Is Hollywood playing a sick joke on us? Did we somehow offend God? What could we have possibly done to be subjected to the summer movie season we're suffering through? After two months of watching one alleged blockbuster fall critically and financially after the next - save for Star Trek, Up and a comedy no one expected to be huge in the first place - Michael Bay's loud sequel to Transformers arrives, promising to exceed the simple expectations set by the first film. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen merely had to have lots of explosions and some hot women to make us happy - or at least so I thought; instead, it falls right in line with the other disasters of the summer.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is not a good movie. No, it's a bad movie. And this is coming from someone who thoroughly enjoyed the first film, even if it did have some easily avoidable flaws. I went with a friend who is a diehard "Transformers" fan, who knows all the robots and, I'm pretty sure, even owns some of the original toys. When we watched the first one together, he said it "fucking rules;" after emerging from the theater last night, it appeared as though Michael Bay himself had walked up, tore out his heart Temple of Doom style and peed in the empty cavity. That is not a good sign. If anyone were to be won over by this loud, allegedly fan boy sequel it would be him, and he was not won over.

Transformers 2, like the first one and most other Michael Bay films, is glossy and fast-paced. The visuals are good, the action scenes loud and full of explosions, the women all supermodel hot, slutty and skimpily dressed. There are more Transformers than ever in this movie, with plenty of Autobots and Decepticons for those who can tell them apart to feast their eyes on.

There's nothing in those ingredients that would indicate that Transformers 2 would be Michael Bay's worst movie since Pearl Harbor, and yet, here we are with a platter of rotten fruit and a spoiled pig's head.

The plot
Some will say that Transformers 2 doesn't need a plot. Hell, I was even thinking that. But this movie goes to show - once again - that even the dumbest of action movies need at least a semblance of a plot. The first movie was entertaining because it was simple and fast-paced, and even though it had way too many storylines, it was coherent. Transformers 2 goes the other direction, stripping down to the core characters and offering up a much narrower focus; unfortunately, the plot rarely makes sense, and even when it does, it's trash. Why not just have the Decepticons out for revenge, rather than giving Shia LaBeouf a migraine full of archaic symbols that makes him a wanted man? And wouldn't archaeologists have noticed if a giant sun-destroying weapon was buried inside the pyramids? And why would President Obama "fire" the Autobots while the Earth is being invaded by Decepticons? Even Dick Cheney wouldn't accuse Obama of doing that. Well, maybe he would.

The screenplay
One of my annoyances with the original film was that LaBeouf's character talked so fast and furiously it quickly became annoying. In the sequel, his character is calmer, but everyone else is extremely annoying. The dialogue comes so fast and frenetic it's hard to keep up, and after a short while you hope for the ending credits so everyone will just shut up. Beyond the dialogue, the film is just full of inconsistencies and other annoyances. Worse, the film so deemphasizes the Transformers that it's hard to like any of them. Optimus Prime is out of the movie for a good chunk of the running time, and the rest are treated as props to aid in the human story - which is not what people want to see.

The direction
People who like Michael Bay generally like Michael Bay movies. Those who don't, don't. Though Bay will never be regarded as an Oscar-winning director, there are very few of his movies that I have watched less than five times, if not many more. He knows how to make entertaining, action-packed films. But with Transformers 2, it looks like Bay got bored in pre-production. The action scenes are not bigger and badder; the setup to these scenes are minimal at best (a complaint I had with Terminator Salvation as well); and the editing looks like it was done at the last minute to reduce the film down to a still-way-too-long two hours and thirty minutes. This is Bay's shoddiest production yet.

Megan Fox
Fox has recently been compared to  Angelina Jolie, for what reasons I'm not sure. She's hot and knows it, and Michael Bay does, too. And frankly, all I needed was to see her scampering around in form-fitting clothes. While she does do a good job of running in slow motion at the end of the film, Fox tries her hardest to be uninteresting, and it works. My crush is fading fast. She doesn't look as hot as she did in the original, and that may be because the screenwriters didn't know how to progress the characters that were introduced in the first film. She's not "the hot girl next door" but simply "the hot girl who has already been won over." More importantly, the screenwriters give her so little to say or do that her presence in the film is actually embarrassing.

Racial stereotypes
While we're on the topic of embarrassing, let's not gloss over the offensive "black" robots in the movie. The first Transformers had a character who spoke Ebonics and Michael Bay was scolded for that; he ups the ante here, though, with two robots with big ears, buck teeth (including a gold tooth) and the inability to read. They speak in poor Ebonics, spend most of their time insulting each other about how stupid they are, and when the battle finally arrives, they just disappear. Walking out of the theater, I heard multiple people complaining about these "Jar Jar Bots" and how racist they were.

The robots
Transformers 2 has about thirty more robots than the first film did, and that's not good. Most of the time I couldn't tell the good ones from the bad, and so many of them looked like Megatron it was hard to keep them apart. The screenwriters give absolutely no depth to any of the robots, including Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, which is quite strange; for the third film - and we know there's going to be a third film - it would be wise to focus on the robots rather than the humans. The bigger question is why are the robots so much easier to destroy this time around? In the first film, it took the U.S. military, all of the Autobots the destruction of most of Los Angeles to take down Megatron and a couple of Decepticons - and they only accomplished that by shoving a ridiculously strong power source into Megatron's belly. In this film, robots, including Megatron and his even more evil master, don't seem to be all that invulnerable (I don't get why the military bothers firing bullets at the Decepticons, though); there's nothing particularly intimidating about the villains.

The list above doesn't cover all of my annoyances, but you get the point. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a monumental screw-up, compounded by the fact that Bay shouldn't have needed to try that hard to make a worthy sequel.

In all fairness, the film has its moments. It is entertaining and has some funny moments, and even though most stuff falls flat, a few things stick from time to time. The battle scene in the forest is pretty neat, and there are some other stretches that work quite well. Unfortunately, many of the coolest moments are in the previews, leaving Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to be a loud, ridiculous, annoying, racist and surprisingly dull summer dud.

John Travolta knows how to play memorable villains. He was intense in Face/Off, entertaining in Broken Arrow and mind blowing in Battlefield Earth. Just joking about that last one, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be excited to see the crafty Scientologist back on the dark side - and squaring off against his most worth opponent yet: Denzel Washington. Can you think of two better scene-chewing actors that should work together? Throw in the frenetic Tony Scott and you've got The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, an entertaining though unexceptional action-thriller.

