One of "Final Destination 5"s victims faces her fate on a collapsing bridge.

I gave up a while ago on trying to assess the moral implications of the continued success of ultra-bloody horror films, and what exactly their continued success says about us, their audience.

I mean, pause for a minute. Consider that, when buying tickets to, say, a “Saw” film, or what I’m reviewing, the fifth “Final Destination” installment, you are plopping down $10 to laugh at the demise of average, ordinary people, not unlike yourself. Doesn’t that send a chill down your spine just a bit? (I, of course, ignore that these supposed “ordinary” people are unconvincingly portrayed by mostly terrible young actors.)

But I am not here as moral crusader, I am here as film critic. And I’m here to tell you what I’m sure comes as a surprise to none — “Final Destination 5” is pretty damn awful. Mind you, it is the successor to a film among the least watchable of the last 10 years — 2009’s “The Final Destination”. Isn’t it funny how that works? Warner Bros. aren’t even trying to hide that they’re dipping their hand into your pocket. It’s the rough equivalent of a spouse proclaiming they’re forever done, packing their bags and leaving, then showing up in the kitchen the following night, demanding their steak.

Of course, this isn’t new to horror cinema — many franchises have proclaimed their end only to come around a few years later.

Just as people flock to “Saw” films for the elaborate traps and romantic comedies for the happy ending and attractive actors, people come to “Final Destination” films to see the ways in which average household objects can conspire to kill people that have supposedly “escaped” Death’s clutches in the past.

You see, every film in this franchise begins with the protagonist having a premonition of an upcoming disaster, telling his friends to leave with him, and saving them all from the disaster, which, incidentally comes true. But Death intended to take these people, and over the course of the movies, Death certainly does, in ways that, hypothetically, should have gotten progressively gorier as the franchise ticked on. (a common complaint with “The Final Destination” were the unimaginative fatalities)

“Final Destination 5” finds a guy saving his company from a sudden bridge collapse, the aftermath being that Death claims them one-by-one in, admittedly, very cleverly realized sequences. The young cast as a whole didn’t leave much of an impression on me. One particular actor (whose name I lack the effort to Google) seems to be attempting to channel “Top Gun”-era Tom Cruise, an effort that fails spectacularly.

Some of the film’s deaths involve laser-eye-surgery, an acupuncture-therapy session, a wrench to the face and (my personal favorite) a sabotaged gymnastic stunt. And the bridge collapse sequence in the beginning is surprisingly convincing.

The franchise’s skill has always been in the prolonged build-up and unexpected-payoff of the various death sequences, which is no different here. I concede that these are very well-done scenes. That said, had Steven Quale (who in the past has worked on films like “Avatar” and “Titanic”) given even a fifth of the attention paid to the gore over to the characters, there would be something to invest in.

Unfortunately, there isn’t, giving “Final Destination 5” a very observational feel. We’re watching these people die horrifically, but don’t particularly mind one way or the other. C-

(Note: The 3-D here is actually worth it, if the impalement of attractive young women popping off the screen is your sort of thing.)

Aziz Ansari and Jesse Eisenberg as the bewildered, bank-robbing best friends in "30 MINUTES OR LESS".

Very few directors have a distinctive style and technique developed by their first film. But when Ruben Fleischer arrived on the Hollywood scene in 2009 with the tautly-constructed, surprisingly clever “Zombieland”, it was clear that he was one such rarity.

In the new film “30 Minutes or Less”, Fleischer re-teams with that film’s star Jesse Eisenberg, whose profile has since been raised considerably with his Oscar-nominated turn in “The Social Network”. Fleischer brings back many winning qualities that “Zombieland” possessed — a raunchy, loose swagger coupled with a taut running time (both films run under 85 minutes).

But the unique thing about Fleischer — he genuinely is interested in developing characters for us to identify with, root for and in some cases, root against. Here, he has two sets of best friends — one considered “good”, one considered “bad”, but both given equal attention in the film and equal measure of development by the actors.

