Another of my favorites from the festival, I've found out in the last couple days, now belongs to Magnet Releasing just like the one I consider the Best of Fantastic Fest (Let the Right One In), who has now acquired Chocolate for American release in 2009. A Thai martial arts movie from Pracha Pinkaew, the director of the much-lauded Ong Bak from a few years ago, Chocolate tells the story of an autistic girl born to the former mistress of a crime boss who picks up a ludicrous amount of fighting skill from watching Tony Jaa and Bruce Lee movies. I appreciate the sentiment of Pinkaew dedicating the movie to special needs kids, as it'll honestly reach more people than...Dark Floors, which also featured an autistic young female lead I only caught a few minutes of at one point. I'm actually especially impressed that unlike almost anyone else I've seen "play autistic," American, Finnish, or anything, Jeeja Viemistananda actually gets it right. Viemistananda also trained 5 years for the part and it shows. I can really get behind this movie a bit more than I would most generic martial arts actioners these days mostly due to the phenomenal fight sequences anchored by this virtuosa lead performer. Some of the "locations" I've seen multiple times before, but the mix of Lee and Jaa styled choreography really keeps the movie fresh the whole way through. The thing the movie does really well is not overload you with on-screen movement such that you miss everything, at once also not overdoing the slow-mo to the point you get to checking your watch. Additionally, these days, it helps for there to be a palpable sense that someone got really badly injured making one of these movies where there is no evidence of mats or much (if any) protective gear. You an rest assured there is an "injury reel" once the credits roll, and there are a few "christ, how much do they pay these guys" or "did I just see that guy die?" moments. A pal asked if it was as good as Ong Bak, and the simplest answer is that it's a different flavor of fighter movie, but just as good. Ong Bak is in the vein of Drunken Master "I must save my village and heritage" whereas Chocolate is the "I must save my mother/father/nephew who needs money for {medical condition}" so it plays differently. For those of you who don't give a toss about story and plot in martial arts flicks and care only about the action (like my dad), it's fantastic and well worth a watch. See it theatrically for sure, since now I know you can in the US. Resist the import DVD temptation, it's worth it.

Fantastic Fest's closing night film was City of Ember, starring Bill Murray and Tim Robbins, as well as Saoirse Ronan & Harry Treadway as teen protagonists Lina and Doone. The short version of the premise is that humankind has destroyed the planet and gone underground to survive. The "Builders" of Ember decided that humanity shouldn't know what had come before, so they constructed a habitable, underground city with an expected expiration date and made a time-locked a box with instructions for returning to the surface. They gave the box to the first Mayor, who would then pass it down across generations of Mayors. The box counts down over a period of 200 years until the box reaches zero and pops open. At one point along the line, the box became lost, and the story picks up forty years after the countdown finished. Ember itself is in a state of disrepair and is running out of food, with frequent blackouts lasting longer and longer. Few give any thought to the possibility that the generator at the heart of the city would actually go all the way out. Those that think the always-reliable resource will go kaput keep quiet, fearing retribution. The guy in charge (Murray as the Mayor of Ember) frequently reassures everyone that they "are working on it" and they "must act now" but never to fear the worst. Sound familiar? I know a couple of people who had seen it before I did who told me that they felt there was no ever-present danger or consequence to the movie, but I had exactly the opposite experience and enjoyed the whole thing. The ever-present danger for me was the real world around me having a more pessimistic outlook than the kids in the movie. Lucky jerk kids. There are some chases and escapes in the film, and at a certain point, there are people out to get the protagonists, and I can kind of get other critics wanting to assail the level of peril in the movie, but maybe people should chill out on being armchair directors with this movie. The point the movie and the book it's based on makes is that those in charge over the years have gotten so habitually lazy that they don't try very hard unless an obstacle is right in front of them. At that point, they just do what they have to so they appear to be doing their job. Again, sound familiar? This is not an "adult" post-apocalyptic thriller or anything, but it isn't "kiddy" either. This is not a reinvention of the post-apocalyptic sci-fi/fantasy film, but it is a vitally important cautionary tale for the climate we currently live in, especially in the US. I'll get