Scott and Washington have a long and successful history together, their loyalty to one another resulting in such projects as Déjà Vu, Man on Fire and Crimson Tide, all of which were entertaining and exciting thrillers to some degree or another. And in general, Scott has very few duds under his belt, save for Domino. Subsequently, it should be expected that Pelham is a visually stimulating, exciting and nonstop action thriller.

It is. Pelham looks, feels and behaves like a Tony Scott film, and therefore is a good source of entertainment for two hours. Travolta and Denzel duke it out, a few people get blown away and a couple of chases ensue. Pelham is consistently entertaining and exciting.

And yet, it is one of Scott's weaker films. The picture has just enough annoying things to keep it from being awesome, and most of the problems fall on Scott's shoulders. Scott once again lets his obsession with visual tricks get the best of him, as he is unwilling to just let his scenes play out as they should. The first few minutes are pretty painful as the camera jerks in seemingly slow motion through the introduction of the bad guys; this sequence is visually unappealing and lacks the setup that could have really made it something. In fact, the hostage takeover sequence is so subdued it's ridiculous.

Once Travolta and Denzel get talking, however, Scott settles down. Denzel is pitch perfect, but Travolta is a little over the top. Still, the two play off each other well enough and make for formidable opponents. Unfortunately, once the action picks up again near the end, Scott's direction gets in the way once more; his chaotic handling of the subway car speeding to its apparent doom (why don't any of the passengers try to stop the car?) is terrible, and other moments are more visually distracting than intriguing. On the screenplay side, the movie ends in a rather disappointing fashion, with a climax that is hardly climactic.

There are a few other little things that are annoying, like the wireless computer that the teenage guy is using to communicate with his girlfriend. The film could have done so much more with this item, and yet it treats it like a modern novelty. It's also pretty absurd to think that the terrorists don't notice the computer that's sitting in plain site or that the girlfriend would demand her boyfriend tell her he loves her while he's being held at gunpoint.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an entertaining action film, but Scott needs to realize that his directing style is hurting his films. His over-the-top style worked in Man on Fire, but it has become old since. The result is a good-but-not-great action film that will serve as a good rental more than an explosive summer blockbuster.

Sam Raimi returns to the genre that put him on the map thirty years ago: the horror genre. Though now best known as the director of the Spider-Man trilogy, he has a special place in horror aficionado's hearts for the dark-but-funny Evil Dead trilogy. And now, we get Drag Me to Hell, a hilarious throwback to the horror films of yesteryear.

Drag Me to Hell stars Alison Lohman as Christine Brown, a loan manager at a California bank, who, trying to cement a promotion to assistant manager, decides to make the tough call and deny an old gypsy woman another extension on her mortgage payment. In a fit of rage, the woman curses Christine, effectively damning her to Hell. Over the next three days, Christine begins to see and hear things and realizes she needs to do something in a hurry to avoid an unimaginable fate.

When going into this film, there is one thing to keep in mind: Drag Me to Hell is as much a comedy as it is a horror movie. Knowing this ahead of time makes a huge difference. My friend who went to the movie with me was caught off guard, didn't find the movie particularly scary and was put-off by the cheap special effects. I, on the other hand, found Drag Me to Hell to be one of the most entertaining movies of 2009. It's funny, creepy and disgusting, but nothing like the blood-soaked torture films that the horror genre has devolved into.

The running joke throughout Drag Me to Hell is that Christine needs to keep her mouth shut. Repeatedly, Raimi subjects her to all kinds of punishment, whether it's eyeballs, vomit, maggots or puss-filled gums of an old woman. The blood-letting is kept to a minimum, but Raimi keeps the audience squirming with off-the-wall leakage of bodily fluids. This is the kind of thing that few directors could pull off, but Raimi knows how to entertain audiences (Spider-Man 3 being the exception); Drag Me to Hell may be a horror movie, but entertainment is entertainment.

And thankfully, Drag Me to Hell is the most entertaining horror movie I've seen in a long while. While it's by no means that scary, it does have enough creepy sound effects and jumpy scenes to keep you on the edge of your seat. More importantly, Raimi blends horror and comedy incredibly well. Most of the jokes work, and even in the scariest of moments, Raimi isn't afraid to let the audience laugh.

On the downside, the visual effects are pretty bad. More than likely, they are intentionally so, but there are a few times where they become a little distracting; furthermore, audiences who don't understand that Drag Me to Hell is supposed to be absurd will unnecessarily be put off further by the cheesy effects.

The ending is also a little weak. After what can only be described as a surprisingly original story, the movie becomes predictable in the last 20 minutes. Raimi could have gone a slightly different direction with much greater impact.

Drag Me to Hell is not without its flaws, but it is exactly what it was intended to be. The movie is hilarious and entertaining, and easily one of the best films of 2009 thus far.

In The Hangover, a desperate bride finally reaches her fiancé's best man five hours before the wedding and is informed that the event is not going to happen. It's not that the groom, Doug (played by Justin Bartha), has changed his mind; it's just that his three friends can't find him, and they don't remember what happened. Cue the opening credits.

The Hangover is a man's movie, but not one that resorts to ridiculous over-the-top storytelling for the sake of it. One of the more clever comedies in recent memory, the movie makes us laugh while keeping us guessing as to what happened and where the groom is. After the first scene, the movie jumps back two days to introduce us to the eclectic group of guys that will be taking part in the bachelor party in Vegas. Then, we see is the three "survivors," played by coolheaded Bradley Cooper, pushover Ed Helms and strangely idiotic Zach Galifianakis (he changed his name when he became an actor, clearly), waking up to find their penthouse suite trashed and burned. Doug's bed is literally missing, and there is a tiger in the bathroom.

And this is how the rest of The Hangover unfolds. The characters realize their actions of the previous night at the same time the audience does, hooking us in a way few comedies does. It's a comedic mystery, if you will, and each "twist and turn" reveals something even crazier than the last. And yet, though one can't imagine so many crazy things happening to one group of men in the course of a night, the picture never goes over the top like Dude, Where's My Car? or Harold and Kumar. The Hangover is a smart comedy, which is sort of funny in its own right considering that the film was directed by two guys who, up until this point, have only written critically panned comedies such as Rebound, Four Christmases and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. That being said, director Todd Phillips is responsible for Old School, one of the best man-comedies of the 21st century.

