A theory I’ve developed when it comes to romantic comedies: The plot is almost exactly the same every time, despite varying in scenario, concept, etc. What determines a good one from a bad one is how much the characters develop over the film and frankly, how witty and funny it is.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is yet another high-concept romantic comedy, but it borrows that high-concept from A Christmas Carol. (Sorry there Mr. Dickens) And the romance in the film feels conceited and tacked on. And the comedy? Non-existent. Beyond that two-second shot of the bride running to her destroyed wedding cake, screaming, “NO!!” The film begs us to symphatize with a self-centered jerk, and at the end that jerk is replaced in two seconds with a goody-two-shoes charmer.

Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey, smooth and sly as ever) is a fashion photographer that gains and breaks up with girlfriends by the minute. (This is emphasized when in the beginning, he breaks up with three girls at the same time via conference call) He is cynical, selfish, and proclaims to ‘not believe in love’.

When he is invited to his brothers wedding for a weekend, he encounters his childhood girlfriend Jenny (Jennifer Garner). After making a fool of himself at dinner, he is visited by the ghost of his old Uncle Wayne (a deliciously loathable Michael Douglas), who has taught him his irresponsible ways. He will be visited by three ghosts to represent all his past, present, and future girlfriends. They will take him through his own romantic past, to help him get back his one love – Jenny.

Matthew McConaughey, in his seemingly nineteenth consecutive romantic comedy role, plays a complete, utter jerk. We are forced to stick with this jerk for 90 minutes, while he literally experiences his past over again. But suddenly he opts to be good for his crush, Jenny. As Jenny, Jennifer Garner has 15 minutes during which she looks…bored. Michael Douglas chews up the scenery as his Uncle Wayne, who despite being a ghost is probably the most developed character in the film.

We all know the ending, unless this is your first chick flick. The performances are (mostly) bland, its unfunny, without much in the way of romance, or humor, which tends to mostly be the saving point of chick flicks. Pointless garbage. D

‘Terminator Salvation’ is a giant departure from the other three films. The original three were mostly chase films, although the first was mostly horror and the others were mainly action chase films. This fourth film sports an all-new cast, all-new director, and all-new tone and plot. It’s completely about the war between the evil computer-controlled machines and humans, instead of focusing on humans trying to evade just one cyborg. Naturally, this makes for a film with a much wider scale, and it juggles about 8 characters. Some are very well-developed, and interesting. Others are there simply to advance the plot.

The first three films about the effort to keep John Connor alive. Several machines from an all-ruling computer company Cyberdyne, or ‘Terminators’, were sent back in time to assassinate him, as his leadership will win the future war of men vs. machines. Eventually Cyberdyne triggered a missile launch that annihilated most of the world. The surviving humans were either put into camps by the machines or escaped and formed a resistance against them.

The year is 2018. John Connor is a high-ranking soldier within the Resistance, and stumbles upon a new plan for a much deadlier Terminator. Meanwhile, a man named Marcus Wright breaks out of a Cyberdyne holding facility. His last memory is from 2003, of being on death row. When the two unite, they hatch a plan to potentially destroy Cyberdyne. But Kyle Reese, a young teenager who via time travel will eventually became Connor’s father, is being targeted by thousands of machines. Can Connor rescue Reese, defeat Cyberdyne and remain alive?

The film has gained a bit of notoriety because of the star Christian Bale’s infamous meltdown on the set (reportedly 34 F-bombs in a 3-minute clip). However the performances are all very good. Bale brings a gruff demeanor yet still maintains a deep vulnerability as John Connor. A problem is his personality changes throughout the series. In Terminator 2 John was a 10-year old punk and petty thief, in the third he was a 20-something scared pansy, and now he’s a gruff, tough soldier. Rapper Common has a brief role, and he’s decent. Ron Howard’s daughter, Bryce Dallas (of Spider-Man 3) has a role as John’s wife, Kate. A major problem is that she had such a major, vital role in the third and here she is reduced to about 5 minutes. You learn nothing about her, and I wouldn’t even know who she was had I not seen the third.

There are two very memorable roles in the film: Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright. He’s a mysterious traveler with a very big secret, and for most of the film we don’t know whether to trust him or not. Worthington steals every scene he’s in, it’s a very intense, demanding character and he pulls it off. The other memorable performance: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Despite not filming a single scene himself, digital effects use his likeness from 1984 to project his original character, the T-800. (for those unfamiliar, a killing machine disguised as a human) I won’t reveal how he’s used, but hardcore fans will be very pleased.

