“Warm Bodies” – A great zom-com.

Have you ever looked at your watch in the middle a movie hoping there’s more time left than you think? The feeling of happiness at seeing there is still a lot of movie left is the same feeling you get when you wake up before your alarm clock goes off and the clock says you still have two and a half hours to sleep. That’s what happened to me at the one hour mark of Warm Bodies, thrilled that there was still a half an hour left in the movie.

I am Legend was the first movie to posit that zombies aren’t necessarily mindless monsters trying to eat brains without being a spoof or comedy. The alternate ending of that movie on the DVD (which I declare should have been the real ending) depicts a zombie displaying feelings for its mate and forgiving Will Smith for taking her. Warm Bodies takes that idea and dials it up a notch by taking us into the minds of the zombies to hear what they are thinking. The difference between the two films is that I am Legend was a serious survival thriller, where Warm Bodies is a romantic zombie comedy, or zom-com if you will.

Nicholas Hoult stars as the zombie, R. “R,” because he can’t remember his name. The film begins with R quickly filling us in on the state of the world as he roams around an airport – a zombie apocalypse has occurred and the world is filled with wandering zombies that want to eat brains, but still have thoughts running through their heads and we get to hear R’s thoughts. We spend a little time getting to know him and his daily routine; even get introduced to his friend M (Rob Corddry) with whom he communicates through a series of grunts and almost-words. However, his routine is interrupted when he and a bunch of zombies discover a pack of humans raiding a pharmacy. The human group includes Julie (Teresa Palmer) and her boyfriend Perry (Dave Franco) and when the zombies attack, the humans start shooting. Perry shoots R, causing R to kill him (while narrating how bad he feels about it) and eat some of his brains. It’s at this point we learn from R that the reason zombies crave brains is because they get to experience the memories of the person by eating said brains. At the risk of hyperbole, that’s the best reveal in a story that I’ve seen or read in a long time and is where the movie truly grabbed me. Finally, we have an answer to the age old question, “why braaaaaains?”

Due to the combination of his own self and ingesting Perry’s memories, R suddenly has romantic feelings for Julie and protects her from the rest of the zombies by smearing some of his zombie slime on her to disguise her smell and stashes her in his home – an airplane. Though Julie wants to go home, R convinces her that it isn’t safe, but that he’ll take her home in a few days. During this time, we get to know much more about R and Julie and watch their relationship blossom. How weird is it to write a sentence like that about a zombie? Very weird.

I don’t want to give away any more of the movie, but I will say that more of the zombies start feeling emotions again and all of them start to revert back to normal human (this is given away in the previews). One of the things that made this movie really good was the consistency of the zombies’ behaviors throughout the film, as well as the evolution of those behaviors as the zombies change. For example, R’s ability to say actual words gradually gets better, but doesn’t make any unnatural leaps. And speaking of which, Hoult does a fantastic job as R, especially in maintaining that consistency – movements, physical quirks, his speech – as well as delivering a character we can really support.

Not to be outdone, Palmer’s Julie is just as endearing and lovable. Her strength is her ability to portray a vast range of emotions without it seeming forced. This is most apparent when R is smearing his innards on her face. The mixture of disgust and fear on her face is so real that I wonder how nasty that stuff really was.

I know people might be tiring of the zombie fad of the last few years, but this is the kind of movie that makes the fad worth it. Everything about this movie seemed to be well-thought-out and executed. The comedy is good, doesn’t rely on toilet humor, and is well-timed throughout the film. The music is subtle in some places and songs are well-placed to add to the narrative. The story is tight and doesn’t leave loose ends. They even throw in some clever bits of Shakespeare that will make you laugh and proves that this movie wasn’t just some half-assed February film trying to capitalize on zombies or the novel it was based on. It’s a rare movie these days that takes the time to weave a good story and make you care about the characters without sacrificing other parts of the movie. Funny that it was a zombie romance that succeeded where other, more mainstream movies did not.

Rating: Worth twice what you paid for it. It’s the best romantic comedy in years, zom-com or not.

“Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” – How do you know she’s a witch?

