For all of the movies made about aliens, it’s surprising that their depiction falls into only two categories: Friendly (think “E.T.”) and hostile (think “Alien”). But I’m fairly certain the new Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedy “Paul” introduces a new type of alien to the table: Laid-back stoner.

Voiced by Seth Rogen, Paul is a likable, amicable guy who just happens to green, small, and not of this world. Ever since he crashed on our planet in the ’40s, the government’s been keeping him hostage in a desert-area base. What exactly they’ve been doing with him in that time is one of the film’s great surprises that I won’t spoil here.

But Paul escapes from said base, and comes across two British-comic-book-geek-types: The always-lovable Simon Pegg & Nick Frost, (who also wrote the script) as Graeme and Clive. The British duo are in America for the first time, and are on a road trip to soak up all of the sci-fi/alien-related tourist attractions they can. Funny, then, that they come across the real deal.

Paul hitches a ride with Graeme and Clive, asking that they drive up north to Wyoming’s Devils Tower so that his spaceship can pick him up again. What none of them quite expect, and where the movie picks up a really great energy, is that there’s a group of government agents in pursuit of the little creature they have in tow. The movie is essentially a prolonged chase scene, where a combination of government agents, angry hicks, and religious fundamentalists pursue Graeme, Clive and Paul across the country. This makes for a quick pace and for a series of very, very amusing set pieces. There’s a lot of nice little in-jokes and throwbacks to science-fiction and comic-book-lore, and one particular cameo (hint: his films are a very, very big inspiration to this movie) had me speechless with glee.

The problem with this is that sometimes the movie gets a little too caught up in its own chaos and stalls at developing interesting dynamics between the characters. They’re all likable and funny, for sure, but they don’t have much of an arc besides getting from Point A to Point B. This isn’t so much a fatal flaw as it is just a missed opportunity for something a little greater and a little more memorable.

“Paul”‘s greatest asset is its varied comedic cast. Sure, you have Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, whose fantastic chemistry have been well-documented in other movies, but the remainder of the cast actually often steals the show from them. Kristen Wiig brings a much-needed dose of sweetness as Graeme’s potential love interest, Bill Hader and Jason Bateman are amusing as the secret agents put on Paul’s trail, and Seth Rogen brings alot of personality to voicing Paul.

But Paul the character is alot like “Paul” the movie: Warm, charming, and more often than not, hilarious; but misses alot of its potential to be more than just an entertaining diversion. Where Simon Pegg and Nick Frost’s past scripts (and starring roles) “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” were high-energy, distinctive, almost-instant cult classics, “Paul” seems a little less ambitious and a little more content to tread ground that other movies have covered before. C+

Charismatic radical preacher Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) addresses his congregration in "Red State".

Kevin Smith has been through the full cycle of Hollywood – adoration, scorn, comeback, disappointment. And if he’s to be believed, is retiring soon, with one film left in him after this. He came into filmmaking with a dream and a $27,575 black-and-white comedy that he wrote, directed, edited and cameoed in, called “Clerks’. Mega-producer Harvey Weinstein picked it up at Sundance, and the rest is independent film history.

Flash-forward 17 years — he’s going out the way he came in, releasing his latest film, “Red State”, by himself, on his own terms, paying for his own advertising and prints. It’s as low-key and independent a production as they come, made for about $4 million. He’s raising money to pay for the prints, though, by embarking (or by the time this is published, having embarked) on a multi-state tour where he screens the movie, seven months before its October release, and does an accompanying Q&A. Only fools and die-hards would dare attend this. I am both, and so I was there with my $53 ticket in hand. (save this review, it’s not going to apply to your movie-going experience until this October)

Yes, I went, yes, I had a great time listening to Smith spout stories for three hours, but that’s not why I’m here. I’m here to discuss what is one of the most exciting, engaging movies in months.