The Hangover is consistently entertaining and features a good amount of hilarious scenes, but it isn't laugh-out-loud funny from beginning to end. There are stretches that aren't particularly funny, though it isn't trying to be. Most of the jokes hit the mark, but Phillips is more concerned with telling an entertaining story than a hilarious one. So, its one main fault is also a strength, but those expecting the best comedy in years should look elsewhere.

The movie works on the performances of the leads. Cooper, who from the rumor mill sounds like he is going to break into the stratosphere (I have always considered him the "friend in Alias"), plays the everyman quite well. He's smart, yet carefree almost to a fault, and he balances out Galifianakis' goofy, pitch-perfect character extremely well. Helms also does a good job in a character that is both similar and different to that of Andy in "The Office." Mike Tyson is also quite good.

The Hangover isn't the funniest movie to come to theaters, but its clever storytelling approach and entertaining plot make up for its seemingly inconsistent laughs. The Hangover is one of the best movies of the summer - though that may not be saying much.

The wizards at Pixar have done it again. Up, their 2009 entry for Best Animated Film of the Year, is, undoubtedly, going to be the Best Animated Film of the Year. Funny, emotional, exciting and intelligent, this one will once again leave the teams at DreamWorks Animation and Fox Studios drinking away their nights in disgust at the prospect that once again their work will be overshadowed by a superior product.

Up, from the director of Monsters, Inc. and the writers of Wall-E and Ratatouille, two of the best animated films ever, is about an old man named Carl Fredricksen, who, facing eviction from his quaint little home that is the last barrier to a major construction project, decides to set out on the adventure he always dreamed of: to go see Paradise Falls (a la Angel Falls) in South America. Of course, unwilling to let people tear down his house, he does this via an unconventional way by attaching thousands of helium balloons, uprooting his foundation and floating away, with the creature comforts of his own living room intact. Too bad the chubby, annoying Boy Scout is stuck on his deck.

After tampering with the artistic (Ratatouille) and the unique (Wall-E), it?s good to see Pixar go back to ?basics? and deliver a quintessential children?s movie. Both Ratatouille and Wall-E were amazing, but skewed just a little older due to their originality and focus. Up, of course, shows the same ingenuity as Pixar?s other films, but has more of the stuff that little kids will eat up: funny birds, talking dogs, grumpy old men, chubby adventurers and evil villains. Parents don?t have to be worried about their little children getting bored, as I?m sure a few were during the first half of Wall-E.

The great thing is that the funny birds, talking dogs, grumpy old men, chubby adventurers and evil villains are a riot even for adults. Up is Pixar?s funniest movie, as the jokes, writing and direction are pitch-perfect nearly every time. Dug, the lovable talking dog (he can talk because he has a collar that allows him to), is one of the best and funniest characters to come along in a long time. The decision to give the evil Doberman Pinscher henchdog a malfunctioning squeaky voice had people laughing so hard I missed half of his dialogue. And then there are the little things, like the chubby Boy Scout unable to climb a rope or not sure whether he needs to dig a hole before or after taking a poo (?I figured it out! It?s before!?), that had people cracking up. Kids will love it, and adults will, too.

But other studios are able to make funny, adventure-filled movies, too. Kung Fu Panda comes to mind. The difference, though, is that Pixar is able to add an emotional, real-world layer that the other studios have yet, or simply chosen not, to do. Some sad things happen early on in the film, and Pixar is able to tug at the heartstrings just enough without bogging down their film with sentimentality. At Up?s core, there?s emotion, which is more than can be said about most other animated films. It?s just incredible that the company is able to do this time and time again with their products.

Up is a fascinating, entertaining, hilarious, intelligent, exciting adventure that will please anyone who steps inside the theater. This is their funniest movie to date, yet another entry that will leave their competitors green with envy. The short film at the beginning is also well worth it, too.

Many times, second chances are not an option, but in the case of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, the two were granted an golden opportunity to make amends for the dismal thriller The Da Vinci Code, which was a box office hit but, understandably, a critical dud. A fan of the book, the movie was dull, slowly paced and cheesy, and left my interest in a sequel, based on the Dan Brown book Angels & Demons, immensely low.

But Hollywood doesn't look at the demand posed by one Erik Samdahl. If they would, they would have made Ender's Game by now. But that's an argument for another day, another time.

Angels & Demons, the book, is in fact an entertaining story well-suited for a movie adaptation, much more so than the more popular and well-known The Da Vinci Code. About a secret society that has kidnapped and begun to murder Vatican cardinals on the eve of the selection of a new Pope, Angels & Demons is pretty straightforward, fast-paced and ends with a bang.

The movie is, in fact, much better than the original. The filmmakers clearly paid attention to a lot of the criticisms from the first movie and made modifications accordingly. The result isn't amazing, but Angels & Demons is an entertaining, well-paced action thriller. There's a fair amount of action and suspense and much less plodding and clue finding, and that's pretty much all that is needed.

Hanks turns in an okay performance; he's definitely here for the paycheck. Ayelet Zurer is pretty good, but along with Stellan Skarsgard doesn't get the character development she deserves. Ewan McGregor is, by far, the biggest addition to the movie, and he handles his role well. In hindsight, though, I wonder if he flies a little too under the radar at the end of the picture.

There's not much else that can be said. Angels & Demons moves along at a fast enough pace, will keep most people entertained (more so the folks who have not read the book and don't know what to expect) and has an effective ending. Howard's direction is nothing to write home about; he's just not the guy to direct thrillers such as this. There are some other elements that could have been improved, but none that are particularly distracting.

Angels & Demons is better than the critics say and worth seeing, though it hardly is a classic in any sense of the word.

We're four movies in to the 2009 summer season, and boy has it been a disastrous start. Star Trek exceeded expectations for most people, but X-Men Origins: Wolverine was terrible. Angels & Demons, which I have yet to see, has received pretty disappointing reviews, and now Terminator Salvation, a movie with what are arguably the best trailers of the year, has proven our worst fears: McG was not the right choice for taking on such a decorated franchise.

Terminator Salvation is not your parents' Terminator, which means it also isn't your Terminator. From the first previews it was clear that this was going to be case - which is fine - but regardless of a different tone and look, McG's effort had some huge shoes to fill. And it doesn't come anywhere close, like a little person trying to walk around in Yao Ming's Nikes.

