Milk: 3 stars

I remember seeing Gus Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting in the theatres. It was one movie experience that became etched into my memory for some reason. I was sharply struck by the film and absolutely fell in love with it. Van Sant has since offended me and many other filmgoers with some strange and poor choices. It’s almost as if the self-editing function of his brain had been torn out. Well it is back and functioning for Milk, kind of, and due to the large amount of outstanding acting it is a very solid film.

Milk tells the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person elected to public office not just in California but also in America. Moving to San Francisco from New York City, Harvey and his partner Scott Smith opened up a camera store on Castro Street. This location would soon become the epicenter for the entire gay movement in the city and Milk became the spokesman. Milk understood that more could be done from within the system than simply fighting against the homophobic police and politicians and decided to run for office. Those of you who are familiar with the story don’t need an entire breakdown of what occurred and those of your who are not will be better served just watching the story develop on screen.

The most enjoyable part of this film was the acting. Sean Penn is indeed Academy Award worthy in his performance. It is controlled, nuanced and very real. You forget you’re watching Sean Penn. The supporting cast is stellar and award worthy as well. Emile Hirsch’s performance really stuck out to me. Hirsch plays Cleve Jones, a young boy recruited by Harvey to join his team and assist with activism and his campaign. Hirsch completely transformed into the person he was portraying. It was a pleasure to watch all of the fine acting; from James Franco to Josh Brolin everyone was perfect. If judged on acting alone my rating would have been four stars, however, something felt lacking to me.

There were times that I wished for a more detailed look at the man that Harvey Milk was. The film does a great job of documenting Harvey’s rise to activist and politician, as well as all of the events surrounding him, but everything was quickly brushed over. Van Sant also utilizes artistic transitions and real stock footage of the events and politicians that are contained in the story, however I feel at times this takes away from the courageous stories being told. I think the idea was to lend more authenticity, but the spliced footage and audio felt more like propaganda or documentary to me. There are hints of the motivations, past and history of Harvey Milk and his closest friends sprinkled throughout, but nothing is ever fully flushed out. Overall the film is touching, the story is engaging and the acting is brilliant, but I won’t be rushing to watch it again.

The most enlightening about this film for me is the fact that when originally advertised it made me realize that I had no idea who Harvey Milk was. Throughout approximately twenty years of public education, not once was the life or actions of Harvey Milk discussed along with the effect that he had on the treatment of homosexuals in our country. Although the film could have been more effective in portraying Harvey Milk the man, it painfully exposed to me the real tragedy that is Harvey Milk’s lack of representation, along with homosexuals in general, in our school’s history books. If other prominent political leaders and activists for many other minorities are covered I see no reason why Harvey Milk shouldn’t be as vastly included and revered in American History.

I Love You, Man: 3 stars

Paul Rudd has become a bona fide leading man. It took him a while, but I’m glad it happened. Slowly but surely he climbed the ladder from Gen Y Cops and Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers to Role Models and I Love You, Man. Jason Segel joins him in I Love You Man and together they made me want my own man cave.

What is a man cave you ask? It is a lair of all things men. Where men can be men, do man things and not be ashamed. Sydney Fife (Segel) has a man cave and becomes Peter Klaven’s (Rudd) man mentor. You see, Peter is a Real Estate Agent who just got engaged had has no guy friends to be in his wedding party. He has always been a girl’s guy. Afraid he’s going to upset the wedding party balance, he sets off to find a best man. After a few failed man dates Peter meets Sydney at one of his open houses and they hit it off. A bevy of scenes containing straight guys acting like they’re a couple ensues.

The story progresses and there are many supporting facets that there is no need to spell out here. So lets just talk about what works and doesn’t work in the film. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are what works. They are both on top of their game and make this film tick. I can’t really imagine anyone else in the roles being as funny, because to be honest the script is a tad weak. Rudd and Segel really bring it too life and probably make it more funny than it is on paper. The supporting characters/actors are all where they need to be as well, supporting. No one tries to steal the show and nothing sticks out as being completely unfunny. I can’t recall any complete misses, but there definitely some weaker moments. However, the weak moments aren’t weak enough to drag the rest of the film down, and the hilarious moments more than make up for it.