Every now and then, I come across a movie that I expect to be a giant pile of crap, but end up liking for no real reason. After screening Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, the screening organizers asked us what we thought about the movie. My response was “it was an entertaining movie that I enjoyed and would never try to defend as being a good movie.” The girl laughed when I said that, nodding in agreement. I’ve thought about the movie a lot over the past two days and that opinion hasn’t changed. The only realization I’ve had is that I can’t think of any reason why I liked it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a pile of crap, critically speaking. But, as I told my friend as we walked out of the theater (she hated it and it’s easy to see why), when you compare it to similar movies of the past couple of years (Red Riding Hood, Season of the Witch, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter), it’s easily the best of the lot. Granted, that’s not really saying much, but I would watch this movie again before rewatching Gangster Squad.

In case you missed the previews, Hansel and Gretel grow up to be famed witch hunters after disposing of the witch in the candy house when they were children. The movie begins by showing us that event, followed by the opening credits overlaid on a series of witch killings. This is to establish that Hansel and Gretel are, in fact, cartoons. Sure, they look like Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton, but there’s no other explanation for them cheating death multiple times. Only cartoon characters can survive the beatings these two take without dying, or even getting hurt that badly.

Anyway, the mayor of a village in some place that may or may not be Germany (I really don’t know; Hansel and Gretel speak in American accents while everyone else has a German-ish accent) hires the duo to solve their witch problem. Several children have gone missing and the town believes it to be the work of witches because…you know…witches. When the pair arrives in the town, the local sheriff (Peter Stormare) is about to execute a woman for being because we absolutely needed to hear Jeremy Renner ask them “how do you know she’s a witch?”, then proceed to explain to them what a witch looks like. Seriously, this happens, and John Cleese is nowhere to be found, but somewhere Monty Python is cringing. Obviously, this woman, Mina (Pihla Viitala) turns out to actually be a witch or else why would they make such a big deal out of this scene?

After killing another witch, the heroes discover the major plot hole of the movie – that the children are being abducted for no real reason since the grand high witch, Muriel (Famke Janssen), actually only wants Gretel’s heart in order to become fireproof. It’s an oddly specific thing to want to be impervious to when there are lots of other ways to kill a witch. I know this because Hansel is kind enough to list some of them to a fan-boy in the village, not to mention we see them killing several witches without so much as lighting a match. I also hate myself a little right now because I can’t believe my lack of ridicule for a movie featuring a fan-boy (he asks for their autographs on a scrapbook) and a grand high witch (again, Hansel’s words).

The other problems with the story center on the characters, mostly due to lack of development of them or explanations of the fantasy world they live in. For starters, there’s a troll (that looks suspiciously like Ludo from Labyrinth, except without the orange hair) that is helping the bad witches because, as he puts it “trolls serve witches.” He doesn’t ever say why this is; just states it as if it’s a rule of the world. Except, he turns on those same witches at the end of the movie for seemingly the same reason – that he is serving witches (good ones this time). So, if he’s allowed to choose which witches (ha) he serves and doesn’t like working for the bad witches, why is working for them in the first place? Then, there’s the sheriff, who is easily the most worthless secondary villain since Draco Malfoy. The heroes already have a slew of powerful enemies; why add another one who serves no purpose other than to be a dick and annoy the audience? Luckily, we don’t have to endure eight movies of this nonsense (like we did with Malfoy), as the sheriff only makes it to about the fifty-minute mark. Finally, we never learn if becoming a witch is a choice or genetic, since genetics are implied and choosing is flat out stated (by, who else, Hansel). This is a contradiction that muddles much of the story and severely undermines the crux of Muriel’s plan.

The rest of the movie plays out exactly as you expect, even down to the big reveal about the siblings. As far as the witches go, they are poorly written with questionable motivation, and the make-up jobs on the main ones are abysmal. They look like their faces are made of cracked concrete and this is explained by Hansel (he’s like a witch-opedia) as “evil revealing itself through ugliness.” Except for the grand high witch, of course, who can make herself look normal.

The conclusion I finally came to is that this really should have been a video game. The movie is structured exactly like today’s video games – there’s a prologue that introduces the heroes, there are multiple fight scenes with witches (bosses) who are increasingly more powerful, the characters carry anachronistic weapons (they have shotguns and grenades while everyone else has sticks), use cussing as comedic breaks, are helped at various points by different characters, and everything culminates in a witch-killing orgy at the edge of a cliff. Even little things like characters speaking with little emotion, a brief sex scene where Hansel is lured into a “healing pool” by Mina (who is kind enough to remove her clothes and make the R-rating well worth it), and special effects that look like every video game out there today.