Terminator Salvation, unlike the previous three films, is set in the future, post-Judgment Day. The machines have taken over, most of humanity has been wiped away and the world is a nuclear wasteland. To be precise, it's 2018, and John Conner, played by Christian Bale, is a mid-level commander who has discovered that the robots are targeting Kyle Reese, his teenage-aged father (played by Star Trek's Anton Yelcin). On the eve of wiping out Skynet with a new technology, Conner defies orders to save Reese, himself and the future of mankind. Oh, and the resistance has also discovered a new half-human, half-cyborg dude, played by Sam Worthington, whose purpose is a mystery.

The movie looks pretty good and has some decent action, but it begins to fail to live up to its potential immediately. McG has strung together a series of cool little sequences, but strung together with what is the question. The movie lacks a plot and character development, and as The Dark Knight proved last year, plot, character development and action can go together. For instance, Kate, this go-around played by Bryce Dallas Howard, is both Conner's wife and a future mother, and yet the two don't get a single scene together where they get to prove that they have an authentic relationship. Strangely, Moon Bloodgood gets more screen time, despite being a ridiculously stupid character that, once her purpose is used up, is also relegated to almost no screen time. Even Bale gets very little time to reflect on his situation, resulting in the shallowest version of Conner in the franchise. Only Sam Worthington's character gets real treatment, and even he isn't all that interesting.

The problem with McG is that he doesn't know how to set up action sequences, nor does he have the faintest sense that action movies should spend time away from the actual action from time to time. This is what made the original Terminator movies so good, and why James Cameron is such a prized director. Cameron knows how to bring his characters together in a meaningful way and provide touching moments, such as the Sarah/Reese moments in the first film and the John/Arnold ones in the second. Furthermore, the action sequences in this new movie aren't even remotely memorable. Think of the police station sequence in the first movie, or the truck chase in the second. Hell, almost all of the action sequences in the first two films were spectacularly staged and brutal. In Terminator Salvation, McG bounces from one sequence to the next, relying on bigger and badder robots to cover up the fact that there isn't much creativity to be had.

Because of this, Terminator Salvation is a painfully shallow film.

Of course, not only McG is to blame. The screenplay, by John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris, is dreadful in more ways than one. The dialogue is cringe inducing most of the time, and this said by someone who was already not expecting much. The lack of good dialogue means some pretty bad performances. Bale gives it his all, but his gravely voice is a little too Batman-esque, his performance a little too shout-y. Worthington, though not horrible, is about as good at an American accent as George W. is considered a good president. He does fine for a while, and then, suddenly, his Aussie accent appears. Throughout the rest of the movie, he wavers between a variety of accents, all of them as distracting as the last. As mentioned before, Dallas doesn't get much to do.

The story itself is lackluster as well. The movie should have showed Conner's development to become leader, but instead decides to focus on Worthington's unique situation. There really isn't much plot for the first 90 minutes or so, though it's filled with absurd moments such as one character making a rash, illogical decision to break Worthington out, risking everyone. Oh, and what was the point of including the little girl in the story?

As for the visual effects, they're good, but not great. The detail on the robots is exceptional, but they don't blend into the background all that smoothly. Transformers, made two years earlier, featured notably better special effects. I liked the look of the Terminators in the first three movies over the CGI in this one.

When all is said and done, Terminator Salvation has its entertaining moments and is by no means boring. But if the same writers and director are brought back for the eventual fifth movie, I will be thoroughly disappointed. Terminator Salvation comes nowhere near its potential, and is by far the worst of the franchise.

It only took two weeks of summer to get to the good stuff, as J.J. Abrams' Star Trek for non-Trekkies has arrived, and it is quite a spectacle. Exciting action and an entertaining, swift screenplay are capped by stunning visual effects in what can only be described as the first blockbuster Star Trek of the franchise. It isn't perfect, but it is one of those movies I will be going to see again in theaters- and those don't come along very often.

As an introduction, I am a Star Trek fan. I am not, however, a Trekkie. I don't dress up, I don't know the science behind warp drive and I can't speak Klingon. I make fun of Trekkies, but I also have enjoyed all of the television series save for "Enterprise" and most of the movies. I watch both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country at least twice a year, and I am slugging my way through the original series, of which I haven't seen every episode.

So, with that out of the way, I had my reservations along with everyone else when it was announced that Star Trek was going to be remade with new cast members for some of the most recognizable characters in entertainment history. But, as a movie buff, I was also excited, because it was clear that Star Trek had been stuck in a short-sided mindset for way too long, resulting in such bland series as "Enterprise" and box office failures like Nemesis. And with J.J. Abrams, the man behind Mission: Impossible III, one of the most underrated films of the last decade, and "Lost," one of the best television shows ever conceived, directing the movie, I knew I was in store for something good.

And Star Trek is good. Really good. Not every non-Trek fan will like it, but a lot more will than they think. Abrams, a self-described Star Wars fan (read: not a Trek fan), has given the franchise the breath of fresh air it so desperately needed. I love many of the previous movies, but they have generally suffered from low budgets and rather two-dimensional visuals; they've been made for Trek fans without the need to capture the attention of the general moviegoer. This Star Trek is different. It's big. It's glitzy. It's action-packed. And it's funny, too. The visuals are absolutely amazing, giving Star Trek its first real chance to compete with Star Wars when it comes to action. Abrams dives into the action, almost to a fault, as ships are torn apart, worlds are destroyed and our heroes are bloodied in fist-to-fist combat. The movie isn't mindless, but it moves along with the pace and excitement of a summer blockbuster - exactly what Paramount wants it to be. For the first time ever, it is a major box office threat. Or, at the very least, it is setting up its sequel - which has already been approved by the top brass - to be a box office behemoth.

Star Trek takes us back to the beginning, back to before the first episode of the original series and shows how Kirk became a captain, how he met Spock and Bones and everyone else. We see Kirk at his birth and how his father dies a valiant but horrible death. We see Kirk as a rebellious youth (I'm sorry, but was the car chase seen in the previews really necessary?) with an aptitude for risk - and carelessness. And we get to see the other characters before their chiseled perfection, including Spock, who is still torn between his Vulcan logic and human emotions. In other words, the movie gives a vibrancy to a set of characters that most non-Trek moviegoers long since shrugged off as bland and Trek-like. For those of us who have grown up with Star Trek, we know that's not the case, but this return to basics and beyond - a strategy that has worked thus far for franchises such as Batman and James Bond - is a great way to introduce new people to the world of Star Trek.