The “good” guys are Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari as Nick and Chet. Nick is a stoner pizza-boy and Chet is becoming a successful teacher; the disconnect between the duo’s success being the source of some tension. But when Nick delivers a pizza one fateful night the “bad” guys come into play.

Danny McBride and Nick Swardson are Dwayne and Travis. Dwayne has a considerable inheritance to gain from his father, but first, the guy has to kick the bucket. Dwayne wants to hire an assassin to take care of that, but to get the money, straps a bomb to Nick. Nick has nine hours to somehow come up with 100 grand or else the bomb on his chest will explode, and he enlists Chet to help him out.

All of this sounds very serious and grave, and I do have the feeling that had a dramatic approach been taken, a really gripping thriller could have been carved out of the material. Instead, a very comedic approach is taken to it, which both helps and hurts “30 Minutes” in the long run.

If there’s a fault to be had, it’s not with the cast. These four principal actors are, at least, very talented comedians, and in Eisenberg’s case, an exceptional dramatic actor. It’s truly the dialogue between these two duos, and the care that the film takes to making them seem like realistic friends (if not realistic human beings) goes a long way.

But for an 83-minute film, there’s quite a lot of unrewarding and random gags. It’s simply too inconsistent. For example, there’s one set-sequence mid-way through the film — to come up with the cash, Nick and Chet opt to rob a local bank. It’s built up deliberately (if not slowly), and hits fantastic comedic beats throughout. It’s slow-burn comedy, and it’s great.

Contrast this, however, with McBride and Swardson’s brand of comedy — shouting mostly hilarious, profane non-sequiturs. The two don’t really mesh together cohesively, resulting in a movie that feels oddly disconnected with itself.

“30 Minutes or Less” is a film not quite as taut as it should be, and given the talent involved, not quite as funny. It hits a lot of great beats, mostly with the ways that it builds up the four primary characters. So often in modern American comedies, the filmmakers spend attention on the gags to the extent that the characters are over-looked. “30 Minutes or Less” is curious in that it has the inverse dilemma. B-

Apes charge through San Francisco in the franchise reboot "RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES".

Although he’s dabbled in live-action acting before, Andy Serkis has carved out a very unique niche in the film industry. He’s the go-to man for motion-capture performance, i.e, when a filmmaker wants to have an actor play an otherwise computer-generated character. Think Gollum in “Lord of the Rings”, the title character of the “King Kong” remake. Serkis was irreplaceable in bringing them to life.

And so once again, Serkis delivers a tour-de-force performance in the franchise reboot “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. So often these days, computer-generated characters are employed in film. But when do they register heart and emotion; so much so that, in fact they end up being the emotional core of the film? The answer is never. And that’s precisely what makes “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” stand out above the average science-fiction-reboot fare, the fact that director Rupert Wyatt finds the soulful in the artificial.

For the second time (“King Kong” being the first), Serkis is playing an ape. This time, however, it’s the genetically-enhanced, hyper-intelligent Caesar. Taken as a baby into scientist James Franco’s home as something of a son, Caesar develops intellectual capability far beyond humans his own age. But when the same serum that elevated Caesar’s consciousness is spread beyond one ape — to an entire sanctuary, in fact, it sets the film on a spiraling series of events, leading to a massive set-piece in which man and ape face off against one another in the streets of San Francisco.

When the time comes for action to kick in, “Apes” delivers and in grand style — it conveys a strong sense of chaos, yet with oddly elegant, fluid camera-work. But it’s well aware that it’s the story of a leader’s rise above all else. In other words, “Apes” places a strong emphasis on believable, interesting characters; something that I’m a little sad that I have to highlight.

James Franco, despite top billing, is sorta around just to provide Caesar with a father figure and originator. Given that in recent years he’s proven to be something of a one-man renaissance, it makes me happy that he’s willing to take on bit roles in which he’s a part of an ensemble, rather than the focal point. He sets the whole thing in motion, given that his Alzheimer’s-combating serum is what elevates Caesar from animal to genetically-enhanced revolutionary. Franco is several notches above his slipshod, barely-there turn in April’s “Your Highness”, and the fact that this is clearly no passion project doesn’t stop him from bringing his standard professionalism and skill to the affair.