more into the political overtones I felt in a moment. As for the performances, the kids do fine, Saoirse Ronan in particular for not falling into the dialectical trap of a Brit "doing American". Bill Murray has gotten so effortless in turn after turn, it's not surprising how smoothly he falls into the oblivious and selfish Mayor's shoes to grand effect. Toby Jones (the "other" Capote) seems to have been warming up for his part as Karl Rove in Stone's W playing the Mayor's wingman. Martin Landau, Mary Kay Place, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, and Mackenzie Crook play smaller supporting parts that complete the picture nicely. City of Ember as it has been adapted for the screen is based on the first in a closed-ended (according to the author) four book series. There is more to this story that needs to be told, and even though I'd like to see this extremely talented guy direct some of his own original ideas, I'd like to see him and his design team guide this series to its conclusion. This is the kind of "young people" book series I can get behind. I may actually read them all too. I really enjoy this movie a great deal more than I already did after letting it simmer for a bit during the events of the last 48 hours. If I have a complaint that comes within striking distance of falling in line with the couple friends who felt like they'd "not gotten enough" out of it once the movie was over, it'd be that I wish this first movie in the (presumptive) series had been comprised of both the first and second books. The movie is fine for me on its own, I just want more. I don't suppose that's really a bad thing, though. Director Gil Kenan and Bill Murray were both in attendance last night, and everyone was surprised that of all celebrity guests to pop in, it was the Most Reclusive Ghostbuster that showed. AICN's Kraken (Kristoffer Aaron Morgan) had the balls to ask if he was interested in a third Ghostbusters movie, and he responded in the affirmative. I couldn't make it to the Closing Night Party a mile underneath the ground in a cave to hang out with these guys, but I wish I could have, primarily to shoot the shit with Kenan. So about the politics of why this movie is important at this point in history... Fundamentally, the thematic thrust of the movie involves paying attention when things don't sound or feel right, pulling your head out of the sand, and doing the right thing. If the last week hadn't rolled along as it has, with a major commercial bank failure (WaMu), people in Washington passing the blame around, and the same kinds of reassurance from the top we heard back in 2003 in the run-up to the Iraq conflict, I may have viewed this movie through a slightly different lens. The movie was shot a year ago, and has turned out more prophetic than I think Kenan and Playtone ever thought it would be. There was no ever-present danger-danger in the "someone's out to get us", traditional sense, but instead I felt rather claustrophobic, like the city was caving in on the kids (and me by extension) just as the economy and the country seems to be crumbling at the moment. It reminds me of what my dad has told me has happened to Havana over the last five decades, complete with government-assigned professions "for the greater good" of a crumbling society. Bear with me on this, but I think City of Ember stands the chance of being a part of the turning tide in this year's election. Friends of mine who have been grassroots political operatives for years here in Texas will tell you that preaching to the other party's faithful is a waste of time and an error frequently made by local campaigns. The difference is only ever made in gently convincing the fence-sitters (never, ever bombard a swing voter). David Letterman may have broken down a barrier to these folks with his "something doesn't smell right" response to McCain's recent maneuvers around the following: the abiding financial crisis and the growing coverage of how it relates to his Keating 5 scandal from '91, the McCain 13/7 ratio of cars to houses, bad national poll numbers and swing states moving more solidly for Obama again, Palin's disastrous, nigh-incomprehensible interview with Katie Couric, and the apparently "back-on" debate tonight, his avoidance of which reminds me of something that happened in 2000. Swing-voter parents taking their kids to City of Ember will watch a crumbling civilization as a result of inaction coupled with empty The People Come First promises. They'll see a leader refuse to address how he's going to fix things other than say he's on the job and focused on no one but them all while he's only intent on deflecting concern and covering his own ass. In an era of Potters, Dark Materials, Eragon, and Twilight adaptations, City of Ember is the "young reader" series that really has something substantive to say about where we are as a society and more globally, as a species. That may not be what they have built the marketing campaign on, but it's the reason this movie will endure over time when other films being made for this audience will fade.