I did feel like the film started off a little sugary for my taste. I was worried for the first ten minutes as Klaven and his fiancé were kind of annoying. However, that wore off and the more Klaven tried to be a man, the more hilarious he became. What is great about Rudd’s performance is that there is no crazy transformation into mandom. He manages to maintain Klaven’s clean-cut and slightly dorky mannerisms while trying to be more of a dude’s man. The result is an awkwardness that is always amusing. Segel also shines as the man whose lifestyle never really changed from high school. I won’t say he hasn’t grown up, because he has, he just made some different choices along the way. He’s not immature; he’s just eccentric in my eyes.

The film is written and directed by John Hamburg, who also wrote and directed Along Came Polly. You can tell, as a lot of the same cinematic and narrative devices are used, however I Love You, Man is far more funny and enjoyable. In different hands the story could have been turned into something downright hilarious, but I have no big complaints. I Love You, Man is a nice and easy buddy comedy that hits the mark.

Let The Right One In: 4 stars

If you’ve heard of ‘Let The Right One In,’ then you may have heard it described as a Swedish vampire film. While that it is in some ways correct, the film is so much more than that and exceeds any simple labels that can be thrown upon it. I would have to say it is, in the simplest of ways, a drama which utilizes a vampire as one of its main characters while drawing very heavily on it’s establishment of mood; very much like a Sofia Coppola film.

The plot summary is a simple one, and that is because the focus isn’t on plot intricacy and complications but rather on mood and emotion. Oskar, an outcast twelve-year-old boy and the product of peer abuse and divorced parents, falls in love with his new neighbor Eli. She happens to be a vampire. The two children explore innocent love and affection, while dealing with their respective difficulties within a cold world that has cast them aside. We first meet Oskar in the midst of plotting revenge against the bullies at his school. Eli gives him the strength to stand up to them, while Oskar gives Eli the feeling of being normal and wanted for once in her existence.

On the surface, yes this is a move with vampires. To judge the film based solely as a vampire flick, it is pretty darn cool, but I would still rate it as top notch as a drama for a multitude of reasons. First, the film is a thing of beauty. Imagery wise, this ranks up there with my favorites. Set during a stark winter, the films visuals don’t let up after the simple and beautiful opening credits. More impressively, ninety-nine percent of the film appears to be special effect free. Simple and pure photography goes a long way in my book. Not to mention, it contains some of the coolest vampire scenes I’ve ever seen. In addition, the sound effects and score are perfectly used throughout, properly setting up the creepy moody and tension without giving anything away. Finally, the filmmakers don’t treat the viewers as idiots. People excited to see this film are most likely going to like vampires and know a little about them. The vampire mythology and storyline is dropped right into the middle of the real world innocent love story. Nothing is spelled out for the viewers. When something happens, there isn’t a line telling us why, the film allows viewers to figure things out themselves. Why do filmmakers have to explain vampire mythology all over again in every film like we’ve never heard it before?

Nothing is over the top, even when Eli displays some of her vampire abilities, and the film sort of glides smoothly over the viewer. The violent scenes are shot from a voyeuristic point of view, instead of an in your face bloodbath, which creates a far more unnerving feeling. There were three or four times that I smiled with vampire giddiness because the film was so unique and welcoming.

The film works as an effective character study of two lost children just trying to find some love in the world as well as a refreshing vampire flick. While I felt there were some question marks in the storyline, the overall beauty and boldness of the film more than make up for any missteps. I begged in a previous entry for a good vampire movie, and Sweden beat Hollywood to the punch. Well fear not, because Hollywood has already bought the rights to remake ‘Let The Right Ones In’ since they couldn’t come up with an original idea themselves.

The House Bunny: 1/2 star

Before getting into this review I have to admit that I had no desire to see this film. So, could my opinion of it have been pre-determined? Possibly. Do I think I went into it with an open mind? Yes, however my mind proceeded to be pummeled with bad jokes and was then closed for business. In fact, if you do plan on seeing this film make sure you switch yours off too, it will be too painful otherwise.

Anna Faris steps into her first leading role as Shelley; a Playboy Bunny whose life long dream of being a centerfold gets smashed when she is kicked out of the mansion on her twenty-seventh birthday. Struggling to find where she belongs in the real world, she becomes the housemother of fledgling sorority Zeta House at a nearby University. In order to save their sorority, Shelley has to help the girls become popular to obtain the required amount of pledges. A conspiracy against her is unveiled later in the film, but it is irrelevant and completely useless in the storyline. You could literally take every scene containing it out, and you wouldn’t even realize it was missing.