The remainder of the supporting cast is adequate yet underdeveloped to the fact that they’re barely even in the thing — “Slumdog Millionaire”s Freida Pinto is here to stand around, question the morality of Franco’s scientific experiments, and give him a nice smooch or two. Brian Cox as an animal handler is around to assert that humanity is bad and evil and wicked, giving Caesar cause to rebel. Hell, even Tom Felton (“Harry Potter”s Malfoy) is around, to sneer and snap at the protagonist for the second time in three movie-going weeks.

But Serkis is the star of the show in all regards, and everyone seems to know it. The film documents his change from adorable baby chimp to a genuine revolutionary against humankind, a ludicrous concept that’s brought to life all too plausibly. Just watch the sequences in which he’s dropped into an ape sanctuary and navigates the social ladder to gain control. (It’s just like high school, I remarked to my friend.) Serkis, just with his facial expressions and a few animalistic yells, executes a complete character transformation. Performances haven’t been this expressive since the silent age.

While the performance is accredited to Serkis, the ingenious visual effects work of WETA is largely responsible as well. There are well over a hundred apes featured in the film, not one of them being real. The fact that I wasn’t aware of this until after the film is a testament to how seamless the work is — and in my opinion, the best special effects are the ones you hardly notice.

“Apes” certainly suffers from pacing issues — it has that annoyingly common habit of starting the film at a rapid-fire pace and gradually slowing down. Save for Caesar and Franco’s character, each and every one of these characters are archetypes — some more engrossing than others, but archetypes nonetheless. Patrick Doyle’s score, while appropriate, swells at totally inopportune moments, although I suppose that’s more the director’s fault than his own.

But director Wyatt has truly done something special here — he took what could have easily been a lazy cash-grab franchise reboot and, through of all things, cutting-edge technology, injected a very recognizable, touching element of humanity. The irony that said ‘humanity’ dwells within an ape character be damned. B+

Ryan Gosling works his womanizing magic as Steve Carell looks on in "Crazy, Stupid, Love".

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is a film that fits squarely into standard romantic-comedy formula, yet still manages to feel like a vibrant, pulsating slice of life. Given that so many films aspire to this and fail, I think that might make “Crazy, Stupid, Love” something truly great. I’m not sure yet, but I’ve got a feeling about this one.

Steve Carell is Cal Weaver, a seemingly successful family man whose 25 years of marriage all crumble to nothing when his wife, played by Julianne Moore, announces that she has cheated on him. Immediately filing for divorce, Cal finds refuge both in raising his kids and in frequenting a local bar. There he meets Jacob, played by with an impeccable fluidity and smoothness by Ryan Gosling. Jacob, given his smooth demeanor and impeccable looks (it must be the name), knows a thing or two about women and projecting himself to them. Jacob takes Cal under his wing, renovating his wardrobe, reinvigorating his confidence, and digging him out of his mid-life crisis.

All the while, Jacob weighs giving up his womanizing tendencies for the sweet, intelligent Hannah. Hannah is played by Emma Stone, who, it’s worth noting, gets exponentially cuter as her career goes on.

Large focus is given to Cal’s middle-schooler son, Robbie, who pines for his older babysitter Jessica. The only problem with that is, Jessica pines for Robbie’s own father, who is totally oblivious to her affections. Did I mention yet that Julianne Moore’s character is pursuing her co-worker, played by Kevin Bacon? Yeah, Bacon’s in yet another villainous role, the difference being that here he’s a smug creep as opposed to his cold-hearted murderer in the recent “X-Men” reboot.

Consider how many films fail at portraying just one romantic plot line. Now picture one that succeeds at satisfyingly delivering four.

It’s a true compliment when I say that for the duration, I had entirely forgotten that these are all A-list, multi-millionaire movie-stars. Their screen personas are all built upon, retaining the charm yet never forsaking the characterizations the film builds. What I’m trying to say is, Ryan Gosling is just as charming here as you’d expect out of Ryan Gosling, but during the film, you never notice that he IS Ryan Gosling. Messily structured sentence, but you get the point, no?