The movie's plot is in many ways non-important, and yet it isn't a throwaway plot, either. Without giving too much away, Star Trek is about an alien named Nero (Eric Bana) who, after a devastating event in the future, has traveled back in time to unleash genocide upon the Federation and enact revenge on a young, confused Spock for something he has yet to do. In the scheme of things, it's perfectly good for such a reboot, and yet disappointingly simple when compared to storylines in Khan or Undiscovered Country. Bana is good in his role as the ruthless villain, yet limited by what is ultimately a forgettable character; there's little back story to explain his motivations, and for a Romulan, he seems a bit too human for his own good.

There are other flaws with the movie, some of which may be jarring to Trek fans. As I explained earlier, I am not a Trekkie, but there were a few things that did bother me and that I'm guessing bothered others more. This may be a good time to make note of upcoming spoilers, for this paragraph only. The destruction of a particular planet took me off guard and is sure to infuriate some diehards. The same could have been accomplished without such a shocking blow. The movie's reliance on time travel is disconcerting as well; Star Trek has dealt with time travel so many times before it's become a bit cliché, and it just sets itself to be overly convoluted and over-the-top. The time travel element is both central to the story and to give Abrams an out for many of the Trek no-no's he commits, but I would have loved to see a film that involved no such thing. Time travel also allows Leonard Nimoy to reprise his role as Spock for a surprisingly large amount of screen time, and while it's nice to see him back in the role, I actually found him distracting after a while. He isn't quite the Spock we remember, and he serves as a vessel to explain things quickly so that the young actors don't have to figure out everything out on their own. This, in my opinion, is a cop-out; this is a new Trek with new actors, and the way Nimoy is written into the picture is just a little heavy handed.

But those are nitpicks for the most part. In general, Star Trek is thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable. The cast, the biggest question mark in the production, holds its own with flying colors. For the most part, they don't try to mimic the original cast, and that's a good thing; they make the characters their own, at least to a degree. Chris Pine plays a good Kirk, even if he never really captures that Kirk swagger. Zachary Quinto looks and sounds much like Nimoy did back in the day. The rest of the cast, including Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana (can you say hot?), Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin also turn in strong performances.

More importantly, the screenplay is well done and surprisingly funny. Star Trek is a well-written film full of drama, jokes and legitimately stellar moments. Abrams complements the screenplay with a very fluid and dynamic directing style, bringing Star Trek to life like never before. He may go over the top on sun flares (now you'll notice them, too), but otherwise the picture looks and feels great.

Star Trek is not a movie without its flaws, but it was impossible for this movie to escape without being picked apart. Regardless, it is an exciting, entertaining action film that will appeal to general audiences and guarantee many more Star Trek movies to come.

After X-Men: The Last Stand left fans with a sour taste in their math, anticipation has been building for the next film, a prequel that looks at the early life of Logan, also known as the hairy, foul-tempered and clawed Wolverine. Unfortunately, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a disaster, and makes the aforementioned film look like an Oscar-winner in comparison. That's impressive, but not in a good way.

In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, we begin with a young Logan in the mid 19th century, who following a violent situation realizes his true nature. Scared and in shock, he goes on the run, led by his older brother, Victor - the man that would become Sabretooth. The two run amok through various U.S. wars, but Victor shows signs of drifting to the dark side; his distaste for humans and willingness to kill on command begins to worry his more moral partner. Nevertheless, the two are recruited by the government through a man named William Stryker, who promises them that they can find their true calling by carrying out missions for him. But Stryker's motives are less than sincere, and Logan soon goes on the run.

Of all the comic book characters in existence, Wolverine is generally regarded as one of the more interesting and complex characters imagined. A man with a forgotten past whose age is undeterminable due to his regenerative abilities, he has centuries of experiences under his belt and a disturbing past filled with murder, deceit and scientific experiments. As such, this makes Wolverine the best candidate for an origins story, even though the basics were already revealed in X2: United, one of the best superhero films ever made.

Unfortunately, Wolverine has so many back stories that it's hard to know where to begin. Apparently, the screenwriters also didn't know where to focus or end, either, as the movie is a jumbled mess. Whereas they should have focused one on or two central, highly regarded stories from the comics, it appears as though they took a little bit of everything, shoved it all together and hoped that audiences wouldn't figure out that there was lots of glue and tape under the surface. We're not that stupid.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine moves along at a furious pace, but that's not a good thing. The opening moments, where we see Logan as a child and then a montage of he and Sabretooth fighting in just about every war you can imagine, could have been its own, two-hour movie. Instead, this is just a sign that the writers aren't going to worry about character development or focus, but rather just piec together a bunch of scenes that roughly fit together. What we get is a haphazard mess designed to showcase a bunch of mutants fans have been clamoring to see for years, including Gambit, Deadpool, The Blob and a few others. Unfortunately, these other mutants just serve as distractions to the story and are woefully underdeveloped; Gambit, who seems to have some extra powers not seen in the comics, isn't as interesting as one would expect (his Cajun accent seems to come and go, too), but fans will be absolutely devastated by what becomes of Deadpool.

Characters aside, though, the screenplay is just a cluster. The dialogue is largely embarrassing, though it could have been worse. More importantly, the storytelling lacks focus, depth and intrigue. Wolverine jumps from one moment to the next, rather than establishing strong relationships and characters to make the audience actually care. The relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth is an interesting one, and not unlike the one between Obi Wan and Anakin Skywalker. And while this relationship is indeed a running theme throughout the movie, it never feels completed or developed; Sabretooth's turn to the dark side is never fully explained, and the love-hate emotions that exude from the bristly man are barely explored. Liev Schreiber turns in a strong performance as Sabretooth, but the screenplay prevents him from being the complex villain he could have been.

The screenwriters needed to drop many of the elements included and instead worry about developing their central character. Wolverine's tragic relationship with Kayla Silverfox should have been the crux to the story, and yet it shows up in passing for a few minutes with no real development. More importantly, I actually believe that Wolverine's back story was developed with much more intrigue and care in the first two X-Men movies than it was here, in a film devoted to him. We learned almost as much about him in those films, and we actually cared at the time. Hugh Jackman gives his signature role his all, but with so little depth provided by the writers, his hardest task is to flex his shiny muscles and yell at the sky a lot. And he does yell at the sky a lot.

