Inception

"You never remember the beginning of a dream."

High concept does not even begin to describe this movie, in fact it defies classification. Thriller, mystery, science fiction, fantasy, action... Inception is all of this and more, combining an intelligent, thought provoking story with edge of your seat thrills and pulse pounding action. Currently it sits at 84% on Rotten Tomatoes with a consensus mirroring my own: "Smart, innovative, and thrilling, Inception is that rare summer blockbuster that succeeds viscerally as well as intellectually." 

This movie has a rather complicated narrative so I will attempt to set up the plot without getting too convoluted. The movie takes place in a world where shared dreaming is a reality. It was apparently developed by the military as a platform to train soldiers without the risk of death or injury. Cobb (DiCaprio) is has become an expert in another aspect of this technology - using it to infiltrate the dreams of others as a means of espionage. After a bungled job leaves him in a difficult spot (i.e with a price on his head) Cobb receives an offer he can't refuse. Saito (Watanabe) offers to give Cobb a clean slate, all he has to do is complete a single job. The twist is that Saito doesn't want Cobb to steal anything from the target, he wants him to plant an idea in the targets mind - a concept known as inception. Despite his partner telling him it's impossible, Cobb agrees to Saito's proposal. After assembling a team, Cobb infiltrates the mind of Robert Fischer (Murphy) and attempts to successfully plant an idea in the mans mind. As I said the plot is just a tad complicated, I've tried to lay this out clearly and logically, but seeing it written down it's possible that I have failed in that regard. Never-the-less I think you can get the basic gist of the situation from the above summary. 


Leonardo DiCaprio is once again on form, delivering another memorable performance just as he did in The Departed and Body of Lies. It's really quite amazing to me how much conviction DiCaprio brings to the roles he has played in recent years, especially when I consider the bland performance he brought to the table in Titanic. Cobb is a character haunted by his past and deeply troubled by the memory of his dead wife. DiCaprio conveys that pain brilliantly in just his facial expressions and mannerisms without even uttering a word. The glimpses we get into Cobb's psychosis are extremely powerful emotionally, and I believe that has as much to do with DiCaprio's acting skill as it does with the terrific writing and cinematography. Ken Watanabe adds another terrific performance to the movie, though sadly his role in the movie wanes during the second and third acts. I had a hard time placing the actor until I remembered he portrayed Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins. A truly stand out performance is made by Ellen Page. I will admit that I haven't seen Juno, so this is really the first time I've seen Page get a chance to play a role with depth (as much as I love Kitty Pride - she's not exactly what I'd call complex). She spends many scenes in one-to-one dialog with DiCaprio and admirably matches his presence on screen by conveying just as much conviction as the more experienced actor. Her character is the 'newbie' on the team, so it is through her that we, the audience, get a basic tutorial on how the universe is set up, what the rules are and what to expect. She shoulders the responsibility well, thankfully the writers wisely chose to avoid any techno-babble in these scenes. 


Two other characters that really stood out are Eames and Arthur. Eames is played by the highly under-appreciated Tom Hardy (lets all just forget about Shinzon - it's really the only true blemish on his career). I loved his performance in Rocknrolla, it's nice to see him get another shot at 'blockbuster' status. Eames is a terrific character, introduced as a con-man/forger he transitions into 'action hero' mode for the third act, getting to pull of stunts worthy of John McClane. Arthur, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is the long time partner of Cobb and is also an experience extractor (the buzz word used to describe folks who steal secrets from peoples dreams). Levitt is also blessed with some great action sequences, one of which is truly trippy in a scene where 'up' and 'down' are no longer static directions. Thanks to Lovitt's performance Arthur also exhibits a kind of quiet intelligence, his experiences working with (the somewhat damaged) Cobb have clearly caused him to carefully evaluate his surroundings. 