Carell and Moore as a couple, divorced or not, click together exceptionally well. It’s a great pairing because both are so good at projecting warmth and glow in their characters, which makes their moments together sting all the more. Emma Stone is excellent, but then again I’m a bit biased. You know how everyone has that one massive celebrity crush? She’s mine.

Dan Fogelman’s script pulls off the masterful juggling act of balancing everyone’s arcs and problems, tying them all together in a satisfying if not entirely hopeful way. The film is structured interestingly, saving one absolutely massive surprise until the last 20 minutes or so. Who knew romantic comedies’ plot twists could be just as shocking as one in, say, a mystery-thriller?

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is a work that truly explores love from various perspectives, one as interesting as the next — newly blossoming love, unreturned love, dying love, lasting love. It’s smart enough not to condescend to its viewers and open enough to share its wounds with them. A-

Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman, relieving themselves in a life-changing fountain in "The Change-Up".

The R-rated comedy renaissance in the wake of “The Hangover” continues with “The Change-Up”, a film that from frame one feels like a halfway successful attempt to emulate that film’s raunch and dirtiness. After all, how often do you see writers for a movie pimped out in the marketing alongside the A-list actors, in the way the writers of “The Hangover” have been for this film?

Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds play two life-long friends, Bateman a devoted workaholic father and Reynolds a profane stoner. One night while drunkenly urinating into a public fountain, the two exclaim a desire to have the other person’s life. And when the two wake up the next morning they find that exactly that has happened — Reynolds in Bateman’s body and vice versa. Naturally, the two have to adapt to the other’s responsibilities. (in Reynolds’ case, lack thereof)

The writers have some fun with the body-switch concept, putting a very crude stamp on it. Examples include debating the morality of a person having sex in the other person’s body, one particular sequence involving intercourse and a thumb being the most memorable of the film.

Reynolds and Bateman, both hot off of recent summer blockbusters of vastly different quality (“Green Lantern” and “Horrible Bosses”), are very strong here. Given the body-switch, the actors have the odd task of playing the other actor’s screen persona, and do so strongly. You wouldn’t think the laid-back Ryan Reynolds could convincingly pull off a working-stiff, but the guy’s got it in him.

The two leads definitely punch-up an otherwise unoriginal concept and the generally predictable proceedings. Perhaps a good deal of my fatigue towards “The Change-Up” is because I’ve seen so many R-rated comedies of similar structure and execution within the last year or so. I literally had a dozen moments of total deja-vu, be it over a joke or over an emotionally charged moment. No moment of “The Change-Up” ever felt like some sort of discovery.

Supporting actresses Leslie Mann and Olivia Wilde are gorgeous, in roles that don’t require a whole lot more other than being gorgeous. It’s worth noting that this is Wilde’s second major role in as many weeks, and despite somewhat weak script choices, she’s certainly a rising talent whose career I’m rooting for.

“The Change-Up” awkwardly shuffles between different characters’ plots. There will be lengthy stretches devoted entirely to one of the main characters in which the other is omitted, giving the film a disjointed feel. There’s literally a few characters who have a set-up in an early scene, disappear for the film, and re-appear in the final scene as if we are to care for them. Seeing Alan Arkin wasted like this is a shame.

I dig raunchiness in comedies, but what I love most is raunchiness that feels naturally integrated with the story that’s being told. “The Change-Up” doesn’t ever quite hit that, carrying with it an awkward pace and a tone that may be filthy one minute and tender the next. It’s an okay watch for shits and giggles, and I mean ‘shits’ literally. C+

A photo taken from "Cowboys and Aliens" in which cowboys and, unpredictably, aliens square off.

The script for “Cowboys and Aliens” was written by six very talented individuals, which both answers some questions and poses others. It explains why the final film feels so messy and haphazard, yet poses the thought — with people whose screen credits include intelligent yet thrilling blockbuster fare as the first “Iron Man”, “Star Trek”, “Children of Men” and the television show “Lost” — why is there a complete lack of originality or memorability to the proceedings?