The writing aside, no love can be given to others involved in the making of this film. Gavin Hood, who directed the excellent Tsotsi, clearly wasn't up to the task of a big-budget action movie. Wolverine is fast-paced, and yet it's boring; the action sequences are unremarkable and forgettable; the rest is just dull. Yes, it's a movie about Wolverine, so it is entertaining on a visceral level, but it could have been so much better. There are a few sequences that should have really been something, such as the scene where Wolverine is injected with adamantium and subsequently goes berserk, but they were done better as flashbacks in X2. Hood is unable to build up anticipation for any scene, and he seemed content with just taking us from one moment to the next without any set up or foreshadowing. The picture feels wholly amateurish.

The visual effects are also stunningly bad. In this day and age, and with a movie that must have a massive budget, the visual effects crew has to be embarrassed by the finished product. There are multiple scenes where I laughed out loud at how bad the visuals were. In one scene, where Wolverine is looking at his new adamantium claws for the first time, the claws look absolutely cartoonish. In another scene, Wolverine jumps out of a plane and skips along the surface of the water; I'm pretty sure I could paint better-looking water with yellow watercolor and a spoon.

If you thought X-Men: The Last Stand was bad, wait until you see X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The movie has its entertaining moments, but overall is an embarrassing piece of filmmaking. The summer movie season has officially started off with a fizzle.

The summer movies have yet to arrive, but 2009 has already treated us with a few surprises. State of Play, the political thriller starring Russell Crowe, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, Jeff Daniels and Ben Affleck, is the best of the year thus far and could find its way into the Top Ten when all is said and done.

State of Play, based on a BBC miniseries, had the potential to be a disaster. After all, boiling down a complicated, six-hour drama-thriller into two hours - for American audiences no less - could have led to some major dumbing down. Thanks to superb direction by Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland, Touching the Void), smart writing by guys who collectively have written such films as Shattered Glass, Breach, Lions for Lambs, Michael Clayton and The Bourne Supremacy and excellent performances, State of Play is a taut, edgy and believable thriller that avoids such a date. The movie craftily merges political conspiracy with dialogue about the state of the newspaper industry, and even includes a fair amount of humor. All in all, it's a masterfully crafted and executed drama-thriller.

Sadly, the movie is tanking at the box office, as audiences would apparently prefer to see the likes of Zac Efron, Miley Cirus and shiny red cars. But that's a discussion for another day, another place.

In State of Play, Crowe plays a chiseled reporter for the Washington Globe who is assigned to investigate two seemingly drug-related murders. Coincidentally, or so it seems, the beautiful assistant and lover of his old college roommate, Rep. Stephen Collins, dies the next morning in a subway station, apparently committing suicide by jumping in front of the train. Crowe is matched with a smart but inexperienced Capitol Hill blogger, played by Rachel McAdams, as their stories cross paths - and explode into something much larger than either of them could have ever imagined.

Crowe is at his best, once again reminding us of just how talented he is. He's lost some of his star power since that phone-throwing incident (or was it a shoe?), but it's a shame; Crowe is one of the best actors working today, and can seemingly play any type of character. McAdams also delivers what could be the best performance of her career, showing that she can play with the big boys. Affleck also seems very well-suited for the role, and - I can't believe I'm saying this - but was actually a better choice than the previously attached Ed Norton (Brad Pitt was to play Crowe's character). Mirren, Penn, Daniels and a few others also deliver fine performances.

State of Play has some good twists, plenty of entertainment and a fair amount of suspense, easily making it the best movie of 2009 four months in. A perfect screenplay and spot-on acting make this a must-see.

DreamWorks Animation's latest, Monsters vs. Aliens, is an attempt to combine the world of Monsters, Inc. and The Incredibles to make an action-packed comedy where... monsters battle aliens. The movie is also in 3D, and thank God for that; its visuals are its saving grace.

In Monsters vs. Aliens, a planet explodes, sending a meteorite to Earth. No, Kal El is not on board, but the meteorite does cause one soon-to-be-married bride named Susan Murphy to grow into a gigantic woman and get shipped away by the government to a special holding area for monsters. Her roommates include a scientist-turned-cockroach, a half-man, half-reptile creature, a gigantic, furry insect and a gelatinous blob that sounds a lot like Seth Rogen. When aliens invade to reclaim the power that Susan has absorbed, however, these monsters become humanity's last chance for survival.

The visual effects in Monsters vs. Aliens are absolutely absurd. Equipped with Real3D technology, every scene pops with 3D detail I didn't know was possible. The filmmakers clearly put a lot of effort into making their film a visual masterpiece, and it pays off. The movie is fun to watch - as in literally watch - and it doesn't really get old as a result.

But it gets close. Were this movie in 2D, this review would almost certainly be harsher. Monsters vs. Aliens isn't all flash, but the filmmakers certainly spent more time on the visuals than on making a compelling, intelligent and funny experience. There are several funny moments, but there are a lot of slow moments, too. There's a lot of concept and idea but not much execution. The characters are funny on the surface, but shallow. The story overly simplistic. The movie alludes to some of the classic sci-fi films early on, but it largely lacks the satirical edge that could have taken it to another level.

Thankfully, the voice cast is pretty good. Witherspoon and Rogen carry the movie as much as an actor can in a movie like this; Rogen's recognizable laugh works perfectly for his character.

Monsters vs. Aliens is entertaining and worth seeing, but it's a largely flat endeavor. Had the filmmakers put even half the amount of effort they did into the visuals into the screenplay, it could have been excellent; as is, it's just average. If Monsters vs. Aliens isn't playing in 3D near you, wait until DVD.

If you have confused 2009's Knowing with 2007's Next, you are not alone. Both movies have obscure, dull titles, star Nicolas Cage and feature his character predicting a cataclysmic event in the near future. Both also looked like forgettable B-grade action thrillers. Thankfully, looks can be deceiving.

Knowing is about a professor and single father named John Koestler whose son Caleb receives an envelope recovered from a time capsule that was planted at his elementary school fifty years earlier. While most of the children receive drawings, Caleb gets a piece of paper covered with numbers - numbers that John soon begins to suspect have predicted every major disaster in the world for the last half century. More startling is the revelation that only a few more dates exist... what happens when they run out?

Low expectations were the name of the game for Knowing. The movie looked like fun, but also looked like a bunch of other unremarkable Nicolas Cage films that have been released over the last decade. The previews highlighted the basic premise and some disaster sequences showing some so-so special effects. All in all, Knowing looked like a mindless popcorn flick.