The film is chock-full of references to the original trilogy. Since it’s a departure in theme and plot, ‘Salvation’ sports pretty much non-stop explosions and chases. Many pop up randomly for no reason, others truly serve the plot. A personal favorite of mine being a scene where Marcus and Kyle evade a giant hovercraft, air tanker, and 70-foot tall killing robot. A common attribute being that they are mind-blowing in execution. Another great part is the cinematography. It tends to jump from shaky camera-work to stunning long-shots of incredible action, but its all great.

The weakness, like so many action films, lies the dialogue and plotting. Many lines my friend and I accurately predicted to ourselves about 5 seconds before they were uttered. Other lines we repeated to ourselves for the rest of the day, each one to roaring laughter. Many plot holes ensue, such as: John Connor rigs a couple fuel cells used by Terminators to explode, stating that it will detonate a building. However when fighting a Terminator up close (fuel cells intact) Connor has no problem blowing it up 10 feet away with a rocket launcher.

My general liking of ‘Terminator Salvation’ is because of the great performances, incredible action, and the fact that I’ve worshipped the first two for 5 years. However, the awful dialogue and under-developed characters seriously slows it down. Great entertainment. B

Imagine a ‘Star Trek’ that isn’t convoulted beyond belief, that you don’t need a Trek fan-to-English dictionary to understand. Where half-hour conversations about morals don’t make up the majority of the running-time. Where you actually, truly understand what the heck is going on, without worrying about Klingons or Romulans or Vulcans or whatever. Simple, pure fun, that could also please the devoted Star Trek fans, or ‘Trekkies’, or ‘Trekkers’ (of which there are many). That could please even those who viciously oppose that it stands for (of which there are many). Ladies, gentlemen, germs, teenage boys, enter ‘Star Trek’.

The film is set in a separate universe from all of the original films. It starts around 2400 or something in space, with a starship suddenly being destroyed by another, much bigger one, that is populated by a race called Romulans. They apparently have an agenda for revenge, although the leader of the ship, Nero, is tight-lipped on what for. During the ship’s evacuation a baby is born, named James Kirk. Flash forward 20 years, on Earth. Kirk is an intelligent albeit reckless rebel, driving cars off cliffs for kicks. He is recruited to join to Starfleet Academy, to take up the legacy of his father and work on starships.

Meanwhile on a separate planet, Spock is a young who feels shame because despite being raised to ignore emotions and concentrate on logic (its the Vulcan way), his half-human heritage burdens him in this process. Kirk befriends Uhura and a medic named Leonard McCoy upon joining the Starfleet Academy. He is suspended after cheating on a test, but boards the new, giant USS Enterprise anyway. Despite ethical conflict with Captain Spock, they must bond together to defeat Nero.

It’s rather hard to fully explain the plot without giving too much away. The plot sounds fairly simple but it’s much more complex, involving power drills, nuclear weapons, time travel, etc. However, the film decently paces itself so that all these revelations aren’t overwhelming. In addition, it unleashes several major action sequences. Ditto the very end where the two giant starships face off, or a scene where three people parachute from the starship onto a drill thats suspended 5,000 feet into the air. It also pokes fun but respects the original films, retaining the original characters and their quirks, to the original ships, to even the original sound effects.

The acting is top-notch all around. Simon Pegg is very funny as the ship engineer Scotty, and Karl Urban is good as medic Leonard McCoy. Chris Pine has a certain bravura as James Kirk that demonstrates charm and wit. But there are two performances that put this film above and beyond: Zachary Quinto as a young Spock. He speaks almost mechanically, but effectively demonstrates the inner emotional turmoil that Spock feels. His scenes with Kirk are the best in the film, with an undertone of logic versus instinct. The very best performance in the film is also Spock – but the much older Spock played by the original, Leonard Nimoy. I won’t reveal how he figures into the plot and how he is alongside a young version of him, but it’s a tender, mostly somber, occasionally funny performance. The visual effects are stunning, as are the sound effects. The moments where there’s just silence in space are even more effective than the big flashy action.

I could perhaps liken ‘Star Trek’ and its predecessors to ‘Batman Begins’ and its predecessors: A shot of adrenaline and a heart transplant to a dying franchise. A corny analogy, but relevant nonetheless: ‘Star Trek’ removes what made the recent Star Trek’s so hard to comprehend. It adds more action. It presents engaging, interesting versions of the characters. Every single actor in ‘Star Trek’ likely faces stardom now. Here’s hoping this new version of the series lives long and prospers. A

Russell Crowe plays a journalist investigating the death of a woman linked to a Congressman in State of Play. It stands out from most standard political thrillers mainly because of the fantastic ensemble and taut script, although the ending is sort of a cop-out. It makes countless twists and turns and when you think the story’s all wrapped up and done with, it drops another plot line on you. It’s as smart as a thriller can get. Thankfully the twists never get too outlandish, which has been something of a problem with movies recently.

