Finally got out to see a new flick for the first time in a LONG time. The movie of choice this weekend was the premier of Zombieland starring Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg. Staying with the theme of Zombieland, I’m going to write this review in the form of Columbus’s rules. If you haven’t seen the flick yet, then this should help you decide whether or not you should.

Zombieland Rule # 8 – DON’T EXPECT A HORROR FLICK

Zombieland is a hilarious half parody of a lot of zombie flicks from over the years. It’s not anything like you’re typical zombie storyline where they explain the origin of the disease and a rag tag group of heroes saves the world. This flick is really about how people grow up and become something more in an independent society.

Zombieland Rule # 7 – APPRECIATE THE EFFECTS

Unlike a lot of huge big budget disaster flicks that blow their entire loads on explosions and gore scenes, Zombieland gets it all done on the cheap; and you can tell. Directed by Reuben Fleischer and written by the team of Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick it is quite obvious that Zombieland was not made to win any awards for special effects. What it does do is bring a lot of the old school style back into the fold. Blood is drippy, slimy grossness to the point where it is more comedy than gore. Heads explode, bones break and zombies literally splat, but if anything the situations will make you laugh.

Zombieland Rule # 6 – SMALL CASTS RULE

Without a huge ensemble cast of characters to have worry about, Zombieland brings you right into the story from the very beginning and keeps you in the world of 4 central characters throughout. Woody Harrelson plays Tallahassee, Jesse Eisenberg plays Columbus, Emma Stone plays Wichita and Abigail Breslin plays Little Rock. If you’re confused about the names, then you’re going to have to check out the flick. With one small but AWESOME cameo by a legendary comedian, this cast is more or less complete. Having a small cast like this was great for the viewer because it centralizes the story around nothing more than what you should be paying attention to.Woody did a great job as the roudy zombie hunter with an emotional past. Emma Stone plays the clever older sister and mother figure to the younger Abigail Breslin and Jesse Eisenberg again does his best Micheal Cera impression and goes awkward. When you string them all together, it works out wonderfully.

Zombieland Rule #5 – DON’T BE OFFENDED IF THINGS GO DISNEY

For all of the blood and gore and comedy strung throughout Zombieland, the heart of the story is really in the development of a family. With four homeless, family-less characters banding together after a few road blocks, this flick’s resolution is less about killing zombies and more about developing relationships. But this is not a a bad thing. Over and over again we see zombie flicks use the relationships of humans as a secondary storyline, but with Zombieland the development of a family environment is the central plot and also a breath of fresh air.

Zombieland Rule #4 – HOLD YOUR PEE TILL THE END

Okay maybe that was a bit gross, but with a run time of only 80 minutes, Zombieland is the perfect flick to see with a big group of friends. It’s long enough to develop a good story, but short enough that you won’t be squirming around in your seat waiting for the credits.

Zombieland Rule #3 – CHECK OUT THE TITLES

Zombieland is narrated by Columbus in a way that viewers can appreciate. This isn’t your regular “So there I was…” narration and Jesse Eisenberg pulls off the tone perfectly. The story is narrated through a series of Zombieland Rules and with them comes some amazing title work throughout the film. In a similar fashion to the television show Fringe, Zombieland uses animated titles within the frame of the shot. They work really well in terms of telling the story and showing a refreshing image on screen.

Zombieland Rule #2 – STOCK UP ON HOSTESS PRODUCTS BEFORE

When you walk out of Zombieland you’re probably going to want to munch on some kind of Hostess snack product. I have a feeling some funding may have come from the creators of the Twinkie because product placement is used quite well in this flick. Some advice would be to prepare your snacking habits before you go into the flick so you can munch away when the credits roll.

Zombieland Rule #1 – ENJOY ZOMBIELAND IN ANY STATE OF MIND

Very rarely does a flick come around that is equally as funny while in a bunch of different states of mind. Zombieland is one of these flicks where it can be enjoyed on multiple maturity levels for multiple reasons. Combining this with all of the other points made above and I’m going to give Zombieland a solid 8 out of 10 on the Bloated Penguin scale. The only slight thing holding this back from a nine is the outcome of the surprise cameo. When you watch Zombieland you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

I probably dont’t have to repeat this, but I’m a HUGE QT fan. I feel as though Tarantino’s flicks are creating a solid mold for creative storytelling in movie form for years to come. True Romance is one of my favorite stories of all time, Reservoir Dogs was brilliant, Pulp Fiction speaks for itself and the Kill Bill Saga seemed to be setting the stage for the second coming of QT. The only problem was that once Kill Bill fell out of the picture, I think Quentin went a little too genre with his flick Death Proof. Don’t get me wrong, it was still a pretty great watch, but it was significantly less influential than most of his previous work. Fast forward to this year’s Inglourious Basterds, and I’m sorry to say that Tarantino is still in a bit of a rut. Keep in mind that because flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs were so good, I expect amazing things every time I watch a QT movie, but Inglourious Basterds didn’t live up to the hype. It was still one of the better films I’ve seen this summer, but I expected something more from QT.

The story was very Tarantino. Based mostly in revenge and character development leading up to a bloody climactic mess, QT never disappoints. He writes with a goal in mind all of the time and sometimes audiences have to wait until the very last scene to see everything tie together. Inglourious Basterds was no different in that the story moved in a lot of different directions at the same time, only to meet in the end for a satisfying resolution. Written in classic Tarantino fashion (a variety of shorts assembled based on telling the entire arc), Inglourious Basterds tells the fictional tale of a group of Jewish soldiers who terrorize the Nazis, a vengeful theater owner and one of the baddest muthafuckas QT has ever written in Colonel Landa. QT bases his stories mostly around the development of his characters and always makes a point of explaining their motivations through a series of conversations of who they are as people, not just plot devices. Normally this is the strength of a QT flick, but for some strange reason, this was the major downfall for Inglourious Basterds. It could be because my generation is so used to QT explaining things through pop-culture like TV, movies and music, but I really felt the story slowed down during these typical Tarantino conversations because I couldn’t relate to the material as much as I’m used to. The dialogue was still tight and moved quite quickly, but the details that usually make these conversations memorable really weren’t there for me. One of the reasons why a lot of the dialogue might have gone over my head is because a lot of it was in a different language. I don’t have a problem with reading subtitles but I never expected to have to read through the brilliant Tarantino dialogue on the bottom of the screen while it was being spoken in German, French and Italian.

The cast of Inglourious Basterds is really what stands out. With strong actors like Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger you knew the performances would be great – and they were. The only strange thing was that all of the aforementioned actors were completely outdone by Christopher Waltz as he played the villain Col. Landa. Waltz isn’t a household name, but after breaking out in this flick, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start hearing this name for a long time now. His deadpan reaction to his surroundings were amazing, but nothing compared with the brilliant way Waltz was able to play evil with a smirk. By the end of the flick you wanted the most terrible things to happen to him and in my mind, makes his performance spot on. Pitt and crew delivered as usual, but it really was Waltz that stole the show for me.