I’ve always maintained that critics have to keep an open mind and judge films not only for what they are, but also for what they are supposed to be. You can’t critique films such as ‘House Bunny’ and ‘To Kill a Mocking Bird’ based on the same criteria, it just isn’t fair. While my opening paragraph may make me sound like a movie elitist, I promise that I am judging this film against its peers. I understand that this film is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, however for me it never reaches the level of preposterous humor and just stays at a level of just being uncomfortable. Hey, one of the few jokes in this film that actually made me laugh was a poop joke. However, the rest of the times I laughed it felt like I was laughing AT the movie, not as a result of it.

I had high hopes for the supporting actors Emma Stone and Kat Dennings as I enjoyed them in their previous supporting roles. I also have no issue with Anna Faris. She is what she is and she does it well. However, the problem with this film is not the actors in any facet, it’s the material. It is vapid, and despite what Shelley thinks I don’t mean that in a good way. Everything feels really cheap, presumptuous and easy. Yes, there is even a “Run Forrest, run.” bit thrown in. I can’t imagine any great amount of time and effort going into this script. Most of the jokes are painfully obvious, but that fits right in with the turns the story takes. The stereotyped characters of the Zeta house, are so weird that I actually asked out loud at one point if they were supposed to be human or some kind of group of mutants. 

The real tragedy is that the girls of Zeta house are supposed to be the smart, dorky outcasts that the viewers should be able to relate to and root for. The script, however, paints some of them in a way that makes me wonder how they had the social skills to actually apply and get accepted to any university, and all of them into moldable pieces of clay for Shelley to do whatever she wants with. In a span of five movie minutes, their morals and beliefs are completely forgotten so Shelley can paint and dress them up to be popular. Somehow the clothes and makeup made them act differently as well. I’m not quite sure how that works. A little more resistance from the girls, and a little more of the real them underneath the clothes and makeup, would have been more believable not to mention an opportunity for actual comedy.

Surprisingly, there is more I could discuss about the film.  I could talk about Shelley’s love interest or go into more depth about why I felt wronged by the depiction of the main group of girls, but it's not worth it.  The bottom line is that this film could have been a smart and easygoing comedy in the right hands. I was hoping for something more like ‘Mean Girls’, but unfortunately the filmmakers opted for the easier route and created a difficult to watch and unfunny movie.

The Mist: 2 stars

There are a few types of horror films; ones that know want they’re supposed to be and follow the formula, ones that break the boundaries, and ones that teeter on the fence between the first two. I don’t think I can ever fault a horror movie for being cliché, because they should be. That is what makes them so fun. Successful horror movies will play with those clichés and formulas and find new ways to scare us. There is a reason why people like horror films and straying from the formula can be problematic in some cases. ‘The Mist’ has no shame in throwing in plenty of the same old stuff, but that’s not the problem with this film. The problem with ‘The Mist’ is that it fails at being the third type of horror film noted above and ends up being ugly. Not visually ugly, the film is actually quite beautiful in some places, but ugly in its implication.

A massive thunderstorm brings a mysterious mist to a small town. While shopping for supplies to repair their damaged home, a father and young son become trapped by the mist in a supermarket with plenty of stereotypical townspeople. They are left there to fight for their lives against the wrath that the mist brings upon them. A study of human nature commences. There are the uneducated mechanics, hard-headed “educated” guys, the high school bagboy, the cute girl, the biker dude, religious extremists, armed force members, and of course the hunky everyday man (Thomas Jane) as the main character. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

This film does do a handful of things well. I was definitely rooting for Thomas Jane’s character. He’s very good at being the brave loving dad who wants to protect his son. I completely bought it. The visuals were also great. The mist was effectively creepy and the film contains many lovely frames. The problem is that the film does as many things poorly as it does well. My main issue right from the start was that the filmmakers exposed what was causing havoc in the mist too early. I’m of the opinion that what you can’t see but know is there, is much scarier than seeing what the thing actually is. The mind’s imagination generates visuals scarier then CGI can ever create. I feel that the tension and eerie tone is lost once what is inside the mist is exposed. While there were plenty of squirms and icky moments, once the tension is broken the edge I was sitting on turned into a valley.