One night two men are murdered under a bridge. The next day, a woman is killed in an apparent accident at a train station. The woman was a chief advisor for an ambitious Congressman named Stephen Collins (Affleck), and was also secretly his mistress. Collins is clearly shaken. His journalist friend Cal McAffrey (Crowe) notes a connection: Collins is currently holding hearings against PointCorp, a corporation which could potentially seize all emails, all phone taps, and even the national defense infrastructure. McAffrey teams up with blogger Della Frye (McAdams) to try to follow the connections, but they stumble upon an even broader and more violent conspiracy than they thought.

Given Russell Crowe’s track record, I was expected a decent movie. But what I got was the most engrossing film so far this year. It unravels a plot twist every 15 minutes, but never feels gimmicky or contrived. It continuously maintains a coherent plot and doesn’t pull a giant, will-destroying twist in the last half-hour. (I’m lookin’ ya dead in the eye, Eagle Eye) Russell Crowe has never really played a hippie-type role before, and it’s interesting to see. He pulls it off well. It seems with his films whatever type of character he plays is expressed in his hairdo. Helen Mirren, in her first actual performance since her Oscar-winning ‘The Queen’, has 10 minutes and 20 lines as the narcissistic newspaper editor and they’re all golden. Ben Affleck is really good as a secretive Congressman. He’s rather somber the whole film, and although some lines are delivered weakly its a strong performance.

The ending is a bit disappointing. I only say that not because it’s bad from a narrative perspective, but that I was so immersed in the plot and so tense by the end that when it ended it somewhat jolts you. In side roles, the normally lovable Jason Bateman is a very convincing hot-shot jerk and Jeff Daniels as a potentially corrupt State Representative is great. He is always very good in these roles as politicians or cops or TV executives, although I wish he’d do another comedy in the vein of ‘Dumb & Dumber’.

In short, ‘State of Play’ is a great surprise. It has an incredibly tense third act, the performances are all great (Jason Bateman & Helen Mirren are notable) and there are twists and turns everywhere. Now why can’t more movies do this? A-

‘X-Men’ has always an entertaining, if inconsistent series. By inconsistent I mean keeping action and backstory balanced in the first two and mindless, relentless, well-orchestrated action running rampant in the third. The newest one, ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’, opts to show the backstory and, well, origins of the primary character, Wolverine. Essentially, it’s all there in the title.

The film starts in the Northwest Territories of Canada in 1842 (although the Northwest Territories weren’t claimed in 1842) with a young boy named James confronting an intruder in a cabin. When he intends to punch him in the stomach three spikes randomly pop out of his knuckles and stab the man, killing him. When the man reveals he is his father, James and his similarly-mutated brother Victor go on the run.

Since oddly they stop aging at around 40, James and Victor fight side by side in the Civil War, in both World Wars, and Vietnam. In Vietnam they are recruited by a General Stryker to join a special team of “mutants” (people with extraordinary powers). When James refuses to kill civilians, he resigns. Six years later, James (henceforth called Logan), is living in Canada with his girlfriend. When she is murdered by his brother, alongside other mutants, Logan (henceforth called Wolverine) swears revenge.

Judging from the trailers and TV commercials alone, I thought to myself, “How can they cram so many characters into one little movie?” Well, that’s the thing. One of the problems with Wolverine, and with the whole X-Men series in general, is that it juggles waaayyy too many characters into less than two hours, unsuccessfully so.

The action and special effects are obviously the main draw, and they deliver. They seem a bit forced and artificial at times, but the special effects are much better than the somewhat cartoonish ones of the last film. Particular highlights are the opening credits and the final sequence atop a nuclear plant.

The film wears the influence of The Dark Knight on its sleeve. Naturally, it’s very dark and gritty, and pushes PG-13 a little bit. Beware scenes where Hugh Jackman is injected with several syringes simeltaenously and one half-a-second but still present full-frontal shot of Hugh Jackman.

Oddly, the performances are the strongest part of the film. Hugh Jackman worked out relentlessly for this film, and it shows several times. He rivals Mike Tyson and dare I say, 50 Cent for the title of Biggest. Biceps. Ever. It helps that he’s a fantastic actor as well, he convincingly portrays an enraged, bottled-up man and were his performance not great, the film would fall flat. However, Liev Schrieber steals the show as Logan’s mutant brother, Victor/Sabertooth. He’s clearly having a blast, and he’s probably the most flat-out evil X-Men villain yet.

In very short terms (I have a bedtime, you see). Hugh Jackman = Great. Liev Schrieber = Fantastic. Action = Great, if arbitrary. Result = A good start for summer popcorn flicks. B+

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-