After all of that, the best answer I have is that I expected this movie to be so much worse. Maybe it’s the fact that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Maybe it’s the fact that I like video games. Maybe it’s even the guy part of me that wants to cut a preposterous movie a break for five seconds of female nudity. Maybe, and most likely, it’s that I happened to be in just the right mood to enjoy a completely ridiculous movie that has no critical value whatsoever.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, as the previews give you plenty of fair warning about spending your time and money on this movie.

“Jack Reacher” – A Tom Cruise production.

When I first heard about this movie, I had two immediate reactions – “what a stupid title” and “who the hell cast Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher?” If you’ve read any of Lee Child’s novels featuring Jack Reacher, you would immediately understand and probably share my reaction. Otherwise, my reaction wouldn’t make a lot of sense to you (though Jack Reacher is a stupid title regardless). You see, Reacher is described in the novels as six foot five inches tall, weighing 250 pounds, an ex-military policeman with an intimidating demeanor, whose “face looked like it had been chipped out of rock by a sculptor who had ability but not much time.” In other words, the exact opposite of Tom Cruise.

The answer to my second reaction occurs as soon as the movie begins when the words “A Tom Cruise Production” appear on the screen. So the answer to my question is Tom Cruise cast Tom Cruise. This also means that he very likely purchased the rights to all of the Jack Reacher novels, so Tom Cruise can be assured that Tom Cruise gets to continue indulging the worst case of Napoleon complex since Napoleon.

The answer to my first reaction isn’t nearly as simple. Again, readers familiar with the books would know that this movie should have been called One Shot, as that is the title of the book that the movie depicts. I suppose some marketing “geniuses” calculated that Jack Reacher would draw more as a title, but that doesn’t really make a lot of sense considering the only people who would recognize the name would also recognize the title One Shot. My theory is that Napoleon Cruise’s ego and wallet were the deciding factor.

Considering those two reactions, plus the fact that Hollywood has a nasty habit of ruining books, it’s obvious that my expectations going into the movie were pretty low. Much to my surprise, I found myself enjoying the movie and, even more improbably, liking Cruise’s performance. For me, I’ve never really believed Cruise as an action star, but have believed him as a lawyer or a sports agent. Maybe it’s just me, but answer me this – when A Few Good Men is on TNT and Mission Impossible is on TBS, which one are you watching for the seventy-ninth time?

Fortunately, Jack Reacher provides a good mix for everyone; something in the area of 25% Ethan Hunt and 75% Daniel Kaffee. It’s just enough action to make him a believable ex-soldier, while focusing more on his investigatory abilities, which is the main function of his character. The plot revolves around the murder of five people by a sniper and Reacher is asked to help with the investigation after the main suspect asks for him by name. The action comes in when he is forced to defend himself from bad guys, which thankfully only happens a couple of times.

By this point, you’re probably wondering if anyone else was in this movie or if Cruise performed it as a one man show (a horrifying proposition, by the way). The cast is filled out by Rosamund Pike, an attorney being helped by Reacher; Robert Duvall, a shooting range owner; Richard Jenkins, Pike’s father and district attorney; Werner Herzog, the bad guy; and David Oyelowo, the lead detective from the local police force. All of them play their parts well and keep the movie from being a two-hour Cruise-a-thon. More importantly, the story itself overpowers Cruise (which it should), engrossing the viewer in a very well-produced mystery that keeps the viewer in suspense.

Overall, the movie is a good piece of storytelling translated by a screenplay that stays honest to the source material. The director (Christopher McQuarrie) handles Cruise perfectly, exploiting his strengths as well as the rest of the cast. I’m not the only one who has enjoyed this movie, as it has grossed $155 million on a $60 million budget (as of January 21), meaning we’re almost guaranteed there will be a sequel. My reaction to that is now that they’ve burned Jack Reacher without using a subtitle, what is the sequel going to be titled? Because Jack Reacher 2 is even worse.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back. I know – I’m surprised too.

“Zero Dark Thirty” – An opportunity to teach you nothing.