Then of course there is the ending and the overall message I gathered from the film. As I noted before, most of the film is a basic study in human nature. What happens when normal people are faced with unthinkable challenges? To directly state my problems with the filmmakers answer to that question would give too much away about the film itself. I’ll put it this way; throughout the story, especially in the last twenty minutes, I was thinking about how I would react in the same situation. It seems to me that the writers contend there are three possibilities, and I couldn’t find myself in any of those groups. I guess I felt unrepresented, therefore I couldn’t believe how the story unravels. You may read other reviews that call the ending awesome, or thought provoking, or maybe even horrific. You may agree with them, so I’m not saying not to give this one a chance, but I found the resolution repellent, and not in an ooey gooey horror movie sort of way.

Watchmen: 3.5 stars

We have been in the middle of a new superhero era of film for a while now. The eighties and nineties gave us Tim Burton’s “Batman” and “Batman Returns” as well as Sam Raimi’s “Darkman.” The trend died down for a while, but now Hollywood brings us a superhero more grounded in reality, more human and more relatable. It started with Sam Raimi’s “Spiderman” series, but really took off with Christopher Nolan’s re-imagining of Batman. The success of “Batman Begins’ lead studios to seemingly throw everything they had into superhero movies. Many have failed and the rest have been mediocre to good. Where does "Watchmen" sit amongst the rest of the crop? It is definitely towards the top but not on it.

In an alternate version of 1985 Edward Blake has been murdered. Masked “superhero” Rorschach discovers that Edward Blake is a retired masked “superhero” himself, The Comedian. While the country edges closer to nuclear war with Russia, Rorschach believes he has uncovered a conspiracy to eliminate The Watchmen and sets out to warn the rest of the retirees: Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl II), Doctor Manhattan (the only one to have true super powers), Laurie Jupiter (Silk Spectre II) and Adrian Veidt who was Ozymandias but is now a successful businessman and the only Watchman to have revealed his true identity.

You might be wondering why a few of these characters have II next to their name. It is because they are not the first set of masked crusaders to watch over America. Previously the outfit was called The Minutemen. Silk Spectre II is the daughter of the original Silk Spectre and Nite Owl II is simply the second Nite Owl. Director Zack Snyder does a great job of weaving the whole story of the original Minutemen and the creation of the new Watchmen during a beautiful opening montage over Bob Dylan’s ‘The Times They are A-Changin’. What is so great about the story also makes the telling of it in film a difficult one. These are intelligent and dense characters with a long history. In order to tell the complete tale, while allowing the viewer to understand and attach to the characters, Snyder incorporates a weaving narrative that flashes back to the past while propelling the plot forward at the same time. This requires an attentive audience. I caught almost everything my first go around, but I know I will need a second viewing to catch it all. I personally don’t mind a challenging film and the complicated structure used is not a gimmick used to fool the viewer for a surprise ending; there really is a lot of information to convey. However, why not plan for a trilogy? Perhaps the material would be better served spaced out into three shorter and more precise films. I thought that’s what studios wanted these days anyway.

I had a few worries going into the film; one was the casting of Malin Ackerman as Silk Spectre II and the second was the direction of Zack Snyder. During several discussions about the film I worried, “I really hope the entire movie isn’t in slow motion.” Like the Matrix before it, Snyder’s ‘300’ was ripe with slow motion action sequences as well as the trailer for this film. ‘Watchmen’ definitely doesn’t disappoint in that department. However, I feel this is one thing that detracts from the grittiness and honesty of these everyday masked crusaders. In addition, a cute face and nice body does not a good actor make. Ackerman isn’t absolutely horrible, but definitely sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the rest of the stellar cast. Jackie Earle Haley is chilling as Rorschach, Billy Crudup is wonderful and otherworldly as Dr. Manhattan, and Patrick Wilson is perfect as the mousy and proper Nite Owl II. Not to mention Jeffrey Dean Morgan, himself an eerie mix of Robert Downey Jr. and Javier Bardem, who embodies harsh reality as The Comedian.