The typical Tarantino style of shooting a flick is difficult to hammer down to a few points. One of his strengths really is his versatility in shooting two person conversations, then completely switching to a well choreographed action sequence. Inglourious Basterds is a good example of his versatility in that he uses a combination of rolling establishing shots, close-ups and long cuts for characters on the move. No complaints here as I think I’ve become accustomed to how QT shows us everything we should know as an audience.

Inglourious Basterds is a good flick – it’s just not a great Quentin Tarantino flick. I applaud him for trying to do something a little bit different than we’re used to in doing a multilingual fictional period piece, but I think in doing so, he really hurts the pacing of his own film. This flick has some great moments and as always some memorable characters, but you do have to wait for them and wait quite a while sometimes. I’m going to have to give Inglourioius Basterds a 7 out of 10 on the flightless bird scale. This could have been the fact that I was expecting something a little bit different, but I really believe Tarantino has more in him than what he shows on screen. I recommend checking it out in a few weeks time when all of the hype has calmed down.

…..

uh…..

Okay, I’ll be nice to start off. The prospect of watching a couple of speechless ninjas battle it out for a couple of hours sounded like a cool idea, but when it is whittled down to about 3 minutes of ninja battle and 2+ hours of Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans talking pointless smack while shooting at, well everything, I draw the line. I’m speaking of course of GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra. I’ll keep this short so you don’t waste your time. Bad. Really Bad. I’m seriously giving this flick a 2 out of 10 on the Bloated Penguin scale. I would have given it a zero but Sienna Miller can bring up a rating by breathing near the footage so Stephen Sommers can thank her specifically.

First up, this isn’t a movie, GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra is a 2 hour commercial. There is no continuity, terrible acting, bad decisions and no story. Basically all of the things that make A movie (not just a good movie but A movie) GI Joe lacks. From the opening scene through the credit roll, I seriously felt as though I was getting stupider. The biggest problem (biggest out of a list of many) is that GI Joe gives the audience zero credit for their intelligence. From the first day of school we all learn to respect the audience, but obviously Sommers ditched out that day. Here’s an example:

Joe 1 say: “I remember you from my past”

Joe 2 says: “I remember you from my past as well, it was the bunker wasn’t it?”

Joe 1 says: “Yes the bunker, it was the bunker in which I remember some inciting incident that involves you”

FLASHBACK to the bunker scene that was just explained

FLASH FORWARD to the conversation again

Joe 2 says: “I’m glad we just remembered that because I have a feeling it will better explain what I’m about to say next”

GI Joe leaves nothing to the imagination nor does it entertain on even the lowest levels. Please, if you absolutely have to see this flick, have the lowest expectations possible or you may suffer from brain damage.

Neill Blomkamp’s original sci-fi adventure hit theaters officially yesterday and I was lucky enough to grab a seat and experience one of the most surprising films of the year. Surprising only because District 9 never came with a billion dollar marketing budget and surprising because before a few weeks ago, nobody really knew what to expect. If you don’t already know how District 9 came to be then you’ll probably want to skip this next section of the review. Neill Blomkamp is a Peter Jackson protege. The young filmmaker and Jackson had originally teamed up to pitch a feature length Halo film that probably would have been in theaters today had it not been for Blomkamp and Jackson’s idea being shot down a few years ago. They apparently pitched the Halo movie to have a similar grainy, realistic feel as District 9 eventually had, but to no avail and they were sent packing. But instead of dropping back and waiting for a new idea to come, Jackson endorsed Blomkamp to finish what he started. Thus, the creation of District 9 and with the exception of this year’s Moon, the only true sci-fi movie to come out of 2009 so far. Sure you could consider flicks like Star Trek sci-fi, but they are usually chalk full of ways to convert regular movie fans into hardcore sci-fi nerds. District 9 is an original story with a mostly original concept that was made for the geek in all of us.

Blomkamp and writer Terri Tatchell assembled the original script and after watching how he married the story together with actual footage of South Africa, unique footage he shot while on location and some seamless visual effects, District 9 can be put in a category of its own when describing exactly what it is. I’m tempted not to compare it with anything at the moment as I would hate to discredit the originality and the style. The story begins in true sci-fi nature where a brief, yet extremely effective summary of the world is explained through a series of interviews. Simply put, an alien ship was found hovering over South Africa and after much debate, humans decided to investigate. They found an entire race of beings starving, dying and without leadership so they “rescued” them and brought them down to the planet. Years pass and a giant weapons corporation called MNU decides to evict the aliens from their slums and put them into internment camps in hopes of learning how to master the alien technology. This is where the beginning of the film picks up as the audience follows the rise and fall and rise again of MNU employee Wikus Van De Merwe. Wikus is promoted to lead a team of humans into District 9 in hopes of getting signatures for legal eviction notices.

The pace of District 9 is a lesson in how a sci-fi flick should be written. Blomkamp explains the back story, then explains his character, then immediately gets into the story. Wikus, played brilliantly by Sharlto Copley, goes on a tragic journey where he is exposed to new alien technology, befriends an alien named Christopher and eventually helps the alien race in a small but meaningful way. By the end of the flick you don’t feel any better about the state of the human race, but you do see hope in the individuals – a true sci-fi concept that Blomkamp understands extremely well.

The animation in District 9 is also a great point to touch on. When I say “seamless,” I don’t mean “awesome looking robots that battle each other,” I actually mean that the audience will have a difficult time figuring out what was shot and what was animated. Using Vancouver-based visual effects studio Image Engine, Blomkamp and a team of artists created a unique look that not only separates District 9 from a lot of other sci-fi flicks, but will probably spark a wave of similar concepts. Think Blair Witch meets the original Robocop and you might be able to imagine the style.

District 9 is one of those movies that will probably be shown in film classes around the world for years to come. It is difficult to find a flaw other than the subjective opinion of using a shaky-cam for a lot of the time. Blomkamp has created something amazing and I hope to see a lot more from him in the future. Peter Jackson isn’t a fool when it comes to spotting talent as I would expect Blomkamp to stick around for a long time. I am going to have to give District 9 a 9 out of 10 on the flightless bird scale but only because of the amount of cringe worthy scenes. These scenes are important, but I’ve got a weak stomach when it comes to footage of surgery and self mutilation. Seriously, if you’re going to check out one sci-fi movie this year, make sure its District 9. You won’t be disappointed.

I’m a huge Judd Apatow fan. I’ve been following his career since Freaks and Geeks so when he hit the big time with 40 Year Old Virgin I made a point to follow the rest of his progression into Hollywood stardom. Well, Judd’s latest flick Funny People hit theaters this weekend and did not disappoint. If you haven’t read a synopsis of the film, I’ll try and break it down quickly so I don’t waste too much of your time before the review. Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, a Hollywood comedian who gets diagnosed with a fatal and rare blood disease. Upon hearing the news, George hires a new assistant Ira (played by Seth Rogen) to help him write jokes – but behind the funnyman is a lonely and depressed individual. Half way through the flick it turns out that George’s disease simply vanishes and the remainder follows George’s new look on life.