Inception is, as I have said, a complex movie. The narrative itself isn't the (most) confusing part, its more in the manner of the delivery. The audience has to keep track of multiple dream states, all of which operated on different time lines (a minute in one dream is an hour another etc). I'm not going to go so far as to say this is a bad thing. On the contrary I find it rather refreshing that a summer movie is requiring some thought on the part of the audience. The movie also challenges the audience to consider what is 'real' - how do we distinguish between the dream world and the real world? The bulk of the movie follows the perspective of Cobb, as such we experience events through his eyes, and as a consequence get to know his character more than the others and genuinely relate to him. Over the course of the movie (which is rather long a two and half hours) I really felt like I connected with Cobb, I cared what happened to this character, and I wanted him to succeed. 


I said at the start of my review that Inception successfully combines a thinking-mans thriller with an exciting action piece. It is however, important not to over-think the movie. After leaving the theater we discussed the movie at length, trying to figure out the complexities of it and answer EVERY question. I wouldn't recommend this approach. When you start to over think the narrative, pieces of the puzzle get shuffled and the flow of the movie gets disrupted. There is certainly room for interpretation as the credits role on Inception, but don't allow your analysis to destroy the mastery of writing and storytelling that you've just experienced. 


Overall I was extremely satisfied with Inception, I'd love to see it again and I imagine I will pick it up in short order when it arrives on DVD. Take a trip to your local cinema and judge it for yourself - just be sure not to leave your brain at the door.

Final verdict on Inception: 

Get Him to the Greek

"Is there a bathroom here at the Today Show?"

Somehow this movie actually manages to surpass the movie it spun off from by being funnier, crazier and casting Colm Meaney. Even more surprising is that it actually wound up with a certified fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes - earning a solid 73%.

The plot, as simplistic as it may be, is for wannabe music promoter Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) to somehow get drugged up alcoholic rocker Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) from his home in England to the Greek Theater in L.A in just 48 hours. As you may expect nothing goes according to plan and the situation quickly spirals out of control. Will they get to the Greek in time for the concert? Tune in to find out.

Jonah Hill and Russell Brand really shine on screen together. In this movie Hill plays the straight man to Brand's psychotic, impulsiveness, and it works really well. I look forward to some behind the scenes, gag reel type stuff on the DVD because I'm sure it will be a riot. The movie also has a terrific cast in the supporting roles. Of particular note is Sean Combs, who delivered some of the most memorably funny moments in the movie as record executive Sergio Roma. Watch out for a drug induced scene in which Aaron Green sees floating disembodied Sergio Roma heads floating around the screen - priceless. Finally I have to give a shout out for Colm Meaney who plays Johnathan Snow (Aldous's father). I love seeing Colm Meaney on screen again, good old Smiley O'brien back in action.

This movie ought to be in a two pack with The Hangover. It rattles along at a rate of knots, never pausing to catch its breath. If you're looking for a fun movie to watch on a Friday night, you really can't go wrong with this one. If you're looking for something a little more intellectual, this isn't it. I indicated that it actually surpasses Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and I stand by that. I understand that this is a different kind of movie, its not meant to have the emotional impact of its predecessor, but none the less I just feel like it was a more entertaining and enjoyable experience (at the movie theater anyway, I make no predictions for the DVD). Just make sure you know what you're getting into, the story is just about as drug fueled as the main character and the pacing is extremely fast. The characters bounce from one outlandish (and potentially offensive) situation to the next so if you don't find that kind of thing amusing, this movie is not for you - otherwise you'll at least get a chuckle out of it. 

I know that this review comes a little late and I don't know if you'll still be able to catch a showing at your local multiplex, but if you can you should definitely check it out - Get Him to the Greek is absolutely worth your time.

Final verdict on Get Him to the Greek:

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

"Difficult, not impossible."

Making a good movie based on a video game is "difficult, not impossible," but sadly Prince of Persia doesn't quite manage it. The movie had a few high points and the plot wasn't all that bad, but the screenplay left much to be desired and the lack of chemistry between the two leads really lowered the tone of what really could have been a great movie.