A group of teenage boys set up a meeting with a girl through the Internet with intentions of hooking up, but when they get to the meeting point things don’t go quite as planned — they’re abducted and caged by the notorious local Five Points Trinity Church. The church is an unruly bunch of fundamentalists, who have no problem murdering a gay man or picketing a funeral. A sequence of shocking events begin to occur and as time goes on, local ATF officers become involved and it turns into a bloody shootout where the authorities themselves might have less-than-pure-intentions.

The main reason “Red State” feels so exciting isn’t just because of the story, although make no mistake there is more than enough to go around in that regard. No, because “Red State” is the work of a filmmaker who is reinventing and pushing himself, before our very eyes. Smith’s past works have never ventured beyond standard comedy fare; so seeing a bold statement against religious fundamentalism from him is surprising, to say the least.

But seeing as story-wise Smith is out of his comfort zone, it means he’s gotta adapt some new tricks, stylistically. “Red State” is shot in a grimy, shaky, low-res style that gets under your skin and into your nerves. Smith will be the first to tell you that he’s always been a lackluster director when it comes to the technical (editing, lighting, camerawork) stuff, but he uses all of those things so directly to his advantage here that it’s hard to believe it’s the same director as his past raunchy comedies. The film has a constant sense of dread, building towards the inevitable in a lot of ways. It gave me chills in ways I haven’t felt since, dare I say, 2007′s “No Country for Old Men”. The tension is that great.

In addition to atmosphere, he shows a prowess for something else I never would have expected: Action. The last 30 minutes of the film are essentially a prolonged shootout on the church complex, and it’s an expertly choreographed, engaging, but most importantly, exciting (take that, “Battle: Los Angeles”!) sequence.

The acting in this movie, though, is unbelievably good. The main performance, from character actor Michael Parks as the main pastor of the Five Points is one of the most chilling villains I’ve seen on-screen in years. His very first scene is a 15-minute monologue to his congregation members, and although overlong it establishes the nature and the intensity of the threat in a really memorable way. Recent Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Melissa Leo, makes the most out of her small part as Cooper’s daughter. But John Goodman, as an ATF agent assigned to attack the church’s complex, is the most fun to watch without a doubt. He’s one of those actors that’s almost always put in supporting roles (“Big Lebowski”), so to see him get his own prominent role is fantastic.

If there’s a fault with “Red State”, it’s that its reach often exceeds its grasp. Smith brought a lot of ambition to the table here, but on occasion his ideas fall flat. For example, some of his stabs at crude humor, although they are very funny, feel horribly out-of-place, considering the very grave, serious tone the film often adapts. Also, the message of the film is a bit muddled. He’s dealing with heated topics like extremism and (bizarrely enough) political corruption, and its clear he wants to communicate something, but it never quite resonates. But for a film as daring, as exciting, and as plain fun as “Red State” is, that’s a small price to pay. It releases October 17. I can’t guarantee you’ll like it, but I’d like you there. A-

One of the subtler moments in "Battle: Los Angeles".

I love film.

I love all that it means, and all that it can be. I love that what it exactly “it can be” varies, I love that no two works are the same. I love the feeling when the trailers finish and the lights go down, and I’m ready to absorb for the next two hours.

You know what I don’t love?

When a man is given the opportunity and the faith to create something great, and the end result is laziness. I’m not even taking into consideration that the work I’m currently referring to employed thousands of very talented individuals and cost over a hundred million dollars, and had some of the most promise out of any movie in the months to come.

I’m talking about the kind of laziness where there’s not a scene, a beat, a character, or, God forbid, an action set piece that hasn’t been directly lifted from other, better movies. I’m talking about the kind of laziness where they can’t even manage to make an alien invasion on one of the world’s great cities engaging or entertaining. Yes, friends, I speak of “Battle: Los Angeles”.

I’ve followed this movie’s path for about a year and a half, gradually getting more and more excited as time went on. By the time the trailers debuted, my excitement was through the roof. How could I not be? Tautly cut, with a suspenseful yet character-oriented feel to it, it looked as if it could bring genuine depth, maybe even greatness, to a road often-traveled, the alien invasion flick.