I've been stewing over this one for almost a week now since seeing it at Fantastic Fest, primarily because I hesitate to call something so early in the life of a festival, but here a day before closing night, I haven't seen a single film that I esteem more highly on all counts than Let the Right One In. The first thing I have to say is stay away from Wikipedia, IMdB boards, or any review you can tell is starting to give you a blow-by-blow of the events that occur in the film. Also try to avoid screencaps from the film, as there are a couple I've seen out there that give away some wonderful moments in the film. The movie is based on a Swedish novel about a socially awkward boy who becomes very quickly attracted to a girl who has recently moved in next door with her father. He is mercilessly bullied but won't fight back at school. She only comes out at night. They meet and both of their lives change. Let the Right One In surprises you and holds back from going overboard in any respect. You should go in as blind as possible, so I'm going to do my best to prevent telegraphing the plot any further than I have. I've seen a couple things recently (not at the fest) where I've been able to say a piece of the production takes away from the overall potential of the movie, whether it's ham-handed acting, lazy direction, or blind cinematography, and this movie really utterly spoils you because they get it all right when no one else seems to but rarely anymore. Particularly in a vampire movie, the lighting and darkness have to be absolutely perfect, and they pull it off in every location and every shot flawlessly. They balance a less-is-more approach with what they have to show and it reveals a degree of professional precision filmmakers on any continent just simply aren't displaying the chops for anymore. Tomas Alfredson and his cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema are both absolutely brilliant at what they do. What I love most about the film is that it is serviceably a coming of age drama, a vampire horror film, and a boy meets girl romance without too heavily dwelling in the tropes of any of those genres. There are plenty of moments that make you chuckle too. Let the Right One In is the best film I've seen at Fantastic Fest all told and has become, over the last few days, one of my favorite films of the year thus far. Others I talk to number it among their favorites as long as they caught it, and at the screening I saw, a couple other web critics and I concurred afterward that this movie probably spoiled us for anything and everything we would see the rest of the week, and for myself, I can say it absolutely did. I have other films I'm behind getting posted, but I needed to go ahead and get this one up, since I've only yet to see a couple things tomorrow, and whether Secret Screenings or not, I doubt any of them will top this one for me. Another unique bit of perspective on this one: there aren't many horror films I could safely bring my wife to (knowing she would enjoy them), but I dare say she will not only like this movie a lot, but find it a better film than whatever Twilight turns out to be. I should clarify a couple things so you don't get the wrong idea about her or her sensibilities. Neither one of us has read these Twilight books or really ever intend to, and she likes good movies (Malick, Fincher, many others), just not gory ones. If you or a friend or loved one shrinks at the idea of a vampire horror movie with subtitles, rest assured that if you can deal with the graphic violence in The Dark Knight, I can say with a pretty great degree of certainty that you (or your friend/loved one) can take this movie with no problem. I would honestly love to see Let The Right One In take on Twilight in terms of sustained per screen average over time. I really think Twilight is more likely to fade quickly like most holiday blockbusters aimed at the mall crowd and Let The Right One In will sustain thanks to rabid word of mouth. Going with a vampiric metaphor, once bitten, you find it difficult not to spread word to everyone near you. That may read cliche, but wait until you see the movie. I can't fathom how the Hollywood studio system will remake this, but since it's already "In Development", I'd guess they'll maybe re-title it Let Me In, as the book title has been translated in some instances. The thing that would surprise me most about this director-less, script-less remake would be if they found young actors as good or effective as Kare Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson for the lead roles of the two twelve year olds. Magnet Releasing (a sub-group of Magnolia) is releasing it, Timecrimes (a big favorite at last year's Fantastic Fest), Donkey Punch (played this year, review forthcoming), Eden Log and a couple others in what they're calling a "Six Shooter" strategy that I'm trying to get more info about. Support this version of the film by seeing it in theatres and telling all your friends. Then buy it on DVD or VOD if you like it, and I'd be really surprised if you didn't.

I haven't hated anything I've seen thus far at Fantastic Fest, but this is one of only two movies I haven't been wildly enthusiastic about no matter how much I try. Please take anything you see written about this movie that includes a comparison to Rashomon with a grain of salt. Kurosawa's movie and this movie really should not be found mentioned in the same sentence, paragraph, or article. Three different people all have somewhat varying accounts of an "incident" in this serial killer movie. The accounts are not as wildly different as using the R word would imply. Three different POVs, murder? Check and check, but that doesn't equal the dynamic of Rashomon as a whole. The visuals of the flashbacks are all consistent, it's the story people are telling that contains different information. It is patently unfair to compare this film to Rashomon, so don't. Rant ends here. Serial murders are being committed in broad daylight and FBI agents (Pullman and Ormond) are sent to investigate after a particularly grisly encounter finds a stoner, a young girl, and a local cop telling their individual accounts of what went down. The acting was pretty solid all around really, with the exception of some bizarre stuff the local police guys say (even for backwater morons...badly written, takes you out of the film). Even though I didn't fall in love with the movie, I relished the opportunity to enjoy headliners Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond, as well as French Stewart and Cheri Oteri doing something other than broad comedy. They're both really talented actors who unfortunately got pidgeonholed into one certain type and seemed to be stuck with only being offered that kind of stuff. I figured out who was doing the killing pretty early on, and honestly found myself wanting to be surprised and have the movie throw me for a loop. I didn't hate it, but I forgot I'd seen it two days later.