So now that we’re all on the same page here I’ll get right into it. First of all, Funny People isn’t a “comedy.” Sure the cast could rival SNL, but the the story isn’t really about the comedy – its about the comedians. It’s widely understood that comedians do what they do because they are some how damaged inside and Funny People explores this to its deepest crevices. Judd Apatow knows how to play to this type of story where he’ll take a serious, sometimes depressing concept like death and loneliness and insert the funny. But it never comes off simply as someone dropping a penis joke whenever things get serious. Apatow’s story combined with Rogen and Sandler’s timing make this film what it is.

In retrospect the story is one of the most depressing I’ve experienced this year. Focused on the lonely life of a Hollywood star, it really takes the audience through the real life situations. Examples would be George having to take photos with fans right after learning of his disease, the fact that George has difficulty sleeping without people talking around him and how his emotions can veer to one side at any time. For all of the adult conversations and adult situations, George Simmons is nothing more than a child at heart. But the sadness doesn’t really stop at the loneliness, especially when Laura comes into the picture. I won’t spoil it too much of this for readers, but Funny People takes audiences on a ride from buddy comedy, to depressing introverted living, to family drama and back again.

The cast is absolutely wonderful. I think Apatow actually waited until he gained enough clout in Hollywood before he pitched this project because it really does contain one of the strongest casts this year. It might not have any Oscar winners, but the people know the characters they play. From a dramatic standpoint, this is Adam Sandler’s best role – hands down. Although he basically plays a version of himself, his portrayal of the tortured comedian is brilliant, sympathetic and terrible all in a good way. His natural ability for stand-up comedy really comes forth and Apatow’s choice to include a lot Sandler’s early work was a great way to show who the man is. Seth Rogen is also in one of his strongest roles and could rival his performance in Knocked Up. Rogen plays a struggling comedian looking for a break when his character is approached by Simmons to write some jokes. But Rogen really stretched himself in this flick as he shows that there is much more to a “buddy,” than simply playing wingman. His character Ira is an honest, hilarious and real portrayal of a young comedian from our generation. The remainder of the cast is simply amazing with Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman.

The gags throughout are also extremely entertaining. From the mock NBC teen show Yo Teach, to Eminem’s amazing monologue, Apatow’s paced his film very well. At no point do you feel as though Funny People is a comedy or a drama – it really is neither.

I would give Funny People a solid 8 of 10 penguins on the flightless bird scale. I would have skewed higher, but the film runs for 2 hours and 18 minutes and by the end, your ass will feel it. If possible, catch an early show because this flick is one you’ll want to chat about afterward with your friends.

After a long wait for a 6th Harry Potter film, then thanks to Warner Bros‘ successful 2007 yet an even longer wait, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince finally landed in theaters yesterday. Knowing the Potter tale from cover to cover, I knew I was going to watch this flick, but for the same reason, I knew that Half Blood Prince wasn’t going to be the ultimate wizard showdown. That’s the first thing you need to know going into this flick this Summer as many of you out there line up for tickets in the next little while. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is not really like any other Potter story. The saga will continue on for two more feature films and according to JK Rowling’s stories, Half Blood is one of the most important components for driving Harry to the end.

Think of Half Blood as the calm before the storm – the last opportunity for Rowling to focus on the characters other than Harry and explain Ron, Ginny, Draco and Hermione as people other than students at Hogwarts. For the movie franchise, Half Blood ties up some loose ends before the big sprint to the finish. Plot-wise there isn’t much to it. Although the books are much more detailed, Half Blood’s purpose is simply there for one major reason and not really anything more in terms of the whole Harry versus Voldemort saga. There are a few surprises, but in the end you’ll realize that this flick is there to drive the overall story arc.

The Harry Potter characters are always strong. Watching them grow up before our eyes in the previous 5 flicks has been something quite unique as the child actors have become young adults. By the end of all of this it’ll be an event to watch them grow up before your eyes when you sit down and do a Harry Potter marathon. Half Blood takes these characters and shows how much they have changed since the beginning. No longer are the children at Hogwarts simply there to learn magic and play quidditch – Harry and his friends are now in place to save the magic world. They understand this, they accept it and now that Half Blood is over with, they have an opportunity.

From a big screen experience I’m going to be a bit brutal. Half Blood Prince is probably the worst story of the bunch to experience in the theater. Unlike any other Harry Potter film, Half Blood doesn’t focus on a battle or a great visual effect that will blow your socks off. Instead, it focuses on the character tales and the evolution of the story. Because of this, I would suggest not spending the extra cash and checking this out in IMAX or 3-D. If you’ve read the books and are expecting to see some of the more imaginative components of the story played out before your eyes with brilliant animation, I wouldn’t hold your breath. I’m not saying there is no action, but if you were to compare the 3-D experience with the normal movie theater experience, it would be difficult to find an advantage.

Finally the nitty grtitty, the part of the review where I either suggest watching it or waiting for it to come out on DVD. So here we go. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is a necessary film. With layers upon layers of story to try and cover, director David Yates and his creative crew have had to make some major sacrifices in order to keep your ass from falling asleep in the theater. Because of this, they have chosen to stick with the anticipation of the Harry/Voldemort showdown and they use Half Blood to wrap up most of the other stories. You’ll see Ron and Hermione finally get together on a teenage level and Harry and Ginny fooling around for a little bit, but in the end you’ll realize that all of this was simply… Necessary. Because of this I’m going to have to split my recommendation into two (total cop-out I know). If you’re a fan of the books and and you are as obsessed as those kids who draw lightning bolts on their heads and talk with British accents, then you’ll understand that this is probably one of the better Harry Potter stories to play out. If you’re simply a fan of the films and you’re looking for the Summer’s action packed adventure tale about kids in wizard school, then I would suggest renting the Order of the Phoenix. So, knowing these two things I’m giving Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince an 8 out of 10 penguins on the flightless bird scale. The story is necessary and if you understand the franchise you’ll get it. If you don’t then I’m sorry to have to tell you, you will be disappointed with the lack of action.

Sascha Baron Cohen epitomizes the changing times in entertainment. It all started with his hit Da Ali G Show where he introduced the world to Borat, Ali G and Bruno while showing how different cultures respond to a major change in their surroundings. He’s a master of creating an embarrassing moment and he’s truly captured laughter in a brand new way. It’s because of this that I think Sasha Cohen shouldn’t be thought of as a comedian, but as an entertainer. His form of entertainment is more about shocking an audience and making them think about his situations long after they’ve seen them on screen. Knowing this, I went into the theater to watch Bruno last night expecting something disgusting, hilarious and so socially immoral that I wouldn’t be able to stop talking about it.