Watchmen definitely ranks right at the top with the current Batman series of films at depicting everyday relatable superheroes. The Watchmen all have issues that many of the viewers in the audience may have as well. Instead of sitting in a movie theatre they’re using their painful past to fight crime, kill the bad guys and save innocent lives. The word superhero is surrounded by quotations in my writing above because the label is debatable. These people are definitely not all likeable let alone heroes. Snyder does a great job bringing the story to a rich and luscious life, but for me the film doesn’t spend enough time letting us get to know these down to earth “superheroes.” All in all it’s a pretty cool flick, with a few disappointments.

A Prelude to Watchmen: To Read or Not to Read

This weekend marks the release of a much anticipated and controversial graphic novel adaptation of "Watchmen." This is a film that is based on what is apparently the Holy Grail of graphic novels, has gone through the hands of many studios and directors and was threatened to not even be released due to legal battles between studios. Needless to say it is under a lot of scrutiny. I am going to see it tonight and my review will be posted over the weekend, however, before my review I wanted to delve into the long standing argument of film adaptation; should the film be reviewed based on the fact that it is an adaption or should it stand alone?

When you really break everything down and simplify, the answer is very clear. The fact that it is even an ongoing issue in the world of film seems silly. They are two completely different mediums and different experiences. The film should be judged and viewed on the basis of film, and the book should be judged and read on the basis of literature. Case closed, end of story. However, based on the reviews of "Watchmen" I have been skimming through, this is still a big issue. The following is a breakdown of what has been bothering me about the reviews I have seen for "Watchmen" and reasons for writing this blog entry:

1. Finally a group of filmmakers agree with fanboys, commit to making an adaptation as faithful as possible to the graphic novel, create what seems to be an epic film and apparently the film is "too faithful" to the original material which effects the film negatively.

2. Many critics are writing reviews as if they have read the graphic novel in full. Many of these critics don't seem like the graphic novel type. I just don't believe that all of them were fans of "Watchmen" before its release or fans of graphic novels in general.

3. The narrative structure is said to be too complicated.

I can't even imagine the frustration Zack Snyder must feel when reading a review that says the films faithfulness to the source material is actually a negative thing. After all of the hisses and boos towards past films that didn't stay true enough to their source material, we find out that it's also bad to stay true to the source material. This is why I think you can't take that into account. Is the film good and why? That's all I want from a critic. Tell me why or why not you liked the film, not why or why not you didn't think it was adapted well.

I get the feeling many critics picked up a copy of the graphic novel "Watchmen" prior to their screening of the film. It is also probably safe to say that many of them aren't fans of the medium. So I have to ask, why? You're not a graphic novel critic, you're a film critic. I say watch the film first and tell me how you felt about the film. If you liked it enough to find out where it came from, then go buy the novel and read it. There was one review I found that had no mention of the films adaptation and reviewed it simply has a super hero film. Roger Ebert gave "Watchmen" four stars and says, "it’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel."

This leads to a question that must be asked of critics who say the film isn't as strong as it could be due to its dedication to the novel or narrative structure, did you like the graphic novel in the first place and were you bothered by the novel's narrative structure? If you were, then there is no reason to mention the adaptation, because if it's a faithful adaptation then your dislike would go without saying. If you liked the graphic novel and weren't bothered by it's narrative structure, then tell me WHY a faithful adaptation didn't work on film. You don't even have to bring up the point that it's an adaptation to do so because the film is the film, tell me why you think it doesn't work.

I think it's the responsibility of both critics and moviegoers alike to separate the two. I know it is hard, especially if you read the source material first, but you have to go in assuming that it's going to be different. You can't expect a word for word adaptation to film because in most cases it just would never work. It is completely understandable and warranted if you leave a viewing stating, "I liked the book better." However, how did you like the film? You are allowed to like both, and for different reasons and on different levels. Maybe that's something people forget. If you didn't like the film, I'd like to hear a reason that is cinema based, not based on it's adaptation of the source material.

Novels allow our mind to wander and construct the words into images. Reading can be a very personal and detailed process. Films take care of that process for us and are for the most part viewed as an escape, and a way to shut off our minds. However, they can be just as personal and imagination sparking as novels; its up to the viewers to allow that to happen. I think it's important to make that point, even though this entry isn't bout books vs. movies, because if you go into a film and allow yourself to be wrapped up in it instead of trying to find parts that weren't in the novel, maybe you'll find yourself surprised.