I'm not certain what I was expecting from Fear(s) of the Dark, but if it was trying to make me squirm, it succeeded (in places). An animated French horror/thriller anthology film, the thing that gets in its way the most is the lead section and the end are by far the meatiest parts. I found the final "featured vignette" to be the most effective of them all, not particularly caring for the charcoal-scratchy Dog Walker series that is spread throughout or the manga/anime-inspired Samurai Ghost sequences, and particularly disliking the rorschach blot sequences that have inspired some to say it was a bit too "French" for them. That piece just utterly dragged the whole thing out every time I was starting to enjoy myself. The first major "piece" involving an introverted young man, his insect collection, and a fateful first date hooked me, it really did, and as I mentioned before, the final sequence was absolutely splendid. They both kept me engaged in the stories and looked beautiful. The connective tissue outside that just left me cold. I love black & white, greyscale animation when done well, so I came away liking the pieces individually that I had fun with and forgave the watch-checking pieces a bit...but even though it feels rude, I have to say check it out on DVD and skip whatever bores you, since I can only recommend portions of the whole film.

One of the most refreshing movies I saw at Fantastic Fest this year was Terra, an independently-produced CG movie that stands up on its own and feels like nothing but justice in the face of things like Barnyard 2 getting studio funding. I have critic friends who see every CG-animated movie out there for one of two reasons: they're required to for work or they honestly have a remarkable drive for morbid curiosity. Since the genre-establishing* (see note below) success of Toy Story, we've all seen many more weekends than ever before crammed with sub-par animated features (all CG mind you) that are designed not to be innovative or interesting, but just generate revenue because it's what the whole family will settle to watch, from toddlers up to grandparents. I know people who just dismissed it from their must-see list or saw it and said "meh", falling back on something to the tune of "it didn't knock my socks off or anything". Does it blow the doors off of the CG or scifi genres? Honestly it doesn't, and I really don't think they were aiming to. They were going to tell a story that could really only be told this way independently. As expensive as I'm sure non-studio CG animation must be, it'd be nothing compared to trying to make this thing live-action. Terra takes place on and around a distant planet to Earth and features an alien people who themselves "swim" around through the air, hovering over the ground, but who are also fascinated with flying machines. They seem to have strict controls on technological development, for unclear reasons at first. Humans come into the picture at one point, and my wife commented it was an interesting companion piece to WALL-E thanks to thematic similarities involving mankind forced into outer space as a result of making Earth uninhabitable. There are spaceship laser battle sequences, and the influences of many other science fiction films is present, from Star Wars to Independence Day, but never to the point of ripping anyone else off. Others may make that allegation, but the closest you see to them ripping off ID4 is the fact there's a Quaid in the voice cast. What I like most is that it does its own thing without trying to be the writer or director's "version" of someone else's vision. I dare say Terra does the spirit of Star Wars better than Star Wars has done in some time. It keeps the themes and plot progression simple. It is absolutely family-friendly and has a "don't just do as you're told when it feels wrong" message that has been missing from so many animated features aimed square at kids for so long. Then again, it has been in some of them, but it's aimed more at "be rebellious and stupid" instead of "do the right thing." At a Q&A after the film, producers Keith Andrews and Jess Wu stated they were eyeing a 2009 release, and they had just recently begun the process of putting together a stereoscopic 3D version of the film, which I can imagine would only hopefully get more kids and their parents into the cinema. I'll be tracking developments on this movie, so keep an eye peeled for updates. If anything, I only wish Terra were coming out before the election, because kids bringing their parents out to this movie could possibly do something to influence the undecided voters out there. It's been something like five days since I saw Terra, and it's only grown in my estimation since then. If you're an adult who's into animation, and don't need it to be "adult" in nature, check it out, and if you have kids, definitely see it (in 3D if possible). **Toy Story was not the first feature CG movie, as many would argue, but it absolutely cemented CG animation as a category in the public consciousness