In my 2012 Year in Review, I asked the question “what makes a movie good enough to be nominated for a Best Picture of the Year award?” As I noted, the only criteria we know for sure is “released that year,” even if that release was only a private showing for Steven Spielberg’s children.” As much as it sounds like I’m kidding, that’s only a slight exaggeration, as this happens somewhat often. What’s more is they aren’t even consistent about this as some movies are nominated in the year of their limited release and some in the year of their wide release. I looked at all best picture nominees back to 2000 and this is what I found.

• 2012 – Zero Dark Thirty was released on December 19 in five theaters in Canada and the USA and didn’t see wide release until Jan. 11, 2013.
• 2010 – The King’s Speech had a limited release on Christmas and wide release on Jan. 14, 2011.
• 2009 – The Hurt Locker was released on Sept. 4, 2008 at the Venice film festival, but not released in theaters until June, 2009.
• 2008 – Slumdog Millionaire was released on Aug. 30 at the Telluride film festival, but not released in theaters until January, 2009.
• 2005 – Crash was released on Sept. 10, 2004 at the Telluride film festival, but not released in theaters until May 6, 2005.
• 2004 – Million Dollar Baby had a limited release in December and wide release at the end of Jan. 2005.
• 2001 – Gosford Park had its premiere event in London on November 7, but wasn’t released until January, 2002.
• 2000 – Traffic had its premiere event in Los Angeles on December 27, but was not released until January, 2001.

That’s eight out of thirteen years where something screwy happened with release dates and even more amazingly, the last five (going back to Million Dollar Baby) won the award. I’m no statistician, but I’m pretty sure that’s not just an amazing coincidence. Based on this evidence, if I was betting on this year’s award, Zero Dark Thirty is the best bet, though definitely not the most deserving.

Zero Dark Thirty is exactly what you should expect from a movie based on real events, of which most of the details are classified and kept from the public. The director, Kathryn Bigelow, claims to want to tell the story of the investigation leading up to the death of Bin Laden, but how can she do that without those details? Of course, the real point of the movie is to depict the raid on Bin Laden’s compound, capitalizing on the event in dollars and possible awards. It’s standard Bigelow procedure, which she did three years ago with The Hurt Locker. She found a catchy military slang term to use as a title for a military movie about whatever the big topic is in the media and filled the movie out with a less-than complete story and a character made more important than the story itself. Then, it was IED’s and Jeremy Renner as a bomb disposal expert. This time, it’s the killing of Bin Laden and Jessica Chastain as a CIA agent (Maya).

As much as the commercials want to convince you that this is a compelling movie, it is anything but that. During the film’s laborious two hour and thirty-seven minute running time you will learn exactly nothing new about the investigation or the raid unless you are someone who watches and reads no news. The first two hours of the movie are essentially the fifth-grade history version of the events of 9/11 to the night of the raid. In other words, it’s a high level timeline showing high profile bombings (London subway, Times Square, Pakistan Marriott) separated by investigation scenes in which the agents learn Bin Laden has a courier. Seriously, that’s all they learn over the course of eight years of interrogating prisoners. It isn’t until some random agent finds an old file they’ve had for years that they link the courier’s alias to his real name. By this time, the movie had already run for more than ninety minutes and I know this because I was so bored I couldn’t stop looking at my watch.

After a few minutes are spent depicting them tracking down and following the courier to the safe house, we have to endure a few more scenes of Maya angrily writing the number of days since they found the house on her boss’ office window. I guess this was writer Mark Boal trying to infuse drama by trying to make the audience think the raid wasn’t going to happen, but the only thing it accomplishes is making the audience wait even longer for the raid scene. Unfortunately for the audience, it isn’t worth the wait.

In what can only be described as the most anticlimactic climax I’ve ever seen, SEAL Team 6 raids the compound and kills Bin Laden. This is probably the most accurate scene related to actual events in the movie, but it moves along so slowly and methodically that there is tension in the scene. This problem is only compounded by the fact that we already know from news reports of the actual event that none of the SEALS are injured or killed and that one of the two helicopters crashes. It’s nice that they wanted to keep that one part of the movie as close to truth as possible, but it just didn’t translate to compelling film.