The fact that “Cowboys and Aliens” sports such a ridiculous title yet lacks any personality is perplexing. But then again, so is a lot about the Jon Favreau-directed genre hybrid. Such as why there’s a near-total lack of action with said aliens until the last 20 minutes, and why with such a strong cast, the characters we spend the other 100 minutes with are such a bore.

Headliners include Daniel Craig, known to most as the James Bond of late. He leads along with Harrison Ford, who really should be getting better scripts of late than he has. Talented supporting players vary from the incredibly talented Paul Dano to the incredibly attractive Olivia Wilde. All of them have varying strengths and qualities as actors, a common trait of which that none are displayed here.

Craig is Jake, a criminal who wakes up in the middle of New Mexico desert with an oddly modern bracelet and no recollection of who he is. See, it’s 1875, and when Jake stumbles into a nearby town, he’s promptly beaten and jailed. But that changes when – try and predict this – aliens descend on the town, snatching up half the population and inspiring the other half to fight them back.

Reading that summary, you’d think it to be a straight-up action spectacle, a summary both false and a nagging reminder of what could have been. Instead, the movie is an extended road movie in which the group of characters follow the trail of their alien invaders.

Director Favreau spends the middle 45 minutes focusing on interplay between characters, an idea not bad considering a common trope of the Western genre is developing an eclectic bunch of people and letting them all hang loose and banter. Problem is, there is not a single character in this film that stands out or gives any significant semblance of personality or life. This renders their dialogue together almost completely redundant, meaning that at least 45 minutes of this film will bore you terribly. These are the same writers that fed Robert Downey, Jr. such biting, witty dialogue three years ago in “Iron Man”?

If there’s an element Favreau truly did nail, it’s the look that a Western carries. Producer Steven Spielberg sat Favreau down prior the film and showed him vintage Westerns to try and evoke — “Stagecoach” and “My Darling Clementine” included — and even if the soul of films such as those is gone, the classical yet rustic visuals are extremely well replicated. Cinematographer Matthew Libatique, hot off the intense, voyeuristic camerawork of “Black Swan”, deserves major props come awards season.

Given the monster budget “Cowboys and Aliens” carries, the sets and costumes are, predictably, all very impressive. I did dig a lot of the turns the plot took, such as the darker side of Jake’s past, and the inclusion of Indian tribes. One wonders why, given the ridiculousness of the title “Cowboys and Aliens”, they didn’t just make it “Cowboys and Aliens and Indians”. Then again, it’s not exactly like they did anything worthwhile with the original title. So often, I criticize or object to films because they’re too stupid. Here, I criticize “Cowboys and Aliens” because it never cuts loose. In other words, it’s not stupid enough. D+

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS sports a completely original premise: Two good-looking white people fall in love. (Justin Timberlake & Mila Kunis pictured above)

If you’re gonna go skinny-dipping, don’t just dip a toe in the water. This nudity-centric aphorism is appropriate when discussing “Friends With Benefits”, but not because the leads Justin Timberlake & Mila Kunis are nude for the majority of the film’s running time.

No, it’s because director Will Gluck tries skinny-dipping — he opens “Friends With Benefits” as a cynical, jaded response to every cookie-cutter, common-place romantic comedy you’ve ever seen.

But in not following through with this tone and in fact becoming exactly what it condemned, Gluck ends up merely dipping a toe. Damn shame. But despite the disconnect between Will Gluck’s vision and what he eventually executed, there’s more than enough entertainment to be had here.

Most of it can be attributed to the interplay, both verbal and physical, between Timberlake and Kunis. Timberlake continues to prove himself as a truly gifted actor, with sharp comedic timing and, as displayed in last year’s “Social Network”, an impressive ability to handle heavy moments of emotional gravitas.