Using "Watchmen" as the example for this entry may not have been the best idea, but it is the most prevalent at this time. Many of the films imaged above weren't faithful at all to the source material and got great reviews, or were very faithful to the original material and got great reviews as well. I think the reason "Watchmen" is so interesting is that people who aren't fans of graphic novels or who wouldn't have liked this type of movie in the first place are trying to say why or why not the adaptation worked. "Watchmen" is a very genre specific film and has a very specific demographic. I think it's very difficult for people to judge movies based on its goal and what the film is meant to be instead of personal biases and opinions. Add the task of analyzing the adaptation and the review gets even more convoluted. I guess what I'm asking for is straightforward honesty and clarity. To critics and moviegoers alike: tell me why you like the film, tell me if its something you would normally be drawn to, and then tell me why or why not. Then we can talk about the book.

Bullitt: 3.5 stars

Steven Soderbergh was only five years old when “Bullitt” was released, but based solely on the similarities between the slick opening credits of this film to Soderbergh’s retro-fitted Ocean’s series, one would swear that Soderbergh was in his twenties and in the front row on Bullitt’s opening night. I guess he’s just a good student of film. I’m trying to catch up on my classics and while watching this film, I couldn’t help but think that forty-one years after it’s release…wait…forty-one years?! It is absolutely phenomenal how well this film holds up against the many cops and robbers, good cop bad cop, and hard-boiled action flicks that have come since. There are movies that were released five or ten years ago that don’t hold up as well to the test of time. Why does “Bullitt” still entertain and why is it still relevant? Because of it’s faith to reality and its simplicity.

The story is very straightforward, just like its main character. Steve Mcqueen plays Frank Bullitt, a San Francisco Detective assigned to protect a witness against the mob. When his protection fails, the only thing he cares about is finding the ones who did it. Not even the Mayor can get in his way. Throughout the entire process he never once looses his cool. Mcqueen plays Bullitt calm and collected with a hint of his past boiling over underneath. It’s right there behind the eyes. The film captures a normal period in his life where he has to catch a bad guy; he’s been there before and he’ll be there again.

“Bullitt” has everything a cop movie should; a super cool lead man, a “bad” guy that always gets in the “good” guy’s way, attractive girls, a chase scene and a few shootouts. These elements are all done with a real-life approach. The chase scene is perfect and set a standard for ones to come. Hubcaps fly off around turns, cars react as they should to impact and other traffic, and no unbelievable jumps are made. I couldn’t help but giggle when one man climbs into the backseat and awkwardly shoots his shotgun out of the tiny rear seat window instead of hanging half way out of the passenger window un-phased by the movement of the car or recoil of his gun. You wouldn’t see that in most action films today. Real doctors and real nurses are even used in the hospital scenes. This technique was being used forty-one years ago, and now it seems like a fad in film. 

One aspect of “Bullitt” that is glaring today is the use of music and sound effects, or the lack thereof. I felt that scenes went on far too long without any use of score and that sound effects were lacking that attention grabbing pop. I can understand this if the director wanted to stay true to reality, but it is one thing that doesn’t hold up to the test of time. What may have seemed to create the feeling of being in the middle of a police chase then only creates distance for viewers today. Audio is one thing filmmakers are truly masters of today. They fully understand how sound and music can impact the pacing and intensity of the film.

Indeed “Bullitt” is a classic and it is still a great film. The fax machines are massive telecopiers and the clothes are different, but everything else is the same. It’s interesting to wonder what the equivalent of “Bullitt” will be for me when I’m sixty years old. Will it be “Bourne Supremacy?” Maybe it will be “True Romance” or “Pulp Fiction.” Whatever it is, I will agree that film wouldn’t have existed unless “Bullitt” came first.

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father: 3 stars

There is an age-old argument about whether life imitates art or the other way around. I’m on the side of the fence that believes art imitates life, and the documentary film “Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father” could be used as the backbone for this argument. Unfortunately for the Bagby family, you just can’t make a story like this up. It is all too real and it happened to them.