Instead, we get a rarity in Hollywood: A complete failure. Yes, Hollywood misses the mark often, perhaps even weekly, but those misfires have merit, or at the very least, entertainment value. Not this.

“Battle: Los Angeles” follows a group of marines as they, well, battle for Los Angeles. See,  alien spaceships have descended on the town, dropping lots of large creatures into the city to shoot and destroy everything in sight. Curiously enough, we never actually get a sense of what these buggers look like; they’re almost solely seen in wide shots. CNN reporters say they’re here for our water. Funny how networks are still broadcasting, although that’s the least of this movie’s problems.

You get the standard litter of Marine-movie-stock-characters: The guy who just wants to get home to his wife, the guy haunted by his past deeds as a soldier. Oh, and the Asian, the African, and the Latino. I’m being stereotypical, you say? One, I’m two of the above nationalities, and two, go watch any movie with Marines from the past three decades. The poorly developed main character (played by Aaron Eckhart, whose great talent is totally wasted here) aside, I don’t believe anyone gets more than six lines in. How am I supposed to be invested in this? I’m stuck with a group of characters whose faces I can’t see and whose locations I can’t determine, because the camerawork is too blurry to understand anything; shooting machine guns at dark figures that look vaguely unhuman; screaming words at each other that I can’t hear because everything around them is being pounded with explosions.

And if I didn’t make it really clear last paragraph, the action in this film is impossible to enjoy. As I said, the camerawork makes it difficult, but even still, it’s honestly little more than them running from place-to-place, shooting the occasional alien and giving me the occasional throbbing pain in my head.

Where films should offer dialogue, this movie offers commands, little more than mono-syllabic phrases. Run! Jump! Go! Sprint!

“Battle: Los Angeles” is a shocking wake-up call to big-budget, little-concept filmmaking; a soulless, repetitive romp in which characters shoot big creatures and sprint big distances but never once interest us. It’s films like this that make me worry for the art form I cherish the most.

I love film, but now that I’ve seen “Battle: Los Angeles”, I love it a little less. F

The humorous, content Tom (Jim Broadbent), with his depressive friend Mary (Lesley Manville)

Every now and then, a movie comes along and reminds you of what you’ve been missing for a while. Mike Leigh’s new drama “Another Year” did just that, in doing both the simplest and yet the hardest thing that a filmmaker can do: Create a world of vibrant, complex, relatable, but most importantly, interesting characters, and bringing us into their lives. Leigh does this with such delicate observation and gentle humor, as he’s done consistently in his career (with works such as “Vera Drake” and “Topsy-Turvy”.

“Another Year” is a portrait of an elderly couple’s lives. Remarkably happy and content, Tom and Gerri are often the host of gatherings of friends and colleagues. The film is divided into four chapters, one for each season of the year, but all in which a different person in their lives is the subject. Not one of them is the same, but they all have a common link: Unhappiness. It’s in the way Leigh depicts this unhappiness, and the way in which his characters go about trying to fix it that make “Another Year” such a warm, refreshing work.

Take Mary, for example. A close friend of Tom & Gerri, she’s a 50-something, hard-drinking woman who still hasn’t found a man to settle down with, and shows no signs of that changing anytime soon. Mary could have been handled as a pathetic, clingy, oblivious caricature. With just the right balance of Leigh’s writing and the actress tackling the part (the wonderful Lesley Manville), she’s brought to life as someone who, despite endless imperfections and unlikable qualities, is still worthy of our empathy and attention  The final shot on the film, focusing only on her face is one of the most heartbreaking, memorable shots I’ve seen in a movie in years.

The ensemble cast, really, are uniformly wonderful. Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen as the film’s principal subjects bring equal doses of charisma, humor, and a subtle yet sweet bond with one another. Another highlight is Peter Wight’s performance as Ken, a middle-aged man mired in self-doubt and hang-ups about his unhealthy eating habits. Like Manville, Wight is never a creature to be pitied, but a man to be understood. I can’t really stress how perfectly the players and the script merge, to create something that’s at once so refreshing and so familiar. There are few phrases more over-used than “breath of fresh air”. But that’s exactly what “Another Year” is. Never really sticking to one genre or one mood, it instead evokes several, creating a portrait of life that dizzies and, more often than not, awes. A

Liam Neeson and January Jones, playing an on-screen couple in one of "Unknown"s quieter moments.