Kunis, whose comedic side most people watch every week on “Family Guy”, offers a capable performance in the realm of both drama and comedy. She plays a strong, capable woman, which may not seem like much, but considering the unrealistic, uptight way in which romantic comedies so frequently portray women, it’s certainly a step up.

But the dynamic between the two leads is all that it should be – vibrant, flirty, rapid-fire, and quite sensual. Timberlake and Kunis share a moment that all romantic comedies should sport yet almost none do – there’s a singular moment where you can see the two look at one another and truly click. Blink and you’ll miss it, but it makes the movie.

Given the predictability of the genre, it’s often the quality of the journey rather than the surprise of the destination that separates the good from the bad. And the ensemble cast “Friends With Benefits” sports ensures that the film never loses its comedic momentum.

The opening scene is no doubt the strongest – a rapid-cut montage in which Timberlake and Kunis break up with Emma Stone and Andy Samberg. In the space of about four, five minutes, the film establishes a biting tone, the characters’ personalities, and deploys some of the funniest lines I’ve heard so far this year. Emma Stone in particular gets the film’s best quip, at the expense of one John Mayer and his loyal fans.

Further supporting players of note include Woody Harrelson as Timberlake’s flamboyantly gay co-worker. As far as I’m concerned, Harrelson’s one of the most steadily engaging supporting actors in Hollywood, bringing the same zest and watchability no matter what he’s acting in. Another is Richard Jenkins, who, continuing in a streak of roles as leading-roles’-fathers (“Step Brothers”, “Dear John”), plays Timberlake’s Alzheimer’s-afflicted father. Jenkins, as he tends to, brings a truly warm, human quality to his part.

It’s both the versatility of the script and charm of the actors bringing it to the screen that gives “Friends With Benefits” its charm and momentum. But it’s the disturbing quickness with which writer-director Will Gluck abandons his original vision to make a more commercial, digestible product that prevents “Friends With Benefits” from ever being something truly special. B-

Chris Evans' title character storms into action in CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER.

Recent movies set in the Marvel comic-book universe have had something of an awkward balance to maintain. On one hand, they must serve as build-up for next year’s “Avengers” movie, in which the superheroes Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America all team up and kick ass as a team. But at the same time, they have to serve as individual films, complete with their own arcs and qualities of their own.

Not all the films have succeeded at this, and I’m not entirely sure the final “Avengers” precursor, “Captain America: The First Avenger”, does. Set during WWII, it follows the frail, meek Steve Rogers as the government chemically transforms him into the shield-toting super-soldier, Captain America. His enemy is the appropriately-named Red Skull, Hitler’s weaponry mastermind whose skin is literally ruby-colored-red. Red-Skull intends on doing what all superhero villains intend on doing — destroy the world, claim it all for himself, et cetera. Played by eternal villain Hugo Weaving, Red Skull is repulsive, despicable — in other words, great fun to watch.

“The First Avenger” is certainly serviceable entertainment, a rollicking 2-hour tribute to the pulpy, gritty likes of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. But like most serviceable entertainment, it feels less driven by genuine inspiration than by a commercial decision. There’s some original, cool concepts at work here, but the general superhero origin story has been done many, many times before….in the wake of “Green Lantern”, “Thor” and “X-Men”, I believe this marks the fourth one this year?

I suppose some of this criticism stems from my fatigue at the genre at large, but that’s precisely my point — when it comes to the narrative, it just doesn’t do much to distinguish itself from all the rest. Even the title character, Captain America himself, isn’t particularly lively. But then again, I suppose that’s some of the point. He’s a classic, brave, selfless action hero. Not much else to it, although there’s a particular twist at the end that will definitely add an interesting element to his character in future follow-ups.

Chris Evans as Captain certainly gives his all — he beefed up considerably for the role, something I always admire. Though his character isn’t particularly interesting, that’s more a result of the script than Evans himself. He’s not at fault, and certainly looks pretty cool when in Nazi-killing action. Where Evans really wowed me were the scenes before his transformation into the Captain, where he’s a 90-pound weakling who just wants to do his part to serve his country. Via digital transformation, Evans really looks the part, making his muscular physique later in the film all the more impressive. He’s a solid actor who deserves all the success I imagine this movie will reap him.