While the movie is competent it is by no means the best picture of the year. On one hand, Chastain is easily the highlight of the movie, turning a good performance with flashes of excellence and the rest of the cast is decent as well (Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong). On the other hand, the movie is beleaguered by absurd dialogue. For example, when CIA Director Panetta (James Gandolfini) asks who she is (in front of a room full of other important people) she responds with “I’m the mother fucker who found the house.” Really…a fairly low-ranking agent is going to swear at the head of the CIA in front of a bunch of other very high ranking officials? Not only was this awkward and unnecessary, but erodes any credibility this movie was hoping to build, not to mention the believability of her character. But as I said before, the real deficiency of the film is its lack of new information relating to the investigation. And just in case you want to believe pieces of the movie are accurate, you will see the standard disclaimer at the end of the credits saying that the depicted events and characters are fictional. So, you won’t know what is truth and what is fictional, but, hey – anything to win an award.

Rating: Ask for five dollars back. The movie is far too long to tell you nothing you don’t already know.

“Gangster Squad” – Cartoon violence has seen better days.

Have you ever wondered what that phrase really means – cartoon violence? When you think about it, it’s a little ambiguous since you don’t know what cartoon it refers to. I typically equate it with Looney Tunes, and more specifically, Wile. E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. It always conjures up an image of the coyote being crushed by an anvil or being exploded by a rocket, followed by the coyote being perfectly fine in the next scene. But it’s not just them, or the rest of the Looney Tunes (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, etc.) that participate in this violence, as nearly all cartoons incorporate this silliness. And that’s just what it is – silliness. Getting back to that definition, I think it’s more than just perpetrating and surviving violence; it’s depicting violence that is completely absurd, so as to become a joke more than anything. This is the perfect way to describe Gangster Squad – an absurd joke.

The movie begins with two things that tell you everything you need to know about this movie. The first is a sequence of shots of L.A. gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) boxing. The second shows Cohen ordering his henchman to kill a rival gangster by ripping his body in half using two cars driving in opposite directions. The purpose of these two things is 1) that there will be many scenes that are completely pointless, starting with the boxing scene, and 2) Mickey, is in fact, a cartoon gangster. I mean number two almost literally, as Penn is so over the top in his portrayal that he makes Looney Tunes gangsters seem dull. The best way to describe him is as a caricature of a caricature of Al Pacino in Dick Tracy. Yeah, it’s that ridiculous.

We soon learn that it is 1949 and Cohen has turned Los Angeles into a cesspool of crime. At least, that’s what we’re being told, since we get very little evidence of it outside of a brothel and mentions of Cohen paying off cops. In order to take down Cohen, Sgt. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) is told to put together a small squad of cops by his police chief, played by the corpse of Nick Nolte. Seriously, based on his movements and speech, I’m fairly certain Nolte died years ago but his body kept eating things and is being kept mobile by a combination of animatronics and fried cheese. Anyway, Brolin recruits five other cops, each of whom has a single talent. There’s Rocky (Anthony Mackie), who has deadly aim when throwing switch-blades; Conway (Giovanni Ribisi), the gadget man; Max (Robert Patrick), the revolver wielding sharpshooter; Navidad (Michael Pena), Max’s sidekick and mentee, and Jerry (Ryan Gosling), the pretty boy whose purpose may or may be John’s conscience. This last part is as confusing as it sounds as he even calls John out at one point to tell him he has to stop bulldozing his way into things and be smart about things. Alas, John will hear nothing of the sort and continues to lead the squad into situations which would lead to their deaths if not for their cartoonish invulnerability.

Even more confusing is Cohen’s main operation that he is trying to set up – a wire service. The way this is described in the movie makes very little sense beyond “it’s going to make a ton of money.” I assumed it was some sort of sports betting set-up, but the way they describe it sounds more like a telephone service. Either one makes a sort of sense, as Mickey is trying to become more classy, but it really doesn’t matter since we know the Gangster Squad (John’s squad literally names themselves this) is going to take it down at some point. And speaking of classy, Emma Stone plays Grace – Mickey’s girlfriend who doubles as his etiquette coach. She’s also sleeping with Jerry, which has to contradict at least one bit of etiquette. Sadly, this is the extent of her character and she exists as nothing more than eye candy, contributing exactly nothing to the story. Like I said, there are a lot of pointless things in this movie, but at least she’s nice to look at.