Liam Neeson had an odd career resurgence two years back with the action thriller “Taken”. Long known for more serious, dramatic fare, ever since then he’s appeared in a steady stream of action fare – “The A-Team”, “Clash of the Titans”, “The Next Three Days”, none of which really made a good impression with me. So I was pleasantly surprised to see that his newest effort – the Jaume Collet-Sera-directed “Unknown” – is a well-done, engaging mystery-thriller.

In it, Neeson plays botanist Martin Harris. He and his wife Liz (played by “Mad Men”s January Jones) are in Berlin for a summit of some of the world’s great minds. Just as they arrive at their hotel, Martin realizes he left some baggage at the airport and takes a taxi to retrieve it. Unfortunately, his taxi drives off a bridge and he’s rendered in a coma for four days. When he wakes up and heads to his hotel, however, he’s met with another person there, named Martin Harris, and a wife who claims not to recognize him.

Martin must now claim his identity back, and uncover these people’s motivations for taking his place and robbing him of everything he’s ever had. To assist him, he hires a stout private detective (played by Bruno Ganz in one of the more amusing aspects of the film). He also seeks out the woman, Gina, whose cab the accident took place in, to try and prove his identity.

“Unknown” has a more intriguing premise than most – whereas most action movies operate on a man vs. man scenario, this one deals with identity, and in more ways than one messes with one’s head quite a bit. Neeson’s character’s constant uncertainty gives “Unknown” a certain paranoia that makes it more tense to watch than otherwise, it gives the film a really great sense of urgency and unrest. Flavio Labiano’s cinematography frames Berlin in an interesting, often atmospheric way.

Neeson is dependably solid here, but let’s not kid ourselves and think this is any great stretch for him as an actor. He needs to do very little here aside from speak urgently and run around, and Neeson does so with style and intensity. The side cast — January Jones, Diane Krueger, Frank Langella — are all strong supporting cast members. But it’s Bruno Ganz, the German actor most famous for his take as Hitler in 2004’s “Downfall”, who gives the movie an unexpected, yet welcome quirkiness. Ganz’s stout presence is a sight gag all its own, but his delivery of his lines, bordering on muttering, is perfect.

But alas, “Unknown” is at its core, a mystery-thriller, and so, like so many of its kind, constantly conjures plot twists that keep you interested at first, but dizzy later down the road. This is particularly evident in the final 20-minute-stretch of “Unknown”, where there’s a massive plot revelation that feels more random than it does important.

All that said though, in the barren cinematic landscape that is February, “Unknown” is an impressively made, competently acted thriller. It gets a little too ahead of itself, and bungles some revelations that should have hit harder, but it’ll keep you guessing and keep you content for two hours. B

I caught this film thanks to the Sundance Film Festival USA, a roadshow in which films from last week’s Sundance Film Festival tour the nation. They came to the Michigan Theater here in Ann Arbor, and director Miguel Artera was present for a Q&A.

The unlikely group of friends (left-to-right: Isiah Whitlock, John C. Reilly, Anne Heche, & Ed Helms) in "Cedar Rapids".

“The Hangover”, was in many ways, one of the influential films of the past 10 years. Aside from Hollywood’s since-countless misguided attempts to recapture the odd magic of that film, it’s made just about all involved a bona-fide movie star. Enter the new independent film, “Cedar Rapids”. It’s a vehicle for “Hangover” star Ed Helms, his first starring role. He plays mild-mannered insurance agent Tim Lippe, who’s never ventured outside his small Wisconsin hometown. So when he’s given a chance to leave town to go to a “big-city” insurance convention in the town where the film gleans its name, Tim jumps at it.