“Dear Zachary” starts out as the heartfelt memorial project from the childhood friend of a much beloved doctor and turns into a horror story that is unraveled before out eyes. Dr. Andrew Bagby was murdered in Pennsylvania in 2001. His ex-girlfriend, and prime suspect, fled to her hometown in Newfoundland shortly thereafter. Four months later Andrew’s family and friends are told she is pregnant with Andrew's child and a heated custody and legal battle ensues. The film is many things at once; it is a heartfelt eulogy for a dearly missed family member and friend, a true-crime case file, and the story of grandparents trapped by a flawed judicial system.

Director Kurt Kuenne does not cut out any of the raw emotion in this very personal account. In addition to directing Kuenne serves as the narrator. Viewers will hear him holding back tears during parts that are difficult to think about let alone say out loud. Andrew Babgy was very loved and is intensely missed. That fact is elegantly painted through the many interviews with family and friends. I could have sworn they were people from my family. Everyone is very honest and sincere and Kuenne does a great job of editing in this sense. I may be wrong, but it appears he kept parts in the film that I’m sure the subjects expected to be left out. Allowing the real nit and grit to be told paints the filmmaker in a more trustworthy light. However, since the subject matter is so close to Kurt’s heart it is impossible to be completely objective. This story is so nightmarish that the editing and sound effect techniques applied in some scenes are not needed and the word campy even entered my head. This is never good for a documentary. However, given the situation surrounding the creation of the film, and the very engaging story held within, Kuenne’s artistic choices are very understandable if not forgivable.

I’m not sure it was the filmmaker’s intention, but for me the film also delivers a profound message about grieving. Many who have endured any great loss in their life will be struck by certain interviews with Andrews Parents. At times his Father turns into a hateful person, a stark contrast to the good natured and calm person we see throughout the rest of the film. He later turns this raw emotion into being an activist for judicial reform. Andrew’s parents teach us that we must confront and deal with our demons before they destroy us, and one way to do that is to channel that energy into something positive.

“Dear Zachary” isn’t an award-winning documentary and doesn’t break any new ground artistically. However, it does convey a very enthralling and emotional story that deserves to be told. I couldn’t help but think about all of the similar stories that likely exist throughout the world, and wondered how many films like this would exist if they all had a ready and willing filmmaker to capture them.

Step Brothers: 2 stars

So far, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay are one for three. The team that brings us “Step Brothers” previously brought us “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” and “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.” Personally, I didn’t find much funny about “Anchorman” and I feel the same about “Step Brothers.” Will Ferrell has dug himself into a nice comfy niche with these over the top comedies, and whether they hit or miss there will always be people who find them hilarious. Unfortunately, “Step Brothers” forgets that there is more to comedy than screaming and vulgar language. You have to actually follow through on the set up.

Brennan Huff (Will Ferrell) and Dale Doback (John C. Reilly) are forty-something unemployed men who still live with their respective single parents. The parents meet, fall in love and get married. Now these two immature men will have to learn to live with one another as well as their new mom or dad. They get into the same trouble and fights that two twelve year olds would, but since they are full grown adults the fights are much more violent and contain a few more f-words and ridiculous threats.

The set up is a great idea. What if two men who have never grown up are forced to become brothers through their parent’s marriage? Put Ferrell and Reilly in those roles and the idea sounds even better. However, “Step Brothers” decides to sidestep all of the subtleties of this seemingly hilarious situation and instead chooses to beat the viewer over the head with mean spirited exchanges and screaming. For example, take a look at the image I have posted above which was used for the film’s advertising. It's hilarious and I would like to know the story behind it. I want to see Brennan and Dale in the Olan Mills studio of Wal-Mart being corralled by their parents and arguing over the pose like other children would. I want to see their reaction to being told they have chores and I want to see them playing with other forty year old children at the park. I’m not saying that Step Brothers is utterly unfunny, because it does have a few good moments. However I don’t believe the filmmakers tapped into the setup’s full potential and the funniest parts involve the supporting cast instead of the main characters. Even then the gags can draw on a little too long.

Comedies are tough to review because everyone’s funny bone is different and objectivity can be lost. If you like the other films I mention above then I would give this one a chance as well. You might like it, but you might not. I didn’t. I’m just glad Ferrell is willing to crawl out of his niche every now and then for films such as “Stranger Than Fiction” and “Elf,” and I’ll be just as eager for his next outing as I was for “Step Brothers.”