The last thing I expected was to see a "washed up star makes a self-indulgent pseudo-apology" movie and thoroughly enjoy it. I have never liked a movie matching that description and especially didn't figure I'd like one starring Jean-Claude Van Damme. I'm certainly guilty of watching piles and piles of terrible martial arts action films in my time, but I've never pretended to forgive their formulaic, junk food nature. JCVD finds the thoroughly unemployable and washed-up Jean-Claude scrounging for work and struggling to pull his life back together. Using a fractured chronology, we bounce around one particularly difficult day for him, which involves a bank holdup, in the middle of which he gets stuck. I don't know what the release plans are for this in the USA, but I hope as many people as possible get to see Van Damme show off his considerable acting chops. You read that right, and you wouldn't expect it, but he's an extremely capable thesp in his native language. The best example is an out of nowhere direct monologue delivered to you the viewer at one point in the film, but that's not the only place, though that's where it comes the most naturally from his heart...honesty and not a put-on. That's the piece of his performance most people will focus on from a critical standpoint, and the thing that left a friend and myself wondering something else we didn't have an answer for: when did he wake up and realize all this? Was it some sort of crisis intervention when he was neck deep in a pile of blow? Did he voluntarily go cold turkey off of all the indulgent, self-destructive pieces of his personal and professional lives? It could be we'll never really know. This one bit of the movie is so deeply heartfelt that I really can't fathom how it could be a put-on. That bit, which non-actors might say was the "easiest" part for him, if you know any actors, you know it really is hard to get real honesty out of many them, on camera or off (or on stage or off, as the case may be). Van Damme more than anything exudes weariness throughout the film. His career and life spiraling the drain have certainly taken their toll physically and mentally. He plays it with great care not to put up any of the facade he does day to day, and it takes genuine effort. He's beaten down like Rambo at the beginning of Stallone's fourth Rambo movie, like Solid Snake at the beginning of Metal Gear Solid 4 (not a movie, but a good analogue), and he knows he can't keep up this shit any more. It's a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie I'll show my father and he'll complain there isn't enough action. My dad likes mindless martial arts action movies, and he actively had a part in keeping Van Damme coasting along on mediocrity throughout the 90's. I really hope more than anything that this attracts some risk-taking filmmaker to give Jean-Claude a chance to do something nutritious for a change. I haven't read Inglorious Bastards, but there are French guys in that, right? I hope someone has shown this movie to Tarantino. Again, this review will possibly look like inspired lunacy until and unless you see JCVD, but I assure you with all certainty this is an actor trying to cinematically reshape himself and succeeding miraculously. I wish I knew where the idea came from: did he approach a director, or someone with a script bring it to him. The movie is enjoyable itself and it begs so many questions, you find yourself thinking and talking about it days and days after seeing it, as it has for me. Speaking of, I have mountains of other writeups to get through that I'm behind on, so let's finish this one off. The central performance is great, as are the people who become the epicenter of the "action piece" involving the bank hold-up and the hostage crisis that ensues. The film's resolution was very satisfying, and I think the fractured chronology works getting us there. It starts with the superficial POV and goes to the more subjective one of JCVD himself. Seek this one out at upcoming festivals and otherwise hope you get a chance to see it somehow.

I find myself torn on Fanboys. I paid as little attention to the mountain of starts and stops it's gone through to this point to keep myself as fresh on it as possible once it did finally get to screening. I was aware of the infamous "no cancer" cut and I knew the guys behind it never seemed to really get all the "wins" they wanted to make the final product reflect what they wanted it to be back on the original draft of the script. Fanboys is not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, and if I weren't personally attached to one of its fundamental themes myself at the moment, I think I'd be writing a different review. On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to people getting their vision out there, compromises and all. Most folks don't even end up with a final product after putting their hearts and souls into something. Others manage to make things like Death Bed: The Bed That Eats People happen with what seems like no real hard-fought battle involved. At the same time, I can't ignore the fact that I have a friend whose personal battle with cancer has taken a turn for the worse lately, and that really fundamentally changes how I see this film, the "no cancer" cut no longer what the final to-be-released (we assume) movie will be. After a day or so of reflection, that direct connection to the flick is what actually makes me a bit more critical of it at once. The plot, for those unfamiliar, is about a group of childhood friends who have drifted apart in the years since high school coming back together to storm Skywalker Ranch to see The Phantom Menace before it's released since they've found one of their crew has 3-4 months to live. Thematically, it really holds close to the choices we make influencing how true we are to ourselves and what we believe. When you have a friend who has an undefined next few months or years and you have a track record of loving something dearly like geeks love Star Wars, comics, and other things, the thought enters your mind of how unjust it'd be for them to miss out on that "event". That's how I feel about Watchmen, and would I drag him across the country to get it in front of his eyes if he wasn't