I’ll start with the Sasha Cohen style – the style we’re accustomed to now that most of us have seen Borat. Borat, in a way, was about showing people that the US is a bit too influential and sometimes their messages gets lost in the culture. Bruno, on the other hand I felt is nothing more than a shock-fest. Don’t get me wrong, I laughed a lot, but when I left the theater I didn’t feel the same way I did with Borat. I think Cohen really succeeded with the Borat character because he managed to get audiences to feel sorry him and want him to succeed. With Bruno I never once felt this way and the flick was more about getting to the next gag.

His interviews were shocking to say the least and I would expect a slew of lawsuits to come his way (especially from the parents agreeing to use their babies in a photo shoot that involved them losing weight and posing as Nazis). They gave you that feeling where you just want something to stop, but for some reason you can’t turn away. The ultimate train-wreck. The same goes for the situations that Bruno gets himself involved in like the swingers party and the talk show in Dallas. At first they were hilarious, then they were kind of awkward, then hilarious again and finally just sad for the people around him that didn’t get it.

Scenes in Bruno will be laughed about for a long time – particularly Bruno’s TV pitch, his camping trip and the finale in the MMA ring, but as a whole the entire experience felt less like a movie and more like a series of shorts strung together. When you go check this flick out, you will laugh but I don’t think you’ll walk away from the theater thinking you just saw something that will change the face of comedy. I’m going to have to give Bruno a generous 7 penguins on the flightless bird scale.

Johnny Depp will always have a certain appeal and with his latest starring role as John Dillinger in Michael Mann’s Public Enemies, he doesn’t disappoint. Normally when you go check out a flick its because of a combination of reasons. The trailer looks interesting, you’ve read some news and it stars some recognizable names who’s work you’ve enjoyed in the past. Well, it was a combination of all of these things that got me to sit in the theater for two and a half hours last night and watch this one. I had read a lot about the style Mann was going to shoot Public Enemies in and all of the historic Chicago elements, but while I was sitting and watching I started to notice a few other things that would have been interesting to know before going in.

First up, I found the story lag quite a bit. Think of it as a streaming video where a lot is happening and all of a sudden it pauses and you get the “buffering,” message. Public Enemies is like that. I understand that Mann was hindered by the actual biographical elements, but I felt that the pacing really hurt this flick from the beginning. There are tons of great gun fights and chase scenes throughout, but because the pacing was a little slow, some of them went by almost unnoticed. Usually action is there to speed up the pace, but I felt as though Mann used his dramatic shots to slow things down. I guess its just a matter of perspective.

Performance-wise I felt this was a pretty good cast. Depp played Dillinger as the rogue celebrity very well and I thought Christian Bale put on one of his best American accents in a while. I think Billy Crudup actually steals a few scenes in this flick as well. The character of JE Hoover was always going to be a delicate piece of the puzzle as he is both the leader of the Bureau and Dillinger’s enemy. Crudup looked the part as well as pulled off a balance between moral protagonist and enemy. Marion Cotillard was also quite strong in her performance as Dillinger’s love interest Billie Frechette especially in one of the more memorable interrogation scenes.

What Public Enemies missed was the character stories beyond Dillinger. Bale’s Melvin Purvis started off great, but as the film went on, I really started to question his motivation. But this wasn’t the only character that could have used a bit more as a lot of them dive in and out of the story without a lot of explanation. I understand that this was strictly a Dillinger tale, but I think Mann could have made a more entertaining film if he centered the majority of the story around the bank robberies, gun battles and the lifestyle of a rogue criminal. Also, blink and you’ll miss Channing Tatum’s Pretty Boy Floyd and Giovanni Ribisi’s Alvin Karpis.

Visually I thought Michael Mann did an amazing job. I never grew up during the depression so watching old movies and reading through old noir tales is my only way of imagination the times. I think Mann pulled off a pretty good little flick that showed the classic style, the personality of the US and the drive for identity throughout. The other very impressive component to Public Enemies was the sound. I normally don’t comment on a lot of the technical things in movies, but I think the sound is definitely worth mentioning. Gun shots are LOUD and if you fall asleep during some of the slower parts, Mann will wake you with gun fire.

I would give Public Enemies a solid 7 out of 10 Penguins on the flightless bird scale. It wasn’t great as I felt a lot of the story was missing, but at the same time I’m a sucker for period pieces. Check it out if you’ve got some time over the next few weeks. Johnny Depp is Johnny Depp and Christian Bale is Christian Bale. Don’t expect anything amazing and you’ll walk away satisfied with a pretty good biopic.

I’ll kick this off by apologizing for probably about the 10,000th review of this film already out there. If you want to know what everyone is thinking about this flick, it’s probably the easiest thing to find on the Interweb today. So anyways, thanks for clicking this one; and onto the review:

Watching movies in IMAX is just something we’re all going to have to get used to. The main difference with the experience of checking out an IMAX flick is the actual theater. IMAX theaters don’t have as many seats so if you plan on checking out a flick like Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, make sure to get there early or you’ll be one of those saps in the front row with a sore neck. They start the show off with a, “History of IMAX,” laser light show so everyone in the theater can learn to appreciate what they are about to see. It’s campy, but almost needed if anyone wanted to know why you just dished out the extra few bucks. Also, there are no previews attached to IMAX films yet so your movie will actually start when the ticket says so.

When Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen was first announced, everyone was on the edge of their seat. Fans wanted everything from the set images, to a list of robots that would be in it. The funny thing about all of the hype surrounding the flick was the fact that not a lot of people cared what it was going to be about. Michael Bay promised a sequel to the first which meant nothing more than some insane robot battles, sweaty shots of Megan Fox and a ton of product placement. I say this because if you go into Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen expecting cinematic genius, you’ll be extremely disappointed. This movie is exactly what Bay has promised – exactly.

I’ll chat about the good first, which is obviously the visuals. This flick, like the first, looks amazing. Dreamworks and Michael Bay once again out-did themselves in creating some of the most flawless visual effects I’ve ever seen. The explosions look amazing, the robot battles are detailed and well choreographed and everything from Optimus Prime to the Fallen himself are well designed.

Now, the not-so-good. There are absolutely no surprises with this flick. In fact, I would suggest actually not watching the first Transformers movie before seeing this one because you’ll walk away feeling as though you just paid to watch the same movie twice. There is nothing new about Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen other than a few new characters – none of which are needed. The first big flag is the amount of personality every single robot now has. The beauty of the first was that the Autobots and Decepticons were fighting their own battle and the communication amongst them was kept to a minimum. In the sequel, Bay and the writers decided to give all of the robots personalities which is a huge mistake. Secondly – and I mentioned this above, there are too many useless characters. The core return (Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese, John Turturro) but beyond them, it felt as though Bay wanted nothing but comic relief. The new characters – Alice, Leo and a slew of robots, really had no purpose and by the end of the flick just become annoying.

