Nazis, but the inner conflicts the group encounters.

Edward Zwick directs, who has done such great movies as The Last Samurai and Blood Diamond. His films tend to be visually stunning, emotionally engaging, but also retain some really great action sequences. Defiance is a step backward. It has really great action sequences, it is definitely visually stunning, but it isn’t emotionally engaging. More specifically, it force-feeds us too much emotion. C

Kate Winslet once said, playing herself in the mockumentary TV series Extras, that whoever stars in a Holocaust film automatically wins an Oscar. Which makes it a bit ironic that she has finally won an Oscar, starring in The Reader, a Holocaust film. I only say ‘a bit ironic’ because she truly delivered the best performance of the year, and in a rare feat (for the Oscars), they actually picked the right winner.

Michael Berg is a 15-year old boy living in 1958 Germany. He’s rather quiet and reserved. One day coming home from school he vomits, and a tram conductor named Hanna Schmitz gives him some medicine. Michael becomes infatuated with Hanna and they begin an affair. They fall in love, despite the noticeable age difference. But then one day Hanna is suddenly gone, leaving Michael heartbroken. They reunite 8 years later, though under undesirable circumstances: He is a law student, and she is on trial for Holocaust war crimes.

The Reader is a rather subtle film that also happens to tackle some really huge issues. Holocaust, growing up, affairs, guilt. But there is no huge revelation moment of screaming, no major Hollywood twist ending. It’s handled rather delicately. It’s not a happy film, and one could argue that the morals of the story are rather twisted.

Kate Winslet, in her Oscar-winning performance, is fantastic. Her mastery of accents is rather well-known by now, her German accent is flawless. She pulls off the incredible feat of making a despicable character almost sympathetic. From the first hour where you can sense her massive regret, to her scenes as a 70-year old woman that in a way, provide the emotional core of the film, Winslet is fantastic. The greatest actress working today gives her greatest performance, and it makes this film worth seeing alone.

David Kross is great as Michael Berg at ages 15 and 23. At 15 he has an aura about him, an energy that is rather unique. Which makes it rather shocking how somber his body language and overall demeanor is during the courtroom scenes. Ralph Fiennes plays Michael in his 40s and 50s, and has the easiest job of the three. He’s on for about 15 minutes.

The Reader is one of the better Holocaust films, with an emotional impact you don’t quite expect. It’s actually sort of a masterpiece. A

The Wrestler is not a happy film. Or one with much action, or much of a plot. There’s no big pay-off at the end, no twist or happy ending. But there’s so much that it offers in between. Not only is is the best film of 2008, its one of the best of the decade.

Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson (Rourke) was the next big thing in wrestling. 2o or so years ago, he seemed destined for greatness. Then, he lost a match, and lost it all. 2o years later, he lives in a trailer park. He’s lucky to have a job at the grocery store. He wrestles in New Jersey community centers, filled only by die-hard fans. He clings to any fragment of fame that he had all these years ago. His daughter despises him and haven’t spoken to him in years. A friendship with a single mother/dancer Pam (Tomei) offers a ray of light, and he slowly is brought back to the real world, building up to a devasting ending.

Although there is so much to admire here, the performances are all magnificent, and are definitely the best part of the movie. Mickey Rourke as Randy turns in one of the greatest performances I’ve ever seen. He combines his great ability with his tragic past to become Randy, and it’s simply devastating. You see his past on his face. You know the awful things he’s done and still continue to do. But you still symphatize with him. This isn’t necessarily a tearjerker, but shows the harsh conditions in which he lives, with some devasting moments along the way.

Evan Rachel Wood as Randy’s daughter has 3 scenes, but what she does in those 3 scenes goes to show that she is one of the best young actors working today. The majority of Marisa Tomei’s scenes required that my eyes be shut, but she proves that as well as a great comedic actress she is a great dramatic one.

It’s stunning that although it could have resigned to many cliches and come off as Rocky 10, it remains original and unpredictable right till the end. It’s left ambiguous but not in an artsy way. Either way you interpret it, it’s a great and fitting ending, if not complete.

Darren Aronofsky directs it with passion equal to that of Rourke’s  performance. His camera always follows him, and often times it feels like a documentary.

See The Wrestler. If not, you’d miss the best film 2008 had to offer. A