Knowing is a pleasant surprise, however. The movie is directed by Alex Proyas, the man behind one of the best sci-fi thrillers of all time, Dark City. It was probably ridiculous of me to expect that Proyas, who also directed The Crow and I, Robot, would resort to doing such a simplistic disaster film - in fact, I know it was. Knowing is not a simple disaster flick as most people would expect; there is another layer to the picture that smartly remained hidden during its marketing run. This additional layer, while not perfect, elevates Knowing to an unexpected level. When this new subplot is revealed partway through, it suddenly becomes clear that Knowing is not just another generic disaster film but an authentic sci-fi thriller.

Regardless, Knowing is entertaining and fast paced. While Nicolas Cage isn't anything spectacular here, the characters are likable, the disaster scenes intense and the overall movie exciting - and oddly spooky. While Knowing lacks the visual atmosphere of Dark City, it still looks and feels more like something Proyas would make than, say, a Roland Emmerich picture.

Still, the picture isn't perfect. Cage's character jumps to the revelation of the numbers rather quickly, which helps the movie get to the point but isn't particularly convincing, either. The special effects get better as they go along, but are pretty poor for much of the film; they aren't distractingly bad, but it's clear why this movie was released in March and not in the summer months. Also, not everyone will like the aforementioned additional layer to the story, though that's their problem, not mine. My least favorite moment is actually the last scene before the end credits. Proyas finishes things so well a minute earlier it was disappointing to see that he tacked this last shot on; it's unnecessary in every way and form and feels a bit cheap.

Knowing isn't perfect, but Proyas has created another strong entry in the sci-fi genre. This one won't win any awards, but it's a surprisingly entertaining film that should satisfy sci-fi fans and disaster buffs alike.

From the director of the Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton comes Duplicity, a witty romantic-comedy-espionage-thriller starring Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. Smart and fun, Duplicity works in a breezy, harmless kind of way, though those expecting the crispness, fluidity and entertainment value of Ocean's 11 may be disappointed.

Duplicity follows Ray Koval (Owen), an ex-MI6 agent who is now working counterintelligence for a private biotech company. This company has an unhealthy rivalry with its competitor and has infiltrated them with their own spy, former CIA agent Claire Stenwick (Roberts), who is trying to obtain the formula to a secret product that is about to be revealed. What neither company knows is that Ray and Claire actually know each other from several years earlier and are collaborating to steal the formula and sell it to a third party for a large sum of money.

In its advertising and its actual presentation, Duplicity looks and feels a lot like Ocean's 11, where the characters always talk with double meaning, the director works to keep the truth just out of the audience's reach and the screen highlights bright colors and beautiful scenery. "Trust no one" is the name of the game, though this is about as far from an X-Files movie as one can get.

The twist ending is both predictable and unpredictable, though I would assume that most would find that it falls into the latter category. I suspected the truth within the first few minutes of the story, but Gilroy does his best to keep his twist elusive and not explicitly obvious. Ultimately, the twist that caps everything off is a fun one and worth the wait.

But the wait is inconsistent. There are scenes that are clever, enjoyable and even funny, and then there are others that tend to draw on. Duplicity is never boring, but it edges on such an adjective a few times. Just like the ending, the mini-twists throughout the film are both predictable and unpredictable; Gilroy exposes several flashbacks to give more back story to what's going on, but many of these flashbacks are more important to further the relationship between Ray and Claire rather than to develop the plot. After a while, the flashbacks aren't very interesting at all, and seem like filler to expand the movie's running time.

Some of the exchanges between Ray and Claire are excellent and fun to watch, but most of these are early on in the film. Strangely, their most authentic scenes are the ones that are most fabricated; the later scenes, which exist to develop their relationship, aren't nearly as interesting, though people who haven't seen the previews are likely to enjoy them a bit more because they won't know the punch line is coming. Despite the inconsistencies in these scenes, Roberts and Owen share good chemistry, and it's fun watching a relationship unfold where both characters get nearly orgasmic over the fact that neither of them trust each other.

As for the acting, both Owen and Roberts are good, but Owen is better. Some people can't stand Owen for one reason or another, but I just don't understand their resentment; he's a charming, handsome and confident actor who is great in these kinds of roles. Roberts is fine, but does her best when playing off Owen. In supporting roles, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti especially deliver great performances; their opening scene together - their only scene together - is priceless, though the scene's success is more thanks to Gilroy's direction than anything else.

The bottom line is that Duplicity is a fun little film, but it isn't as fun as most people will expect. Its comparison to Ocean's 11 is warranted, but it unfortunately doesn't come out on top. The movie relies a little too heavily on the twist ending and the chemistry between Owen and Roberts; a swifter pace and a shorter running time might have done wonders. As is, Duplicity will make a worthy rental, but isn't worth the full price of admission.

At some point in our lives, we all reach a split in the road. These are the decisions that shape us, that define our futures. I reached such a split tonight. On the one side of the gaping four-story mall promenade, a line for a free screening of Adventureland. On the other, The Haunting in Connecticut.

In life, we all make poor choices at times.

The Haunting in Connecticut stars Virginia Madsen as the mother of a dying teenager (Kyle Gallner), who is suffering from advanced cancer. Souped up on a variety of medicines, the long trips to the hospital are taking the toll on him. The decision is made to move to a house (guess in which state), which is closer to the hospital and still affordable. The only downside? It used to be a funeral parlor and is still inhabited by lots of angry ghosts. Since the son is closer to death, he becomes a channel for these spirits.

To summarize: watch the original Amityville Horror.

The Haunting in Connecticut is based roughly on a true story, but for what it's worth, it is a complete and utter rip-off of other ghost stories to come before it. There's the creepy house, the disturbed family member, the all-knowing priest, the investigation that reveals the deep, dark mystery and some silly ending to explain everything away. Unfortunately, it's also dumb, poorly acted, horribly directed and not even slightly scary.

Within the first minute, I knew what I was in store for. Madsen, a usually reliable actress, shows little interest in her role, delivering her sloppy lines with an equally sloppy performance. Gallner is OK, but doesn't have the chops to pull off a nice, dying teenager who is also troubled by spirits. Most painful is the direction, though. Peter Cornwell's attempt at horror is a sad one, as the only scary thing about this movie is that he was given the job in the first place. Cornwell relies on many of the things I hate, including cheesy flashbacks, explaining way too much way too early and lots of fake "scares."