The plot is in no way based on the game, except for the fact that there's sand the dagger can control it. No, in the movie Dastan (the Prince) is actually an orphan who was adopted by the King (rather conveniently) and later leads an army contingent with his two brothers. Shifty Vizier, and brother to the King, manipulates the eldest brother, named Tus, into attacking the Holy City of Alamut, against the protestations of Dastan. Well the invasion comes off pretty smoothly and along the way Dastan comes into possession of a strange dagger, which he 'accidentally' discovers can turn back time. It transpires that the princess Tamina is a member of an ancient order who are sworn to protect the dagger and the associated Sands of Time. Well she's none to pleased about the occupation of her city or the fact that one of the oppressors now holds their most sacred relic. Which leads to a fine mess when she is forced to go on the run with Dastan when he is framed for the murder of the King.

Jake Gyllenhaal did a pretty good job as Dastan, in my humble opinion. I saw a lot of the Prince from the video game in his performance, he clearly was giving it his all and trying to connect to the fans. Gemma Arterton on the other hand wasn't all that great as the princess, though she certainly performed the role of 'eye candy' to perfection. She had next to no chemistry with Gyllenhaal, which made the inevitable romance seem a tad forced. I also think that she figured out her lines were rather goofy because she seemed to have a hard time delivering them convincingly. The writers do have to take some heat for that though, I think I'd have a tough time saying "Secret Guardian Temple" with any kind of conviction too. The elder brother Tus (played by Richard Coyle) was sadly a pretty one dimensional character, perhaps because he wasn't really on screen that much. Far more interesting was the younger brother Garsiv (played by Toby Kebbell) who was playing an antagonist to the hero sure, but still managed to show some level of humanity in his performance. Ben Kingsley as the Vizier, Nizam, was really rather bland too. It's not too much of a spoiler to say he's the villain of the story, Ben seems to gravitate towards such roles. Kingsley really goes all out on this character to make him as shifty and sinister as possible, which worked out pretty well. There's really nothing better than a villain you love to hate. Finally a quick shout out for Alfred Molina who had a small supporting role in the movie as Sheik Amar, who in addition to becoming a reluctant ally of the prince, races ostriches. He added some nice comic relief to the movie along with his trusty sidekick Seso (played by Steve Toussaint).

The problem with the movie, as is so often the case with video game adaptations, is that they completely disregarded the story of the game. Sands of Time (the game) has a very solid, and well thought out story, so I really can't imagine why they felt the need to change it as much as they did. The new story isn't terrible, but it does seem rather strained at times. There are some actions taken by the characters that just don't make a lot of sense. Initially the goal is to take the dagger to the aforementioned 'Secret Guardian Temple' but when that doesn't work they instead go back to Alamut - the same city they started all this nonsense in. After the inevitable show down with Nizam......SPOILER ALERT...... Dastan succeeds in rewinding time all the way back to the aftermath of the invasion of Alamut (I think that point is about 20-25 minutes into the movie). Well if that was possible, why didn't the princess just tell him to do that in the first place, why did they go on a trek across the desert, because that would have made for a pretty short movie I guess...... END SPOILER. The other problem is that the whole motivation for Dastan is the murder of his father, something that we should be pretty invested in no? Well there lies another problem, the King himself has so little screen time, much less screen time with Dastan, that we really don't know him. Not knowing him, or anything about the relationship between him and his sons, it's hard to really feel anything for the character when he dies. It's not all doom and gloom though. The stunts and fight sequences were satisfying and the special effects (especially the rewind time effect) were absolutely spot on. If only they had invested such time and energy crafting the screenplay as they did on the special effects.

The single biggest issue I had with the movie is that it had the potential to be great, I wanted it to be great, but instead it falls way short of average. So while it may be somewhat entertaining at times, the movie really doesn't hold up to that much scrutiny. Of course I can't assume that everyone will scrutinize the motivations and actions of characters the way I do, so your mileage may vary.

Final verdict on Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time: 

MacGruber

"Classic MacGruber!" 