undergoing extensive, invasive chemo? You bet your ass I would. The premise itself rings true to me. Are there missteps? Yes, and if anything, the only one that I didn't forgive away was the actual presence of Linus' cancer in the movie. There are notable points when it becomes an issue, but there are others where it seems like he can go at the same speed as all the other guys. That inconsistency is what actually makes the cancer storyline only work in concentrated bits. That isn't to say it didn't get to me or that it was completely unbelievable, but it really did take me out of the movie a few times. There's a cross fade from one character sleeping to another waking up late in the film that emotionally got me, and that moment makes everything work all over again. At first, upon finishing viewing the movie, I couldn't conceive of how you cut the cancer out of this movie. It isn't used as a gimmick, and it is probably true that the multitude of compromises the movie went through to get to this stage helped to water it down to its implementation as it stands. Like I said, anything more acerbic critics would tear apart for me was entirely forgivable. Danny McBride showing up in the last 20 minutes of any movie is a good thing, too. All the cameos were enjoyable, and I wouldn't want to spoil them here. Since it's ostensibly a movie about loving Star Wars (pre-prequels), there are a couple of things I want to leave you with. No matter what anyone tells you, if you love pre-prequel Star Wars, you'll enjoy this a lot more than the Clone Wars big screen TV pilot. Fanboys is something you may have to be a fanboy yourself to enjoy, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Hollywood Elsewhere's coverage of this year's Fantastic Fest in Austin kicks into high gear later this afternoon, continuing into next week. I've already seen some great stuff, which I'll be posting about today. If anyone in town, filmmakers or other folk, need to get in touch, email is best.

There were days when I sought out every last bit of news and shred of info on an upcoming, in-development Kevin Smith movie. Inevitably, I found myself learning more about the movies than I wanted to know before seeing them. I went into Zack & Miri as blind as I could. I'm not exactly the movie-watcher that the viral ads and promo sites are made for when it comes to a filmmaker I already like and respect a great deal. As a reader of Kevin's "My Boring Ass Life" Blog, I came across a post where he described the Weinsteins' decision to finance and distribute the movie, along the lines of Kevin saying (paraphrased) "I have a script called Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Harvey said, "I'm going to make that movie". That's very similar to how I felt about it: Kevin Smith directing plus Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks starring equals something I'll definitely go see, no question. What I didn't expect at all was the dead-on sociological messaging wrapped in the plot going further than I had figured based on prior experience. A number of people who have already seen the movie have resorted to ranking it compared to all of Smith's other work, which I don't find to be a valid means of comparison here. Zack and Miri has many of Kevin's calling cards, from coarse (though honest and realistic) dialogue to Star Wars references, but it's really an entirely different animal overall. The recent financial crisis and the woes most regular folks (like me and many of you) out there are going through are reflected in the flick, sure, but what I found myself realizing as the reels went on was that I was watching something that was a PSA for the Fuck What Everyone Says, Go Make Your Dreams Come True Foundation. The question picking at me briefly during the movie was "what has he not already said about all that?" and it took a while to sink all the way in what he was doing. Spiritually it's a coda to Clerks, showing off the best tools Kevin has had in his arsenal all along, just evolved further and more precise overall. I have friends who slam Smith's work for any number of reasons, among them that he's "too melodramatic" or something like that, but I think the vast majority of them are saying that out of a need to sate their feelings of inadequacy for not striking out and making their own stuff. This movie doesn't just tell these guys to man up and make something out of themselves they're proud of, but that everyone can and should, no matter who they are. It also doesn't matter what form it takes either, and it really doesn't matter what people think once you finally do it. As for the performances themselves, Banks and Rogen have fantastic chemistry and timing together. Smith stalwarts Jason Mewes & Jeff Anderson deliver solid performances as well, but honestly the scene-stealer Craig Robinson swiped the movie out from under everyone else. Well, everyone except Justin Long, who makes Brandon "Superman" Routh bite off half his tongue he's so funny. You'll know when you see it. I could say more about the performances, summarize the plot and so on, but that'd be a disservice to you. Go in as blind as I did and I think you'll like it a lot depending on your sensibilities. I enjoy all of Kevin's movies, and yes, that includes Jersey Girl (I'm the one guy who bought it day-and-date on DVD), but I didn't just enjoy the movie out of some sort of serial fanaticism, it's a genuinely good look at regular people doing something that changes their lives (in a number of different ways for all in the flick). I'm pre-planning a mass outing with friends, and you should do the same come the end of October.