Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Having just been summarily fired from his job, former CIA agent Osbourne Cox (played by John Malkovich) decides to write a memoir about his time in the spy world. His wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) has had just enough of Osbourne, and the lost job — plus the nerve to think he has anything worthy of putting into a memoir — drives her to finally file for divorce. As part of the divorce proceedings, Katie’s lawyers urge her to copy Osbourne’s financial records. Katie inadvertently copies a first draft of the memoir instead. A secretary at the law firm subsequently loses the file at a health club.

The disc is found at Hardbodies (the health club) and ends up in the hands of trainers Chad (Brad Pitt) and Linda (Frances McDormand). Once those two realize they have their hands on some “secret spy shit,” they decide it would be a good idea to try to get some money out of the disc’s owner. Linda, after all, has her heart set on four different plastic surgeries so she can reinvent herself. Chad’s computer whiz friend identifies Osbourne Cox as the writer, and Chad and Linda proceed with their blackmail plan from there.

To make the plot even more complicated, we have a Treasury Department man named Harry (George Clooney) who is having an affair with both Katie and Linda. His involvement has shocking consequences that cause the whole situation to spiral out of control.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

• I thought Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand were really good in this film. Pitt is an actor I can take or leave. I have never gone to see a movie specifically for him, nor have I intentionally avoided one because he was in it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him in a dark comedy like this, but he nailed the part of Chad, the airhead trainer. He was funny pretty much throughout. McDormand is an actress I’ve come to like since her turn in Fargo, and she doesn’t disappoint here. There’s something about her that makes me pay attention whenever she’s on screen.
• I’ll admit it, the chair contraption Harry made in his basement had me laughing out loud at the reveal. OMG, did that come out of left field or what?!
• Harry shooting Chad in the forehead was an unexpected shock. I like being surprised like that when watching a movie — so long as the surprise is somewhat believable. The Coens set up that whole scene when Harry said sometimes “muscle training” just takes over, so I believed it.

Disliked:

• I was expecting more laughs out of this one. There weren’t actually too many funny scenes (yes, I know this was a “dark comedy”, so I wasn’t looking for slapstick), so besides Harry’s chair, I only chuckled a few other times.
• There were some boring stretches where I caught myself looking at my watch. That’s not a good thing, particularly since this film was only 96 minutes long to begin with. The boring scenes made the run time feel longer.
• OK, I know I’m dipping into the shallow end of the pool here, but I did not like all the close-ups of Richard Jenkins. Seeing his face splashed across my 50-inch TV was not fun. All I kept thinking was that the poor man should check out acne scar treatment options ASAP. Terrible, I know, but I couldn’t help it.
• I didn’t care for the scene where Osbourne completely lost his head and started beating on Ted in broad daylight. That rage seemed to come out of nowhere, and didn’t fit in with how the Malkovich character had been acting up to then.

Rating:

Coen films are a crap shoot for me, as I like some and hate others (No Country for Old Men, I’m looking at you!). I wasn’t particularly enthralled by previews of Burn After Reading (which is why it took me so long to finally get around to watching it), but have to say it turned out to be a pretty decent film after all. I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (from the studio): It has taken 10 years, two little Fockers with wife Pam (Teri Polo) and countless hurdles for Greg (Ben Stiller) to finally get “in” with his tightly wound father-in-law, Jack (Robert De Niro). After the cash-strapped dad takes a job moonlighting for a drug company, however, Jack’s suspicions about his favorite male nurse come roaring back.

When Greg and Pam’s entire clan — including Pam’s lovelorn ex, Kevin (Owen Wilson) — descends for the twins’ birthday party, Greg must prove to the skeptical Jack that he’s fully capable as the man of the house. But with all the misunderstandings, spying and covert missions, will Greg pass Jack’s final test and become the family’s next patriarch…or will the circle of trust be broken for good?

Liked:

• I usually don’t like Owen Wilson, but thought he was one of the highlights of this film. His character is just so wacky yet believable that he never failed to crack me up. I loved all of his placid, even-keeled responses to everyone who tried calling him out on his “fake swami” b.s. I actually know someone like that. In real life, it’s annoying as hell, but on the screen it’s funny.

Disliked:

• Let’s hope this is the last Fockers movie. All the jokes felt recycled, tired, and old already. There were surprisingly few laughs in this movie (most came from Wilson, as I mentioned above) and the premise has worn thin.
• Ben Stiller’s performance was so bland. I usually like Stiller, but thought he was terrible here. I usually can’t stand the phrase “mailing it in,” but honestly, that’s the only one that’s appropriate for this situation. It was almost painful to watch him!
• Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman’s characters didn’t need to be there. They didn’t bring anything to the table, so their scenes just made the film unnecessarily longer (even if only by a few minutes).
• The plot was thin, thin, thin. Oooh, Jack is suspicious about Greg again? Jack doesn’t think Greg is good enough for Pam? Jack thinks Pam should really be with Kevin? Been there, done that.