There is no real “story,” to this flick either. When I grab this on Blu-Ray in a few months I can see myself fast-forwarding until the robot battles because I won’t be missing a thing. This isn’t a movie that will have you leaving the theater thinking about what you might have missed – it lacks any surprise, twists, mystery and a story. But come on, who goes to Transformers 2 looking for a good story right?

So that’s all I’m going to say about Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. If you get a chance, check it out in IMAX – it’s worth it. Michael Bay and his crew have done a great job in making something fun to watch. But if you’re a movie fan for reasons beyond eye-candy, this flick won’t satisfy you one bit. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is a nothing new and I give it 6 out of 10 Penguins on the flightless bird scale.

I’ve been waiting for the new Ghostbusters video game to come out for a very long time now. There’s just something fun about blasting away at specters with a proton pack and trapping them into those little boxes. Well, the game finally hit this Tuesday for the PS3 and other next gen systems and I’ve been playing consistently for a few days now. After some initial hiccups, I think I’m able to provide a review, so here we go:

My favorite part of the game is how closely related it is to the source material. Dan Akroyd, who wrote the game script, actually places the game in 1991 – 2 years after the second film. I knew this going in so I made sure to pop in the old DVD’s and catch up. On a side note, the second film shouldn’t be mentioned in the same conversation as the first. Back to the game. The cars, the dialogue and all of the art produced to create a 1991 NYC is spot on so for that I give Atari a lot of credit. It’s one thing to make a period piece from colonial times, but to create a world from only about 15 years ago is pretty damn cool. The characters are also pretty accurate as I’m sure Akroyd wanted it to be. As a new recruit (in single player mode) you get to watch / hear all of the original Ghostbusters interact. This includes Akroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Raimis.

The game-play takes some getting to used to. Unlike traditional first person shooters, the regular weapon is a stream rather than a shot. This means instead of precision aim, players can fire and find the enemy. The other awkward part in the beginning was learning how to trap ghosts. This takes a bit of time to get used to as you first have to weaken the ghost, then wrangle it in with a secondary fire, then throw the trap, then angle the ghost into the trap’s area. Sounds like a lot, but Akroyd’s character actually walks you through it quite nicely. Now that I’ve been playing for a while, it’s not that difficult.

One of the things that the Ghostbusters video game doesn’t do well is focus. Maybe this was Atari’s intention, but I feel as though this game was made for kids suffering from extreme ADD. Ghosts are flying in and round you from all directions, Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd are screaming at you constantly, there are usually 3 other streams on the screen at a time and amidst all of this you’re supposed to catch ghosts. I’m still having trouble figuring out exactly what’s going on at all times.

The multi-player options are actually kind of cool – they act like a completely separate game. In coop mode, instead of playing through the single player story line with more than one person, your team is given a map and the computer randomly chooses 4 of 8 things to do. These could be tasks like protecting something, capturing as many ghosts as you can or simply to stay alive through waves of enemies. The coop mode makes you and your team complete the missions, but the competitive mode pits you against your teammates. The missions are essentially the same, but each Ghostbuster is competing to get the best scores for each level.

I’d give the Ghostbusters video game a solid 7 out of 10 Penguins. Great story and attention to detail, but definitely confusing at times.

That breakout dude-centric comedy of the Summer we’ve been waiting for has finally arrived. The Hangover, directed by Todd Phillips and starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis, is exactly what we all need to kick off the Summer comedy movie season. If you’re looking for a great little flick that pretty much everyone over 18 can enjoy (I only say this because of the R rating), then this is definitely worth checking out. I’ll set up my personal viewing situation for a second and then start the review. That way everyone will understand where I’m coming from with this. A buddy of mine just returned from Vegas this week. Armed with stories of debauchery and sin, needless to say, a group of friends and I are hell bent of finding a way there before the end of the Summer. So even before watching this flick, I had the itch to venture down to Sin City and create some of my own ridiculousness.

The Hangover was made for crowds thinking similar thoughts. The heart of the story is friendship, but the journey getting there is where the entertainment lies. Director Todd Phillips had a genius-like breakout with one of his first films Old School. Widely known today as a staple in comedy, Phillips understands that within gross and situational humor, always lies the story of a relationships. This is something you could tell from the very beginning of The Hangover – the fact that this wasn’t a story about Vegas, it was a story about camaraderie.

The Hangover follows the tale of four guys as they venture to Las Vegas for a stag. Three of them are very close friends, while one will be the newly aquired brother in law. The film itself never really shows what happens throughout their party night, instead it focuses on them discovering what they actually did. This type of stoytelling is actually quite clever. Phillips leaves the audience constantly wondering what happened and eagerly waiting for the gang to uncover the next clue. The reason they have to assemble the story themselves is because at some point in the evening they lost the groom to be.

I never thought that finding a cast of actors to pull off a Vegas trip flick would be difficult, but after watching The Hangover I can really appreciate good casting. This is probably the first time I’ve ever seen Bradley Cooper really capture a starring role. Sure he pulled off the aloof journalist in Midnight Meat Train and various other co-starring roles such as Wedding Crashers, but this was the first time I’ve ever seen him really take the reigns of a role and embrace the layers of a dude looking to go balls out in Vegas. Ed Helms was also perfectly cast. He played the straight and narrow buddy throughout and actually has the biggest arc, or change in the film. Many Office fans will recognize him from the NBC series, but this is one of the first times you’ll be able to see him really let loose. Finally, Zach Galifianakis. He’s new to the movie screen, but he’s quite an accomplished comedian and has graced the small screen on shows like Reno 911 and Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job. Galifianakis plays the soon to be brother in law and essentially the black sheep of the group. None of the other guys, save the groom really know him so for his character, The Hangover is really a story of discovery. His comedic timing is Will Ferrell-esque and some of the sight gags he can pull off are hilarious. If any actor can say The Hangover is their break-out flick, it’s Zach Galifianakis.

The movie isn’t all 100% awesome though. There are some major holes and some minor instances where things dip into the Family Guy world of too random. For instance, there is no explanation of how the gang loses their original car and how they gain a cop car. That alone could have countless stories attached, but is never really addressed. Also, the movie stars Mike Epps – funny man from All About The Benjamins and Next Friday, but he’s really only in the flick for about 5 minutes. The same goes for Jeffery Tambor from Arrested Development. The story really could have expanded on these two alone especially knowing their comedic history.

All in all, I would give The Hangover 7 Penguins out of 10 on the scale. It’s a great flick to kick off the Summer, but I don’t think its in the realm of Old School or even Van Wilder, but who knows? I would expect the unrated DVD version to be much more entertaining. Also, props to Mike Tyson for playing his part and playing it… alright I guess. At times it was difficult to understand what he was saying, but his pressence was definitely felt.