In Cedar Rapids (interestingly enough though, filmed here in Ann Arbor), Tim gets into various adventures, including befriending an eclectic group of fellow conventioneers (played by Anne Heche, Isiah Whitlock and the great John C. Reilly), exposing corruption within the powers that be at his insurance company, and sampling many an illicit substance.

The whole cast do their best, with solid results. Ed Helms himself in the title role doesn’t have much variation as a character, he’s stuck in a one-note naivete that I admit is often really charming. Isiah Whitlock (from the HBO series “The Wire”) is actually pretty hilarious here, mostly in the references where he’s…well, referencing the HBO series “The Wire”. But the real scene-stealer would have to be John C. Reilly, playing Dean Zeigler.

Zeigler is basically a variation of the lovable oaf Reilly’s perfected in his work with Will Ferrell (“Step Brothers”, “Talladega Nights”). He’s oblivious, obnoxious, and yet completely lovable at the same time. Whenever “Cedar Rapids” hits a flat note, Reilly steps in and single-handedly saves it each and every time. Anne Heche and Sigourney Weaver are decent in supporting roles as romantic associates of Tim, as well.

It’s not the cast that’s the problem, once again. It’s just the script that they have to deliver that often times falters. “Cedar Rapids” is a movie not without its charms, but it never really takes off either. It sort of stays in a dramatic slumber for the whole film, with most events never really feeling consequential or important. It’s essentially a series of very amusing skits, but without much pull to it. C+

I caught this film thanks to the Sundance Film Festival USA, a roadshow in which films from last week’s Sundance Film Festival tour the nation. They came to the Michigan Theater here in Ann Arbor, and I caught up with the producer, Mary Jane Skalski. “Win Win” is set to be released on March 18th.

Paul Giamatti has the best eyes in Hollywood.

Walking out of my screening of “Win Win”, this was the first thing that came to mind. Both in this film and in Giamatti’s body of work in general, through little expressions and glances of resignation, he somehow conveys emotions that hit hard and resonate deeply. That’s why he’s one of my favorite working actors, and that’s why “Win Win” was such a pleasure to watch. Because in this movie, Giamatti starts off as a man, Mike, who is doing what he loves (moonlighting as a wrestling coach), but somehow feels a certain dissatisfaction. This movie is about him coming into his own and finding purpose.

It’s odd, how this happens. See, a troubled 16-year old, Kyle, lands on his doorstep with nowhere else to go. Mike and his family take him in, but are surprised to find that Kyle is a fantastic wrestler. Mike puts him on the team. What follows is a somewhat standard sports drama…think “Blind Side” without the mildly racist undertones.

Although, as I described earlier, Giamatti is no doubt the leading man in the cast, it’s a much more ensemble-based effort than I would have imagined. Amy Ryan give solid support as Giamatti’s wife, but it’s Jeffrey Tambor and Bobby Carnavale as Giamatti’s fellow wrestling-coaches that walk away with any scene they’re in. They provide much of the film’s humor, playing quirky yet still realistic, likable characters.

If there was a trip-up in casting, it was teenager Alex Schaffer. Schaffer plays Kyle, which is without a doubt one of the key roles in the film. I’ve heard that the crew were looking to cast a wrestler that could act, rather than an actor that could wrestle, and it definitely shows at points. Schaffer communicates feelings of angst and frustration effectively enough and is a likable kid, but it’s in the more emotional moments where Schaffer falters quite a bit.

Director Tom McCarthy’s script (oddly enough, written with his high-school wrestling partner Joe Tiboni) comes to life beautifully here. You don’t quite realize how well-done it is until you find yourself cheering, laughing or brooding within a 10-minute span, all done effortlessly. It’s a testament to how close you become with these people in the film.

“Win Win” is a movie with very modest ambitions. It aims not to provoke deep thought. Rather, all it really wants to do is stir your soul, and leave you feeling a bit more happy than before you stepped in. And thanks to the warm, interesting characters and good humor, it does exactly that. B+

Ewan McGregor & Jim Carrey in one of the quieter moments of "I Love You Phillip Morris".