Rating:

I have been a fan of the Fockers franchise, but think the premise has run its course by now. I’m pretty disappointed that Little Fockers didn’t really bring anything new to the table. Why even call it that when the movie wasn’t about the kids in any way, shape, or form? It was just more of the Jack vs. Greg re Pam stuff again. I give this film 2 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with spoilers): Lance Clayton (played by Robin Williams) is a single dad to 15-year-old Kyle (Daryl Sabara). Lance teaches English at a private high school, but his real dream is to be a novelist. He routinely sends off manuscripts that are just as routinely rejected by publishers. No one knows of his aspirations except Claire (Alexie Gilmore), a fellow teacher with whom Lance is sleeping.

Lance’s life seems to be in disarray right from the start of the film. He walks in on Kyle in the middle of some kind of auto-asphyxiation/masturbation activity, which proves more embarrassing for the father than the son. He then learns that his poetry classes are in danger of being canceled because of low attendance. Students would rather take English with Mike Lane (Henry Simmons), a super-cool teacher who plays basketball and publishes articles in The New Yorker. Even Claire is more interested in Mike than in Lance. To make things even worse, Kyle is constantly getting in trouble at school and is on the verge of expulsion.

The first half of the film establishes the dynamic of the father-son relationship while giving some important insight into both characters. Then, tragedy strikes as Kyle’s favorite form of masturbation results in accidental death. Lance, not wishing either him or Kyle to suffer from the embarrassing details, rearranges the scene to look like an intentional suicide, leaving a deep, thought-provoking note in the process.

The suicide note is so good, in fact, that everyone starts to view Kyle differently. Students and teachers alike think there must have been so much more to him than the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed cretin he appeared to be. Lance goes along with this, and writes some journals in Kyle’s name — which are good enough to be published.

When the Kyle adulation reaches a fever pitch, Lance can’t take it anymore. He knows as well as anyone what a “douchebag” his son was, and cannot stand the hypocrisy of everyone that now admires everything Kyle. He reveals the truth, and though he becomes the target of outrage and hatred, he feels a new sense of freedom.

Liked:

• Daryl Sabara was awesome as Kyle! He played the role of know-it-all smart-ass teen perfectly. I was so impressed that I looked him up on IMDb — and was shocked to discover that he’s the boy from the original Spy Kids!! Wow, what a change from that kid to this one! He also played Murphy Brown’s baby, which, sadly, I am old enough to have seen.
• Robin Williams is sooo much better when he plays these understated characters. I felt bad for him during the first half of the film because no matter how much of a jerk Kyle was, Lance just sucked it up — and kept trying to reach out to his son. I would NOT have the same kind of patience in similar circumstances, so kudos to him. (But at the same time, I kind of wonder if Kyle’s lack of respect stemmed from Lance’s lack of disciplinary measures.)

Disliked:

• The film took a total nosedive after Kyle’s death. I was fully engrossed during the first part, but after the kid died, it became a totally different — and far less interesting — movie. I think this would have been better if the main plot explored the relationship between father and son the whole time instead of veering off into the adulation-after-death theme.

Rating:
World’s Greatest Dad started off very well, with some great performances from Robin Williams and Daryl Sabara. But the film lost me at the halfway point, and wasn’t able to do anything to grab my attention away from my iPad once Kyle was gone. I give the first part 5 stars out of 5, but the overall rating is just 3 out of 5.

Plot summary (with spoilers): After a recent breakup with her latest boyfriend, 30-something Jen (played by Katherine Heigl) goes on vacation to Nice, France with her parents Mr. Kornfeldt (Tom Selleck) and Mrs. Kornfeldt (Catherine O’Hara). While there, Jen meets and falls in love with Spencer Aimes (Ashton Kutcher), who, unbeknownst to her, is a spy/assassin.

During the whirlwind romance, Spencer decides that he wants nothing more than to get out of the spy game and settle down to a normal existence in suburbia with Jen. He tells his boss Henry (Rob Riggle) that he’s quitting, but Henry gives him the usual spiel about how no one can walk away that easily. Spencer doesn’t listen. He and Jenn marry, then begin what should be a blissful life together.

The action fast-forwards three years, and we see that Spencer and Jen have been reasonably happy in that time. But now Spencer gets a postcard at his office from Henry demanding that he complete another hit. Spencer has no intention on following through. However, Mr. Kornfeldt happens to come into the office to take Spencer to dinner and notices the message. He asks Spencer about it, but Spencer is vague and evasive.