Let me open this review with a bit of a breakdown of what you’re about to read. First of all, I took the opportunity to check out Terminator: Salvation last night after spending the entire first part of my weekend catching up on the franchise. I watched all 3 Terminator DVD’s I own as well as the first season of the Sarah Conner Chronicles and on my way to the theatre I was pretty excited to see the next adventure of John Conner and Skynet. The mythology created by James Cameron is legendary – time traveling cyborgs come back to modern times and battle it out with the lineage of John Conner who has been prophesied as the man to stop them in the future. The concept is quite simple, but the twists and turns throughout the concept of time travel add some un-needed confusion to the franchise. So the entire Terminator mythology isn’t perfect, but we’ve grown to accept a lot of the unbelievable because the bottom line was always robots fighting humans.

So what about Terminator: Salvation and the debut of Batman (Christian Bale) as the infamous John Conner? Well, lets first step back a few months and remember that James Cameron, the father of the franchise, washed his hands clean of Terminator: Salvation before anybody had seen it. His reasons were mostly based on the fact that this chapter in his movie making career was over and his involvement with the Terminator franchise should be kept safe with the brilliance of T2: Judgement Day. Now lets travel a bit into the future and think about the man, the visionary behind Terminator: Salvation. That man would be McG (pronounced Mack-Jee). If you think about who McG is, then you’ll understand where exactly I’m going with this. McG was the director of non other than the revamped Charlie’s Angels flick a few years ago. Yes, that Charlie’s Angels flick. His style is choppy at best, he can handle himself around an action sequence, but for the most part it is obvious that he’s one of those directors that is just really good in meetings with producers. Had he truly understood the concept of story, we probably would have been able to see a much better finished product.

Alright, I’ve gone this far without really reviewing the flick at all, so I guess it’s time to drop the ball. TERRIBLE. PAINFUL. WEAK. EMBARRASSING. After watching the first three in the series, I was expecting to see an action-packed exploding flick about humans battling it out with robots. If you think about it, all three previous movies are leading up to this climactic battle that we’re finally going to be able to see. Honestly, the battles with the robots weren’t half bad, but in order for anyone to truly experience going to the movies and donating their time, we really need more. We need strong characters, we need good story telling and we need something to be able to relate to in order to enjoy it. Terminator: Salvation has none of this. All of the characters are flat (and in most cases not needed). It is obvious that McG either never watched any Terminator flick, or he really just didn’t get it. Every human action, reaction and reason for making a decision is not believable. And finally, McG managed to do what nobody thought possible, he got a terrible performance out of Christian Bale.

I understand that there are some die-hard Terminator fans out there that will find any excuse to give this flick a good rating, and for that I’ll give you a couple of points. First up, 2009 is officially the coming out party for Anton Yelchin. Yelchin plays Kyle Reese in Terminator: Salvation and also played Chekov in this year’s Star Trek flick. He was one of the only saving graces of Terminator: Salvation as it is becoming obvious that this kid will rival Shia LeBauf in years to come. The other notch on the positive side is the 4-5 seconds of Arnold we get to see. I had read about his involvement, or lack there of, before I went in to the theatre so I was quite excited to learn more about the model of Terminator we see in the very first flick. Unfortunately McG missed the point entirely and used the Arnold shot purely as a way to get people to gasp in the theatre. Similar to the way he copied a bunch of lines from the previous movies. But I’ll be honest, to see Arnie’s face up on the big screen again was pretty amazing, even if it was for all the wrong reasons and only for about 4 seconds.

Thinking back to Bale’s meltdown on set, I’m starting to understand his frustrations. Maybe his exploding mouth episode was just a way to vent about the job that McG was doing, only he took it out on the camera man. In any case, this flick lacks everything but the explosion. If you’re expecting anything more than a couple of hours of ridiculous violence and pointless dialogue, then by all means, spend the cash. but if you’re looking for answers, looking for something to carry a franchise or looking for something that will keep you entertained, I suggest picking up Judgement Day instead.

When word got out that Steven Soderbergh was going to make a new indie-style flick, the first thing that popped into my head was Sex, Lies and Video Tape. Back then he was breaking new ground with content. He was stretching boundaries and seeing how far he could use intimacy as the central theme of a movie with explicit images. Soderburgh’s latest adventure is titled The Girlfriend Experience. I’m sure a lot of you have read something about this film or at the very least know that Soderbergh cast adult film star Sasha Grey as his lead, so I won’t go into too much detail on that. Just know that after watching this flick I believe Sasha Grey much in the same way I believe Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler; are either of them really acting?

First up, I should mention that Soderbergh treated The Girlfriend Experience almost like an exercise in story telling with minimal technology. He used a 4-k Red Digital Camera to shoot the entire film and I’ve read in interviews that he only had to adjust the lighting for two scenes in the entire flick. If you watch this movie you’ll be impressed with Soderbergh’s skills, but at the same time you’ll learn to appreciate the beauties of natural light. Soderbergh also liked to play with the perception of well, everything with this film. After releasing the news that he would have Sasha Grey play the lead, many people assumed this would be slapped with an NC-17 rating and they would have to rent it from the back room of the video store. But again, Soderbergh played with the perception as there are no sex “scenes” in the film. There is some nudity, but don’t expect Basic Instinct. Instead expect a film about people and a story that uses modern thought processes to explain how people are in this day and age.

The story I felt was a little bit played out – there are tons of films out there that chronicle the struggles of relationships and how people work hard for everything they get, but the way in which Soderbergh framed this story I felt was amazing. Set in late 2008, The Girlfriend Experience follows upscale New York escort Chelsea as she runs her business in a recently destroyed US economy. Throughout the film you can really see how uneasy everyone in the world felt about the bail-out and the economic situation as a whole. The Girlfriend Experience is a story about exactly that – How am I going to get through these tough economic times? The only difference is that Soderbergh focuses on a profession you might not immediately associate with being effected.

If you can find a theatre near you that is actually showing The Girlfriend Experience I defintely reccomend it. But don’t go in with the expectation of Showgirls – you will be disappointed and your mother would not be proud.

A while back DT previewed the game trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine and since then the movie has premiered and the game has been released. I picked up the Activision title a few days ago and my first impressions are actually quite good. The thing to remember with the game is that it only borrows concepts from the movie; so reading about the game before you see the movie won’t actually spoil a whole lot – especially if you stole watched a copy of the version floating around online.

The best way to describe the game play is to use that cross analogy thing – in this case Wolverine is a cross between Ninja Gaiden and Drake’s Fortune. In more ways than one this is a traditional hack and slash carnage type of a game. You’re Wolverine for goodness sake, you better be able to rip some guy to shreds. The button combinations are quite easy and the gradual way of increasing the amount of moves you can perform works well with the development of the character. I’ve only been playing for a few days now but I’ve mastered the Lunge-Slash-Throw-Decapitate move.

