KICK-ASS 3.0*** *(almost 3.5***)

I was initially skeptical about the prospect of watching another superhero spoof movie since most recent attempts have been unremarkable. But “Kick-Ass” rises above its predecessors by using a unique and entertaining style of parody. And, the smartly done action sequences would not feel out of place in a Spiderman film or even in a Tarantino film, and, in fact, the movie feels like Spiderman and Kill Bill were put into a blender and “Kick-Ass” was the end result.

The story focuses on Dave Lizewski, your average teenage nerd whose obsession with comic books inspires him to create his very own superhero, Kick-Ass, despite his complete lack of superpowers. Dave's first attempt at becoming a vigilante crime fighter fails miserably and he is severely injured, resulting in surgery in which his bones are mended with metal plates and nerve damage diminishes his ability to feel pain. It’s a much milder version of “RoboCob”. Despite this initially setback, Dave is unfazed and goes out again on patrol as Kick-Ass and manages to take down three thugs in a protracted, messy, amateurish fight. This is captured on a mobile phone and before long the video is on YouTube and Kick-Ass is a national phenomenon.

Later in the film, Kick-Ass meets fellow superheroes Red Mist, Big Daddy, and Hit Girl. Red Mist, like Kick-Ass, is a teen wanna-be-hero, but he has a dark secret. Big Daddy and Hit Girl are a father-daughter superhero team. Big Daddy is a middle age ex-cop and Hit Girl is his preteen daughter who is a formidable foe and an expert at killing, having been meticulously trained for such by her dad since birth. Hit Girl, as a foulmouthed, vicious, preteen superhero, manages to steal the movie with her swagger and bravado.


A key part of the film is its eclectic soundtrack with choice tracks taken from excellent films such as “28 Days Later” and “For a Few Dollars More”. The Kick-Ass soundtrack adapts the tracks brilliantly, making them feel like they were meant for the film. The choice of the music along with great borrowed songs, fit perfectly with the high-octane action sequences and even adds emotional depth to key scenes .

Kick-Ass is a fun, energetic film full of delightful moments of humor and action. It also has it’s violent moments and some bad language (especially and surprisingly from the hit girl character) and, thus, has an “R” rating. But overall it is one “kickass” of an entertaining movie.

Clark

VALENTINE”S DAY 2.0 *** (but just barely)

Just check out the cast in the movie poster and as listed below. It gives the term 'star-studded' a new meaning. Imagine what kind of film you could make with all that talent. Well, Valentine's Day is not that film. Far from it in fact. Actually this “who's who” of a cast is a draw back in that it hampers any chance for real emotion or character development due to the need to share screen time among them all. When you start getting interested in a character you'll most likely not see him/her again for another 45 minutes, pretty annoying when there are so few likable characters in the first place.

What is perhaps the biggest disappointment is that despite a plethora (I like that word) of plots, subplots and sub-subplots – all intertwining somehow – there is very little originality and, even worse, it’s not very interesting or funny. Fluff and more fluff replace characterization and narrative development and the corny dialogue comes off as cutesy more than cute. It all goes back to the bloated cast: with over 20 stars that need their quota of jokes, sobs and happy endings filled, it's hugely difficult to find any real time to explore the unique intricacies of love and loss.


Very quickly, and don’t blink, here’s a rundown of the pairings with the main story being Jennifer Garner and Ashton Kutcher. A close second would be Anne Hathaway and Topher Grace. A slightly distant third is Jessica Biel and Jamie Foxx. Surrounding these is an assortment of minor stories, the more prominent of which comprises one senior couple (Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine) and two junior couples (Emma Roberts with Carter Jenkins; and Taylor Swift with heartthrob werewolf Taylor Lautner). There is also the kid with a mysterious crush ( Bryce Robinson) and a gay couple that has only one scene of about 5 seconds together (won’t give this one away). Julia Roberts, Eric Dane, George Lopez and Jessica Alba are a little more than cameos (though not much more) while Kathy Bates, Queen Latifah and Patrick Dempsey are just that.

This movie with the “star studded” cast is pure exploitation in an obvious attempt to snare a huge audience which it did; and I would wager that a lot of the folks who saw it, liked it. And that’s okay… I just didn’t have that experience. It is obvious in many ways that the filmmakers tried to outdo the terrific British film, “Love Actually” and, in my opinion came up woefully short. So, if you haven’t seen it yet, save your money and rent or watch the far superior movie, “Love Actually” which is at the very top of my all-time favorite “Feel-Good” movies.

Clark

CHLOE 3.0 (but barely) ****
What would you do if you were fairly sure your husband was having an affair …check his shirt collar and boxers for lipstick or perfume or sneak peeks at his iPhone or BlackBerry for hotmails…maybe. But no such mundane things in this movie… this wife may surprise you.
Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a fortyish, classy, professional gynecologist who loves her college professor husband, David (Liam Neeson). They live in a wonderful home just outside of New York. They have an ambitious and horney 15 year old son who has recently discovered the sexual pleasures of ready-and-willing teenage girls….and the horizontal part of these hook-ups occur in his parents’ home !! But the major problem for Catherine is that there is no longer is any intimacy or sex with her husband, David, and Catherine suspects that her handsome, professor husband is getting too close to and bedding down young college coeds. That’s when she decides arranges to meet Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a beautiful young call girl whose services she enlists to tempt her husband (as a young single hottie..not as a call girl) to see if he will take the bait and cheat on her. At first, all goes as she expected and Chloe reports back to her that her husband eagerly responded to her temptations and had sex with her. Catherine, out of a titillating curiosity, has Chloe continue the affair and requires Chloe to report back to her in detail what goes on..a “blow by blow” account, so to speak. It isn’t long before the relationship between Chloe and David — and for that matter, the relationship between Chloe and Catherine — spin out of control in ways that Catherine could never have imagined.
Moore and Neeson are such classy actors that they can’t help but elevate a somewhat weak story. And Amanda Seyfried is so well cast as the young sexy call girl…the alluring temptress… she’s sensuous and voluptuous, as in really “hot”. She does amazing things with a difficult, elusive–at-times character. Like the illicit liaisons shown in the movie, Chloe, both the character and the movie, are guilty pleasures.
At a running time of just over one and one-half hour, “Chloe” is a tightly wrapped seductive and intriguing erotic thriller that, unfortunately, loses some steam, but not necessarily its steaminess, towards the end as it goes for a surprise/Hitchcock type ending that doesn’t quite matchup with the earlier parts of the story. Fortunately, Amanda Seyfried’s sizzling scenes as Chloe along with Julianne Moore’s raw, brave and honest performance as Catherine help to maintain your interest and keep your eyes glued to the screen.

This has an “R” rating because of the heavy sexual content..not all that much nudity but very suggestive and steamy.

Clark