“October Sky” director Joe Johnston plays up the period angle, with all kinds of ’40′s tropes being thrown on-screen — tommy gun battles, wartime patriotism, the tough yet beautiful love interest. But the production design particularly stood out — the lavish sets given an old-school glossy feel, the visual style employing shadow in a way recalling old German silent films, and the fluid camerawork all signal a really conscious effort on Johnston’s part to replicate a very old-school style. It works tremendously.

The merits of Johnston’s past filmography are debatable, (“Jurassic Park III” and last year’s “Wolfman” remake being examples) but he has always delivered on a visceral front. “Captain” is no exception — the action here is friggin’ awesome. Admirably, it takes its time to deliver it, but once a momentum builds up, it’s essentially Captain America doing his thing for the last 45 or so minutes.

One particular action sequence set aboard a train racing through mountains feels like a successful version of a failed “Sucker Punch” scene. Thrilling in duration and emotional in conclusion, it’s probably the centerpiece of the film.

The dialogue is as one would expect. You’ve got the standard exposition, the occasional one-liner, (supplied with zest by a lively Tommy Lee Jones) the moments of weakness or self-doubt. It’s done competently, certainly not poor enough to greatly hamper the film.

“Captain America” ends on an unexpectedly somber note, a cliffhanger whose impact can be quite devastating if mulled over long enough. It’s the best moment of the film. Ironically, perhaps even sadly enough, it was not directed by Johnston, rather, by “Avengers” helmer Joss Whedon. This both deepens my disappointment that more wasn’t done with this character, and piques my hopes for a more emotionally driven follow-up. B-

“Horrible Bosses” taps into a certain wish-fullfillment-fantasy that I’ve never had to experience — offing one’s boss to make one’s life better. For obvious reasons, my experience in a professional workplace is somewhat limited. But what I can appreciate, is encountering total ineptitude when trying to accomplish a goal. “Bosses” is really about both; dealing with three nice-enough guys whose various psycho bosses have pushed them a little too far, into the realm of plotting murders against them.

The guys are Charlie Day and two Jasons – Bateman and Sudeikis. Their respective bosses are Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey, and Colin Farrell. The various conflicts between the six of them drive “Horrible Bosses” – and this is precisely why it’s so damn funny. Because the humor stems from genuine chemistry between human beings, some crazier than others. It’s not wrought from a dog defecating into a stew or a guy hitting a wall — the humor here comes from the simplest of things, like facial expressions, even pauses.

Mind you, the dialogue in this film is absolutely on-point. The one-liners the characters are given in this film are killer — in particular, the “bosses” where the film gets its name. Jennifer Aniston’s sex-crazy dentist, Kevin Spacey’s calculating murderer, and Colin Farrell’s balding, coked-out maniac all chew their respective scenes to pieces, and when the “bosses” begin interacting amongst each other, some absolutely hilarious stuff goes down.

What makes “Horrible Bosses” work, and what prevents it from veering into totally ridiculous, implausible camp, is the fact that these three bosses are truly loathsome, mean-spirited people. Director Seth Gordon never does the disservice of trying to give them any sort of depth or characterization. Why should they need it? Their function is cruelty.

What’s remarkable is that even when the bosses aren’t on-screen, the film’s comedic momentum keeps going. The inter-play between the three lovable shmucks looking to take out their office superiors is part of it. You buy that they’re all average, genuine guys with lives, hopes, dreams. And twisted as their plots are, one truly wishes the best for them.

As far as studio comedies go, this is fairly edgy stuff. When’s the last time a movie killed off someone as respected as Donald Sutherland within 10 seconds of their entrance? It never gets into morally-questionable along the lines of, say, a “Hangover: Part II”, but its humor remains just as dark and twisted. Jamie Foxx as the guys’ shady “murder consultant” is hysterical. One particular gag involving why his character ended up in jail pays off brilliantly.