The visions that Gallner sees are way too vivid, allowing us to figure everything out - if there's anything to be figured out - within a matter of minutes. There is a story, but Cornwell never treats his flashback characters as anything more than plot devices; they never feel alive, and hence they're never scary. The heavy use of flashbacks is, in fact, disappointing; the amount of look-once-and-there's-a-ghost-look-twice-and-there-isn't moments is equally so. The result is a very surface-level story with cheap gimmicks, crude storytelling and uninteresting characters. Despite Cornwell's blatant attempts to do so, The Haunting in Connecticut lacks an emotional connection with the audience, resulting in more giggles than authentic scares.

The Haunting in Connecticut is a pathetic attempt at horror, and should be avoided at all costs.

Review by Dakota Grabowski (D+)

For Andy Fickman's (The Game Plan) debut in the children's action-fantasy genre, Race to Witch Mountain turns out to be a disappointment. From a weak supporting cast to wooden dialogue, Dwayne Johnson's Jack Bruno isn't given much to work with. Whether it's, "Don't go in the pimped out fridge Jack," to "You know what aliens look like. They look like little green people with antennas and say 'Take me to your leader, Earthlings,'" Race to Witch Mountain is nothing more than a theatrical release of made-to-DVD film.

To give it credit, while not for all audiences, the humor is light and clean. Children - especially young boys under the age of 15 - will enjoy the comedy as it's narrowly directed towards them. In the past, children's films such as Shrek tend to try to appeal to all ages with subtle jokes that only adults will get. In Race to Witch Mountain, we tend to get humor that is short and simple. The jokes won't have you "busting a gut" or spitting out your drink through your nose, but as a parent, you'll enjoy that it's clean and that your children are able to giggle at the physical humor.

Taking further steps to become more family-oriented, Dwayne Johnson once again partnered up with Andy Fickman from their 2007 hit The Game Plan. Taking a leap to new grounds, Fickman was out of his league with the remake of 1975's Escape to Witch Mountain. The effects aren't too shabby, but the action scenes aren't spaced out enough during the middle to allow a breather. Often times you'll be asking yourself when they are going to stop blowing things up and provide detail on the children in the film to give you a better understanding about why you should care about the story.

Speaking on the children, AnnaSophia Robb (Bridge to Terabithia) and Alexander Ludwig (The Seeker: The Dark is Rising) don't have the greatest on-screen chemistry. Often times they are delivering dialogue that is inexpressive and un-emoted. AnnaSophia does a lot better when she's sharing time with Johnson on screen, but then again it's far too limited. By the end of the film, there's not much hope to build a rapport with the characters and you'll end up not caring for their wellbeing.

The rest of the cast, such as: Carla Gugino (Watchmen), Ciaran Hinds ("Rome"), and Chris Marquette (Fanboys) are wasted with restricted scenes where they only perform to the limit of their one-dimensional characters. This is ultimately where the problem lies with Race to Witch Mountain: it doesn't provide well-developed characters that are particularly interesting or liked. Johnson's Jack Bruno isn't expanded upon besides his criminal career, the alien children never give you any insight to be concerned about their fate, and Gugino's love interest for Johnson isn't attention-grabbing to the point you are rooting for her and Johnson to hook up by the end of the film.

Race to Witch Mountain is your run-of-the-mill children's action film with a fantasy theme to it. It's not nearly as fun or entertaining as the original for adults, but young boys will find some of the action scenes to be catered towards their liking. It's an action-packed film that is far too linear and predictable. The only saving face it has is its ability to stay away from vulgar language, sexual innuendo for the most part and inappropriate content for children. Race to Witch Mountain is basically a family film that parent's can safely know that their children won't be exposed to filthy material, but all the while will be scratching their head wondering why the film is so monotonous.

A year ago, most people wouldn't have been able to tell you who Paul Rudd is, and certainly wouldn't have been able to pick Jason Segel out of a lineup. Skip ahead a year, and boy have things changed. Rudd and Segel, who had both worked together previously in supporting roles, got their big breaks in Role Models and Forgetting Sarah Marshall respectively - two of the funniest and most successful comedies of 2008, mind you - and now have the clout to be leading men for years to come. Their first follow-up: I Love You, Man.

I Love You, Man stars Rudd as Peter Klaven, a nice, soft-spoken guy who is about to be married to a woman who looks a lot like Jim's ex-girlfriend from "The Office," Rashida Jones. Peter just has one problem: he's been so absorbed with his girlfriends over the years that all of his guy friends have fell by the wayside, leaving him without a best man. With the encouragement of his fiancée, who sets out on a series of man-dates to meet such a friend. His searching eventually leads him to Sydney Fife, a rather blunt man's man who takes a liking to him. But as their relationship progresses and Peter discovers more about what it means to be a man, his upcoming marriage begins to look ominous.

Though Judd Apatow is not involved with the movie, his brand of humor and storytelling is clearly evident. I Love You, Man runs that same fine line as many of the comedies that have come out over recent years, delivering lots of funny, profanity laden lines while offering an otherwise believable and heartwarming love story. The result is, once again, a romantic comedy that will appeal to both men and women, because it's blisteringly funny and touching at the same time.

I Love You, Man is not as funny as Role Models, Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Rudd and Segel's other co-work, Knocked Up. It is, however, still funny and well worth seeing. Having watched it on opening night, I was treated to enjoying the film with hundreds of other moviegoers, including an obnoxious laugher who gave his overly hearty opinion every chance he could get. Him aside, it was clear that I Love You, Man delivered. Those who like "The Office" may also find similarities between Rudd's character and Michael Scott; there are some pretty painful, cringe-inducing moments scattered throughout.

I Love You, Man only struggles in a few parts, as the movie doesn't have the same tight plot as some of the other aforementioned titles in this review. Its loose approach does cause a few scenes to wander, and there are a couple stretches that don't really amount to much. Overall, I Love You, Man just doesn't have the some cohesiveness as one would expect.

Nevertheless, it is still a quality comedy that is easy to like. Rudd and Segel have good chemistry together and play off each other well; they're also supported by a great cast, including Jones, Andy Samberg, Jaime Pressly, J.K. Simmons, Jon Favreau and Thomas Lennon. Lennon, from "Reno 911" is especially funny.

I Love You, Man is not without its flaws, but it's another heartwarming, enjoyable and generally hilarious romantic comedy that has equal appeal to men and women, from the same crew that has brought us most of the great comedies over the last few years.