Which brings me to the next pleasant surprise with this game – the gore factor. After watching the PG-13 feature film and not really enjoying the fact that the flick leaves a lot to the imagination I was half expecting the same for the game. But I was completely wrong, this game is bloody, very bloody. The metallic claws are put to good use especially when you’re ripping off enemy limbs and throwing limp bodies into spikes. For the first time ever in a Wolverine-based video game the player can actually see the damage they are inflicting by the pools and sprays of blood through0ut.

The game story is always a big part of the experience for me. If there’s no point, no motivation, I really don’t have anything to do with it. With X-Men Origins: Wolverine the story is actually quite compelling. Although the look of the game and the movie are similar, it should be noted that the story lines are quite different. There are a ton more characters in the game than there are in the movie and the criticism behind Wolverine’s motivation in the flick are handled nicely in the game.

But X-Men Origins: Wolverine isn’t a perfect game by any means. There are a lot of flaws including the reliance of button mashing to get through certain puzzles and the fact that the healing factor makes everything quite easy. There are also some visual flaws with enemies and hints being difficult to see in the shadows.

If you were thinking of checking this out I would wait. I have a feeling you’ll be able to pick up a used copy pretty soon as the replay value isn’t that high.

Let me start this review off with a bit of honesty. I’m not a Trekky. Growing up I watched a lot of TNG (The Next Generation), but as for the original series, I really only know of a few famous scenes and some minute character back stories I learned from various movies. Because of this I was a bit afraid of watching the latest Star Trek flick by JJ Abrams because I wasn’t sure if I would be able to understand and appreciate it for all that it is. Well, I was wrong; and from a non-trekky point of view, this is the best flick I’ve seen in the theaters this calendar year.

The action is amazing. We now live in an age where anything can be done through CG and green screen effects and I think JJ Abrams is one of those directors who looks at things like explosions in a script and starts to put them together in his head from a creative standpoint without focusing on how much a shot like that would cost. That being said, Star Trek’s action sequences are the anti-Michael Bay. You can actually tell what is going on from the hand to hand battles involving Sulu and Kirk to the large scale space battles between the Enterprise and Captain Nero’s ship. The sequences are tight, easy to understand and take full advantage of the large screen.

The story line was always going to be the line that this film was going to have to balance on. With a huge devoted fan base, Abrams and co needed to make sure that these people were never abandoned; but at the same instill enough of a newbie feel to embrace new fans. Undoubtedly this has been achieved. Not only has JJ and Bad Robot created a new look for Star Trek, they’ve taken key principles of the original story telling and applied them to newer situations. The result is astounding and the flick can stand alone as one of the best Star Trek movies I’ve ever seen.

Character-wise this was also going to be a bit of a challenge for audiences to wrap their heads around. Everyone has always associated someone like Kirk to Bill Shatner; ditto for someone like Leonard Nemoy and Spock. With the new flick, Abrams knew he wasn’t going to bring back a ton of the original cast (hint – an original character can be seen), and he also knew that he had to cast actors that could pul off some of the tendencies the later actors made so famous. Again, Abrams passes with flying colors from the risky assignment of Chris Pine as Kirk to the brilliant casting of someone like Karl Urban as Bones. But the absolute best piece of casting has to be the coming out party of Zach Quinto as young Spock. Widely known as Sylar from Heroes, Quinto showed the world that he can do a lot more than slit open people’s heads and steal their abilities, with Star Trek he’s captured the mannerisms of Leonard Nemoy and brought his own, younger flavor to an already well established character.

With Star Trek now showing is pretty much every theatre in the world right now it shouldn’t too hard to get a ticket. I definitely suggest checking this out especially if you’re not a trekky. You’ll be amazed at how much you’ll start to understand why the series and franchise has been so popular for so long.

So did anyone know (or even really care) that Monday night’s episode of Heroes was the season finale? After such a great start to the series the bungee cord is on its last thread. Season 2 was terrible in every way, save Kristen Bell who could make a religious infomercial worth watching, and this season didn’t help at all.

To be fair, it’s no worse than Season 2; but in comparison to season 1, Heroes is now out the door.

The writer’s strike killed a lot of shows, but I don’t think any show still on the air suffered as much as Heroes which is still obviously feeling the effects. In case you’re like most people and stopped watching a while ago, here’s the Bloated Penguin 1 paragraph recap of Season 3:

We finally met Auther Patrelli and nobody seemed to care for it. A lot of strange stuff goes on to try and explain how season 2 ended and a bunch of super powered criminals break out of Level 5 (another lame name for jail). A bunch of the regulars set out to bring them all back and capture what is referred to as “the catalyst,” or a formula used to make regular people super-powered. Suresh gets a hold of it and turns himself into a gross spider-thing. A bunch of people die including Arthur Patrelli, a ridiculous storyline reveals that Sylar and Peter are related only to be followed by an even more ridiculous story that explains how Angela made it all up. Nathan caps off the first half of the season by stating that people with powers need to be stopped in a conversation with the president. The second half of the season kicks off with Nathan and a new villain Danko leading a group of government ops as they hunt down everyone with powers. Nathan is exposed and he changes sides, some stuff about the Company is revealed; but who cares? Sylar becomes a shape-shifter and partners with Danko, Bryan Fuller returns to writing Heroes and almost single-handedly saves the season with one episode, then the series ends with a flop as Sylar kills Nathan, then is tranked by a shape-shifting Peter. His brain is then manipulated by Parkman to believe that he is Nathan and we fade to black with more bad voice over.

Tada!

That’s it. Seriously. So obviously if you took a 2-year nap and missed Heroes, you didn’t miss much. There is some potential now that Bryan Fuller is back as a consulting producer/writer. He was the one who scripted the best episodes of season 1 and I think NBC and the Heroes producers have finally woken up and figured out that good writing makes a show great, not just an invulnerable cheerleader.

Plane rides make for great DS time and knowing this I picked up the latest in the Grand Theft Auto franchise, GTA: Chinatown Wars. I’m probably of the minority here, but I actually haven’t been a fan of Rockstar’s famed franchise since they moved away from the top-down view. Call it out of date, call it nostalgic or call it old skool, but I loved the originals on the old Playstation because of the implied simplicity.

Chinatown Wars brings me back to the days where GTA was all about speed and efficiency as opposed to the free-roaming and exploratory details of the later games. The DS version is everything that I loved about the originals plus a bit more.

First up, the story. I’ve completed the game once now and like most GTA titles, there is a main goal. For Chinatown Wars the goal is take back what is rightfully yours while battling through rival gangs and under cover cops. The depth of story so far is really what separates this from the first few GTA titles in that it has borrowed the intricacy of character from the later titles and created a new experience. Reading much more like a comic book than a newspaper, Chinatown Wars manages to put the player deep into an intricate storyline without generating any confusion as where they should go or what should happen next.