The best comedy often taps into a darker, shadier side. “Horrible Bosses” accomplishes precisely that with a quick pace, sharp script, and eye for actors and letting them all play off one another. Explain to me why this feels like a far better follow-up to “The Hangover” than that film’s own sequel ever did? B+

(Note: I am reviewing the final “Harry Potter” installment as a combined adaptation of the last book. Meaning, this is a critique of “Deathly Hallows”‘ whole run-time, parts one & two.)

I walked into the 2001 children’s-fantasy-film “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” one way, and walked out another. Not just in the sense that I got my hands on everything Harry you can imagine — books, wands, Halloween costumes, “potion”-making kits, puzzles, et cetera. But also in the sense that it may have been the first film that truly showed me just how vast the potential of movies were; how completely one can be transported to a different world not just by way of special effects, but by an eclectic, memorable group of characters. The highest compliment I feel I can give it, is that it pulled off the miraculous feat of keeping me totally entertained for 152 minutes — as a five-year-old.

Years went by. The films progressively matured, though I argue that the artistic pinnacle of the series was Alfonso Cuaron’s eclectic third installment, “Prisoner of Azkaban”. A lot of my fondest elementary-school memories stem from “Potter” — like my sixth-birthday party revolving around “Chamber of Secrets”, my three consecutive trick-or-treat sessions as Harry (I’ve got the Polaroid to prove it), and the morning I got “Half-Blood Prince” and read it, cover-to-cover, in one day.

I only feel the need to share all this with you, because in order to tell the story of Harry Potter, it’s almost like I have to tell the story of me, and how much this particular franchise has meant to me over the course of my development, both as a film-buff and as a person.

And now that it’s all said and done, now that the thousands of pages are published and the thousands of minutes of film cut, we’re left with one of the greatest pop-culture phenomenons; one that raked in billions of dollars, yet never sacrificed artistic integrity or character development just for the sake of making money or pleasing the fans.

We’re left with an epic story with hundreds of different characters and subplots, each as memorable and fulfilling as the next.

But most simply, we’re left with a poignant, sweet coming-of-age story, where we watched three people mature over the course of a near-decade. The best moments in the series were often the subtler ones, the ones that dealt with the yearnings and heartbreak of teenage years  It just so happens that these three people are wizards whose responsibility it is to prevent the end of the world.

This final installment finds Harry pitted against his arch-nemesis, the evil lord Voldemort, at last. Some movies would have a set-up for this confrontation that lasts ten minutes. The set-up for this has lasted six movies. Expectations are high. Stakes are precarious. The pay-off is immense.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”, taken as a grand, 276-minute epic, is an absolute masterpiece. It’s underpinned with a profound sense of loss and suffering, given the absolute chaos that the wizarding world has fallen into. The dead seriousness long suggested in past “Potter”s is fully realized here, making for a film bleak, mature, even adult.

Despite this, “Deathly Hallows” at times adapts an almost nostalgic feel for characters and events past. I submit as evidence the last 5 minutes, a sequence that brings us exactly where, 10 years ago, the journey began.

Given the $300 million budget for the two-part film, production values hit an all-time high for the series. “Potter” has always been unique in the sense that it blends superbly both physical, tangible sets and computer-generated action. “Hallows” sports the most impressive variety and craftsmanship out of all the series.

Just as the production craftsmanship hits its peak, so does that of the actors in the film. The three principal actors – Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, all hit their absolute peak in “Hallows”. They certainly have the most heavy-lifting to do that they’ve ever had, both emotionally and with regards to stunt-work and action.

As always, the endless supporting actors gobble up their scenery – the series is essentially a who’s who of British thespians, all competing to bring their most eclectic, watchable characters to the screen. It’s always been a delight to watch, never more so than here.

All this talk is truly befitting to such an epic, expansive conclusion. But the feeling one gets from the series finale can be summed up into a single word: Satisfaction.

After all these years, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” ties together all the loose ends in a stirring, rousing, emotional conclusion. Never before has Hollywood, on such a large scale with eight movies and billions invested, struck such a great balance between spectacle and character. A