The next morning, one of Spencer’s neighbors tries to kill him. As they fight, the man tells Spencer that there’s now a $20 million bounty on his head, and that he can expect more people to come after him even if this current attempt fails. Once Spencer gets the man subdued, Jen returns home to find the house a shambles. Spencer finally fesses up to everything as the two are being chased by the would-be assassin, who has managed to free himself.

From there, we see Spencer and Jen try to fight off half a dozen more assassination attempts — all by people who have been in their lives for the past few years. These include neighbors, friends, and co-workers. Finally at the end, it’s revealed who has put these assassins in place and why.

Liked:

• I’m a Katherine Heigl fan, so I tend to like her no matter how bad the film as a whole is. That was the case here. The movie was terrible, but she was definitely the best thing about it.
• At least it was short and didn’t drag on and on with superfluous scenes. There’s nothing I hate more than a film that doesn’t know when to end.
• Catherine O’Hara’s character was funny. I know true alcoholism is no laughing matter, but this was just a film after all.

Disliked:

• Ashton Kutcher is pretty damn annoying as an actor. I try to like him because I think what he does with social media is kinda cool, but he cannot carry a movie like this.
• I just didn’t understand the plot at all. Why would Tom Selleck need to plant sleepers around Spencer and Jen? He was supposed to be this badass operative himself, and since the parents were always “within 5 minutes” of the the couple ever since the wedding day, why would he possibly need so many other people hovering around. Also, why would he let his daughter marry Spencer in the first place if he ever thought there would be a need to kill him in the future? None of that made any sense.
• The film got off to an incredibly slow start. The main conflict — that of Spencer being pursued by the other killers — didn’t start until 45 minutes in. Did we really need that much of a setup?

Rating:

I wasn’t expecting anything great out of Killers, but I was at least hoping to be sufficiently entertained for an hour and a half. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. There were a few laugh-out-loud moments along the way (the part with Spencer’s feeble attempt at a mustache comes to mind), but mostly the story was uninspired, uninteresting, and unoriginal. I give this film 2 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): This film is set in an “alternate reality” where every human is compelled to tell the truth. Lies — even of the white, harmless variety — have not been “invented” yet, so everyone says exactly what’s on their mind. (Apparently, discretion hasn’t been invented either.)

We see this world through the eyes of Mark Bellison (played by Ricky Gervais), a screenwriter who, because storytelling and fiction are also unheard of, is assigned to write factual accounts of things that happened during the 1300s and 1400s. There’s not much to talk about besides the Black Plague, so his scripts are miserable failures and he ends up getting fired. Add to this scenario his lack of luck in the love department after getting shot down by Anna McDoogles (Jennifer Garner) because of his bad genes, and it’s clear that Mark doesn’t have much going for him.

To make matters worse, his landlord, having heard that Mark lost his job, comes around for the rent a bit early to ensure that it gets paid. Mark only has $300 in his bank account, well short of the $800 rent. He goes to the bank the next day to get the money and perhaps use that to move his stuff out when something strange happens. The bank’s computers are down, but they can still handle deposits and withdrawals. When the teller asks Mark how much he wants to withdraw, he seizes upon the idea to say $800 instead of $300. The teller of course believes him, and processes the transaction.

Mark proceeds to test out his new-found power of lying by telling his friends various facts about himself that are clearly untrue. But they don’t even bat an eye and believe everything he says. He takes his lying even further when he decides to comfort his dying mother. She’s despairing about the eternal nothingness that awaits her, but Mark jumps in and essentially creates Christianity on the spot, telling her about a “man in the sky” who controls everything and how she’s on her way to a better place where all her loved ones are waiting for her. The doctors overhear this, and Mark becomes an instant celebrity.

From there, the film goes into anti-religion mode, doing its utmost to show how ridiculous Christianity sounds when we can see some dude just making everything up. Along the way, Mark uses his lying ability to create fictional screenplays and get Anna to fall in love with and marry him.

My Reaction: I thought The Invention of Lying had an interesting premise, but I just didn’t like the route the writers took. I thought the religion-bashing was dumb, and really slowed the second act down to a grinding halt. If you had the ability to lie when no one else could, that’s how you would spend your time? Really? Look, I’m agnostic, so the film’s message didn’t bother me on a doctrinal level or anything like that. It just seemed like a bad writing choice and didn’t yield nearly the number of laughs I expected.

Another thing I didn’t like about the film was how the writers equated telling the truth with spewing everything that’s on your mind, even when no one has asked a direct question. I realize the writers were playing this up for the comedic effect, but god, it became really annoying and old after the first 20 times.

I usually like Ricky Gervais, so I was pretty disappointed at how bad The Invention of Lying was. Even the ensemble cast that featured the likes of Rob Lowe, Tina Fey, Jason Bateman, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Ed Norton couldn’t save this one. I give it 2 stars out of 5.