“I Love You Phillip Morris” cheats you. Often. There will often times be a build-up emotionally, only for the movie to show you that it just screwed you over with a smile on it’s face. It takes after its main character that way; the con-man Steven Russell (played by Jim Carrey). Russell lives a flamboyantly gay lifestyle, pulling off numerous frauds and con-jobs to cover his endless spending. These eventually land him in jail, where he meets a man by the name of Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor). It’s pretty much love at first sight for these two, and the movie covers the span of about 15 years as Steven & Phillip struggle to stay together (seeing as Russell keeps landing back in jail for his illegal activities to support them as a couple).

Dark as this may seem, the oddest thing about “I Love You Phillip Morris” is how it can deliver a scene that both breaks your heart and makes you laugh out loud. We laugh because, at face value, it’s traditional Jim Carrey-shtick, but we feel sadness because he’s doing all this to pursue a love that he refuses to accept just cannot work out.

It’s the weird balance between the hilarious and the heartbreaking where “Phillip Morris” gains its personality and in my opinion, its greatness. All of this is held up by Jim Carrey, in a (predictably) high-energy yet mature, fleshed-out performance. For every little joke or stunt his character Russell will pull, there will be a moment where you can’t help but pity this often really clueless character. He does a hard job, in making us sympathize with and understand a criminal. It’s great work, what he does here.

Ewan McGregor has some fantastic moments as the title character, Phillip Morris. But what I didn’t expect? That Carrey and McGregor, two straight male actors, honestly have a fantastic on-screen chemistry together, which is important considering the entire movie is about the dynamic between these two actors. I’d go so far as to say they click together better than most heterosexual couples I’ve seen on-screen in a while.

The writing here is also definitely worth noting. “Bad Santa” writers Glenn Ficarro and John Requa are the writer-directors here, and just like that past effort they write great, snappy dialogue. It grants all the characters really funny things to say, but grounds it in reality so that the laughs don’t come at the expense of our respect for these people.

If there’s a fault with “Phillip Morris”, it’s laid out in the first sentence of this review: The movie constantly one-ups us with new knowledge or developments. This is often times charming and entertaining, but sometimes comes off a bit too strong in moments where restraint would have worked best.

But overall, how can I complain? “Phillip Morris” is a great little slice of entertainment that juggles elements of comedy, crime and romance in a breezy, fun and occasionally heartbreaking way. I’ll just say this movie made me smile, and leave it at that. You take it from here. A-

First-time director Derek Cienfrance has been trying to get “Blue Valentine” made for the last 12 years. Watching the end product, I can see why. Because I’m going to be totally honest with you: The movie destroyed me. It took any trace of positive energy or mood that I had, and smashed it to little pieces. But then, reflecting on it, I was awed. Awed at what a balancing act the very nature of the film is, awed at the amazing work from the two leads, Ryan Gosling & Michelle Williams.

“Blue Valentine” has been, oddly enough for a film of its low budget, highly publicized, thanks to the MPAA’s now-revoked NC-17 rating (on account of one particularly graphic love scene). Although I am outraged and offended at their childish, stupid decision, I feel it works out eventually to the film’s benefit. After all, the controversy will probably lure more people to the film than wouldn’t otherwise bother.

“Blue Valentine”s focus is the rapidly collapsing marriage of Dean and Cindy: Dean an intelligent underachiever and Cindy a more stubborn realist. The movie intercuts between their past moments of courtship and joy, with their bitter, resentful present-day lives. This is really effective in many ways. It allows us to build an emotional foundation and understand these characters. It allows us to appreciate the extent to which their relationship falls apart, and feel for them when it does.

Gosling & Williams are just brilliant here. They both flesh out these characters in incredibly compelling yet realistic ways. They make Dean and Cindy characters that are both relatable and interesting on their own. This, of course, makes their clashing all the more painful to watch.

I’m too young to experience love, or even to truly appreciate it for what it is. I know that. But walking out of “Blue Valentine”, tears in my eyes, I felt as if I maybe knew a little more about it, as if I could feel a little deeper. And if that doesn’t speak as to a film’s greatness, what does? A