For those people who overlook all of the insipidness, the movie will make sure you know it is garbage when the climax rolls around. I’m not even talking about the fact that Jerry and John will storm Mickey’s stronghold, taking on roughly fifty guys wielding tommy guns to their two. It’s that after they kill all of these guys, Mickey utters the following line, “Here comes Santy Claus,” followed by John and Mickey firing their tommy guns at each other at point blank range, through a Christmas tree and surrounding ornaments, without hitting each other. It will then rip off the end of Lethal Weapon by having the two duke it out in front a crowd of cops while water is spraying down on them. Sadly, nobody says “I’m getting’ too old for this shit.”

As the movie mercifully ended, some of the folks in the screening audience started clapping. Really? What exactly were they applauding? Was it the unnecessary amount of gore depicted (like floating chunks of a dead guy in a swimming pool)? Was it Emma Stone’s red dress? Was it Ribisi’s pencil moustache? Or Patrick’s Yosemite Sam moustache? Was it Gosling’s complete unbelievability as a tough guy? I really have no idea, but I’d like to think they were just happy it was over. That, or they really like their cartoons.

Rating: Ask for all of your money back. Even the Acme Corporation would be ashamed of this movie.

“Silver Linings Playbook” – An insane romantic comedy.

Did you know that, between the two of them, Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper starred in seven movies in 2012? Yeah, these two were busy, and for about two seconds I wondered who had the better year, until my brain stopped farting and I remembered that Lawrence did The Hunger Games, which grossed $686 million. Besides that and Silver Linings Playbook, she did House at the End of the Street, which turned a good profit ($33 million), and Devil You Know, which I can find no evidence was ever actually released, even though it’s listed in every 2012 movie list I could find. There isn’t even a wiki page for it and there’s a wiki page for everything. On the other hand, Cooper added Hit and Run (a very good movie), The Words (a very not-good movie), and The Place Beyond the Pines, a movie that was released at the Toronto film festival, but won’t see a theater until the end of March. All of Cooper’s movies made money, but all of them were also essentially indie movies, Silver Linings Playbook included. So, even if Cooper wins an Oscar, he can’t possibly have had as good a year as Lawrence.

It’s safe to say that they both had decent years and they collided in Silver Linings Playbook. I was a little leery going into this movie because it was one of the late-year films that was getting absurd amounts of Oscar buzz. The most ridiculous review I saw was from a critic calling it the best sports movie in years. First of all, Moneyball is the best sports movie in years. Second of all, this movie is a sports movie like The Matrix is a computer movie. The fact that the critic was from Philadelphia explains how someone could make such a stupid comment (and that’s not an insult to Philadelphia fans, just that guy).

The film is actually about two people overcoming broken marriages and coming to terms with their mental problems. Pat (Cooper) is released from a mental institution after serving time for beating his ex-wife’s (Nikki) lover nearly to death. Pat believes he can rehabilitate himself, without the use of medications to control his bipolar disorder, in order to win back Nikki. His father, Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) runs a bookmaking business, primarily taking bets on the Philadelphia Eagles, in order to earn enough money to open a restaurant. Pat Sr. is extremely superstitious and believes Pat is good luck. Pat meets Tiffany (Lawrence) while having dinner with a friend and learns that Tiffany’s husband recently died. Tiffany is dealing with the loss and we soon learn how screwed up she is, as well. After a while, they make a deal to help each other out. Tiffany agrees to deliver a letter to Nikki in exchange for Pat entering a dance competition with her; Pat believing the dancing will be a good way to prove to Nikki how he’s changed.

That’s the short of the movie and you’ll notice that sports barely played into it at all. In fact, it’s only used as plot device at the climax of the film. The reason why this movie is so great is because it breaks from the traditional romantic-comedy formula by making the couple overcome their issues before anything else can happen between them. It’s a whole different kind of angst that makes the movie feel fresh and is a nice departure from the norm. Not to mention Cooper and Lawrence put out fantastic performances, which is what really makes the movie.

If there’s one thing that’s a little odd, but definitely not a flaw and a thing that only guys will notice, is that, in this movie, the Eagles win a lot of their games. Knowing that the Eagles have kind of sucked for the last couple of years, I found myself wondering what year this movie was supposed to be taking place. As it turns out, the year is 2008 and every guy out there can breathe a sigh of relief.

Rating: Don’t ask for any of your money back – that would be crazy.