Game play, as mentioned above, is nostalgic. No you can’t jump in a cab and have the driver take you to any place and no you don’t get rewarded for buying hookers or beating up innocent people in the street. What Chinatown Wars does very well is bring players back to the core values of a GTA game, being the best at what you do. The great thing about the game play is that if you don’t enjoy one component, you can master another (Drug dealing versus killing for cash). The one game play note that I should mention is how great the controlled driving experience is. All vehicles differ in strengths and weaknesses but the great part about all of them is the ability to snap into a straight line for a more efficient trip. Coming from a guy who can’t stand driving games cause he’s all over the road, this is a huge help.

Bringing this game to the DS has also given Rockstar a new platform to experiment with -  a platform that includes a stylus and a touch pad. This makes for a brand new gaming experience for stealing cars, defusing bombs, setting tracking devices and unlocking combination locks. The only thing really awkward about the touch pad is using it to snipe enemies. I don’t think the potential has been reached, but Rockstar is onto something with this.

Finally the artwork. Chinatown Wars isn’t beautiful by any means, but it gets the job done. The top-down view is very limiting in that sense, but I think this game actually benefits from this. The cut scenes aren’t amazing, but they do capture that comic-book reading element that brings players into the world without any assumptions.

All in all, this game is a pretty good find. I used to love my DS for Brainage and strategy based puzzle games – but Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars has really opened up the possibilities.

Ever thought of mastering the fine art of extreme awkwardness and uncomfortable results? Study Paul Rudd in I Love You, Man and you’ll be an expert in no time. John Hamburg’s latest flick I Love You, Man (Hamburg’s previous directorial titles include Along Came Polly) is a look into friendships and the ridiculous things people go through to not only develop them, but also maintain them. I’m sure you can get the plot from the trailer, but what the two and half minute snippet leaves out is the wholesomeness of the relationships – all relationships.

Rudd and co-star Jason Segal play off of each other the way they should. One is definitely more outgoing than the other, one is more adventurous, one is more practical blah blah blah I could go on. The point is, the characters aren’t any different than any other characters from your standard buddy comedy, the situation is what makes this relationship unique. Pete Claven (Rudd) has no (zero) guy friends and needs to find a best man for his wedding. He begins to audition “dudes” via internet dating sites and set-ups by his mother and gay brother. Hamburg does a really nice thing here hinting that the search for a good friend is like searching for a mate. There really isn’t anything different because neither can really be forced, something this flick really shows.

Pete eventually meets Sydney (Segal) after multiple failures and the two start what can really only be described as a bromance. They find similar interests, tell each other intimate secrets and bring out different sides of each other. The fact that Hambrug treats this like dating is great, but what really tops it all off is that Sydney and Pete never forget they’re guys, dudes, men.

On the surface the plot looks stale; guy wants a best man for his wedding. But some of the best parts of the flick aren’t even between Pete and Sydney. The marriage between  Jamie Pressly and John Favreau’s characters is amazing, Andy Samberg’s character and JK Simmons are brilliant as well but what tips the awkward scale is the conversations between Pete and his fiance Zooey (Rashida Jones).

Venture over to your 16-screen google-plex and check out I Love You, Man. It’s worth the price of admission and you’ll come away feeling as awkward and uncomfortable as ever.

BTW – If you’re wondering who Rashida Jones is, she’s the equally as cute girl with Natalie Portman in this PSA urging people to vote.

First things first, I’m not done yet. I’m currently playing the Resident Evil 5 on PS3 in coop mode with a buddy online and we’re about half way through (I think), so this review is based mostly on stuff… so far. Take with a rock of salt and a big gulp of lime juice.

Game play-wise, this is the absolute best RE game Capcom has produced. They have improved some of the movement issues from previous games without compromising the difficulty. The sharing of weapons and items is also improved with the quick menu access that allows you to both change weapons and exchange items on the fly – this was a must in my mind as the game presents a lot of situations where the quicker you react, the longer you’ll survive.

Some of the mainstays that I really enjoy have also been slightly improved. The interactions with the cut-scenes has always been a great option. It dates all the way back to the old skool Dragon’s Lair, but I think now that systems are so much more powerful, things like this really work well to break up the game play. If you don’t know what I’m talking about you’ll find out when you decide to play.

Story-wise so far it’s been a bit cloudy. I’m not completely sold on some of the old enemies returning and at about the half-way point I’m starting to notice that the game is turning out a lot like Drake’s Fortune. Without spoiling anything hopefully, I tend to forget I’m fighting zombies.

The introduction of the newest character Sheva is done pretty well. I never like it when a game introduces a new character and teams them with an old one only to reveal that the new and the old are some how related or end up sleeping together. I hope this doesn’t happen cause I’m playing as Sheva and that would result in an obscenely awkward headset conversation with my friend… But like I said, I’m only a few levels in.

So far I’d give Resident Evil 5 a solid 4 fish on the Bloated Penguin scale. (I just made that whole rating system up right now, like as I was typing)

Comic book movies have invaded pop culture like crooked hats and fat laces. With the success of films like The Dark Knight and Iron Man from last year and Watchmen from 09, entertainment companies have jumped at the chance to adapt, recreate and profit from the popular storytelling medium. So a few years ago in a bold move to hang onto and profit from their own properties, comic book publishers like Marvel and DC decided to create their own production companies. Not only have they been able to maintain all of the legal rights to their stories, they’ve also been able to tell the stories they created from the beginning. This holds true, not only for live action films, but also animated features that go directly to DVD. This weekend I had a chance to check out the latest from DC, the origin feature story of Wonder Woman, and it did not disappoint.

The first direct-to-DVD animated feature from DC’s crew led by Bruce Timms was the wildly successful Superman: Doomsday where they retold the death and rise of Superman. Timms was one of the driving forces behind the original Batman animated series so putting him in charge seemed like a no-brainer. The second film was a bold retelling of the creation of the Justice League. Although not as polished as Superman, Timms and co had a much bigger universe to conquer. With the release of Wonder Woman, DC was able to go back to a central character and tell the myth they created back in the golden ages of comics.

Wonder Woman, like most of the DC animated features is not for the kids. Although fully animated (in retro 2-D fashion BTW) and with little to no blood and gore, the language, adult references and mature situations bridge the gap between unbelievable comic universes and television believability (is that a word?). The story follows the birth of Wonder Woman and her eventual departure from her homeland of the Amazon Warriors.

Timms and co have earned an A+ on casting, as they usually do. Although I was a bit confused as to why they would put Keri Russel (Felicity) in place to voice Wonder Woman, the result is amazing. Her timing is great and her tone is perfect especially during the scenes where WW is adjusting to the modern world. The casting of Nathan Fillion (Firefly and Dr. Horrible) was also perfect. His comedic timing and chauvinistic tone play perfectly in this flick.

Animation-wise there aren’t many surprises, if you remember the original Fox Batman Animated series, you’ll start to notice the similarities between the subtle background designs and intricate details in facial expressions and body movement during action sequences.

Wonder Woman is a great watch for an evening in. If you ever wondered who she is, where she got her powers or what she stands for, this flick will educate you much better than any blog entry.