While MacGruber occasionally hits on a good joke, for the most part it's crude, unimaginative and just down right stupid. I wasn't entirely surprised at this outcome, honestly I only saw the movie out of a morbid sense of curiosity. Now I wouldn't go so far as to say MacGruber is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life, but it's by no means good.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around the arch villain Cunth (Val Kilmer) who has stolen some kind of doomsday weapon and plans to use it on Washington D.C. Thus, the US military turns to the only man who can save them, MacGruber (Will Forte). There's also some back-story between Cunth and MacGruber about how Cunth killed MacGrubers wife, I'm not really sure why this subplot was in here as it really adds nothing to the movie. Vicki St Elmo (Kristen Wiig) and Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillipe) are MacGrubers reluctant sidekicks on the mission to take down Cunth (and yes every time a character says that name the 'h' isn't pronounced all that clearly). 

The gimmick of the SNL skit was that MacGruber's inventions and schemes never work, and inevitably everyone dies. This wouldn't make for a particularly lengthy movie though, so instead none of his inventions or schemes work, but somehow everyone lives anyway. I was never really a fan of the skit, I thought it was pretty shallow and the joke gets worse as time goes on. Will Forte really seems like he's trying too hard to hit the punchlines, every joke he makes on screen seems strained, which doesn't work so well in a movie that relies almost exclusively on said jokes. Val Kilmer (who really isn't looking too well these days, boy that guy put on some weight) is camping it up as the arch villain Cunth, delivering every line like a cliched, poor mans Bond villain. Cunth is a character so one dimensional that he could really have been portrayed by a cardboard cut out and the movie wouldn't have suffered from it. Then we have Kristen Wiig (resuming her character from the original skit) and Ryan Phillipe as the straight man to play off of the insanity that is MacGruber. Wiig looks lost for most the movie, I suspect she was wondering what horrible act she'd committed in a previous life to deserve being cast in the movie. Phillipe, to my surprise, actually tries to be professional, as if he's completely unaware of what a train wreck he's part of.

I know what folks say about analyzing slapstick movies like this one... that we should just leave our brains at home and enjoy the movie for what it is. Well yes, I agree with those folks, in fact I'm usually one of the people saying that - however that argument only goes so far. There is a delicate balance between farcical comedy and entertaining story telling, and I can assure you that MacGruber is completely unsuccessful in pulling it off. Instead it seems to be comprised of several SNL skits just mashed together to produce a feature length movie. To make matters worse only the smallest fraction of those skits are actually funny. It was somewhat embarrassing to sit in a theater watching a so called 'comedy' and nobody was laughing at the jokes. Or at least when there was an amused chuckle, it was more along the lines of the sound one makes when laughing at the boss's jokes (just to be clear, the term I'm shooting for here is 'insincere').

If you've seen the trailer for the movie, then you've seen the best gags already, don't punish yourself by submitting to 90 minutes of torture.

Oh, but wait... didn't I say this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen? My analysis has been pretty harsh though hasn't it? So if this isn''t the worst movie I've ever seen what is? Well I can't honestly narrow it down to a single movie (though Edge of Darkness is very tempting) so instead just let me say I've seen my share of Uwe Bole movies and leave it at that.

Final verdict on MacGruber:

Iron Man 2

"It's good to be back!"

Iron Man 2 had big iron shoes to fill, and I think it has made a damn good attempt, but falls just a little shy of the brilliance of the original. Rotten Tomatoes rates the movie at 74%, and since I'm writing this up a full month after the release I'm fairly sure that score should remain constant.

This time around the movie begins in the aftermath of Stark's announcement that he is Iron Man. The US Military wants the suit, for obvious reasons and Tony is stalwartly refusing to turn it over. Into this situation comes Ivan Vanko, a man seeking vengeance against the Stark empire for the death of his father, Justin Hammer, a rival weapons manufacturer and the fact that Tony himself is slowly being poisoned by the very same device that is keeping his heart beating. As you can imagine things get pretty interesting before the end credits role.

Robert Downey Jr is still terrific as Stark, they really couldn't have cast anybody better in the role. He possesses just the right mix of authority and immaturity that really brings Stark alive onscreen. It was also great to see Gwyneth Paltrow back as Pepper Potts. The chemistry between her and Downey is very natural and adds a real sense of closeness to the characters. Mickey Rourke turned in a good performance, for the relatively small amount of screen-time he got. As Whiplash was billed as the villain of the piece, I rather expected to see more of him, instead his character was restricted to a few key scenes. Instead Sam Rockwell, as rival weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer, seemed to be front and center as the main antagonist to Stark and Iron Man. I absolutely despised Hammer as a character, for which I give enormous credit to Rockwell, his performance created a man the audience loves to hate.

A fairly large degree of press surrounded the fact that Scarlett Johansson was going to be playing Russian super spy Black Widow in the movie. Aside from serving up some rather delicious eye candy, she adds absolutely nothing to the movie. Her performance was bland and about as wooden as Keanu Reeves on a good day. It almost seemed like she didn't even care about the role, or the character, delivering every line with a completely expressionless look on her face and in a dry monotone. Is this the fault of the director? Did Favreau tell her to make Widow stoic? Was it really the case that she knew she was there to look hot and didn't really give a damn about anything else? Who knows, but I suspect the latter is the truth in this case.

Finally, we come to Rhodes. In the first movie Rhodes was played by Terrance Howard, in the sequel Don Cheadle steps into the role. I doubt we will ever know what really happened to spur such a switch, but it happened and we have to live with it. In any case I like Cheadle as an actor, I'm a fan of several of his movies (including the terrific Traitor), but it's difficult to gauge his performance without comparing it to Howard. Howard played Rhodes as a real straight laced air force officer, but also showed the capacity to kick back and relax with Stark. When Howard was Rhodes, it was easy to get the sense that he and Stark will good friends. Cheadle nails the straight laced air force officer, but in my opinion fails to convey the friendship between Rhodes and Stark, at least until the climactic showdown. This colors every action he makes in the movie to suggest that instead of being Stark's friend, he'd quite happily stab him in the back to satisfy the military.

Some have criticized the plot for being slow in places, I think I have to disagree on this point. I have, over the years, developed a foolproof system to determine if a movie is dragging or not. If I am repeatedly glancing at my watch to see how much time is left in the movie - then it's slow. I did not, even once, glance at my watch during the movie - thus I wouldn't call it slow. There are however some points that strained the realm of believability, such as how Stark solves the problem of his blood poisoning. In the interest of a spoiler free review I wont go into detail about it, but suffice to say it was both rather convenient and somewhat skeptical. As a whole though, the overall plot of the movie is fairly solid. Though granted it doesn't quite seem to flow as well as the original movie did - sequels are always judged harsher though.

Once again the special effects and fight scenes were top notch. Favreau has, in both movies, done a fantastic job of merging comic book style action with a real world feel. The Iron Man suits really feel like the they have weight, and when they strike something the sound effects really help sell the impact of metal on metal. Whiplash's energy whips also looked really good, though they were somewhat spoiled by their prevalence in the trailer. Between cutting edge visuals and top of the line sound design, the fight scenes really come alive in a big way.

Of course Iron Man 2 is about more than just fights. The continuing relationship between Stark and Potts is treated very well in the sequel, from the beginning we can sense connection between them that neither one is willing to pursue. Stark, as a results of the blood poisoning, has to come to terms with his own mortality and tries to tie everything off so that he doesn't leave a mess behind for the people he cares about. Despite the lack of what I'm call to call the "friendship vibe" caused by Howards replacement, there is also some development between Rhodes and Stark. Stark has to accept that he can't save the world alone and needs to trust Rhodes to help him, which means trusting another person with the Iron Man technology.

Overall I thought that Iron Man 2 is a really entertaining movie. Is it as good as the first, when I walked out the theater I thought so, but on further reflection I think perhaps it does fall short a little. There is an element of 'Die Hard syndrome' to be had here. While the sequel is a good movie in its own right, as a follow up to the near perfect Iron Man it does seem a tad lacking. The other factor to consider is that Iron Man 2 bears the burden of having to lay threads for the Avengers movie (which is the only reason Samuel L Jackson's Fury was in there) which also bloats areas of the story with unnecessary exposition that is probably what most folks find slows down the pace of the main story. Despite this I still really enjoyed the movie, and will definitely be adding it to my collection when it gets its DVD release.

Final Verdict on Iron Man 2:

The Losers

"Am I the only one who sees the shirt?"

This is without doubt, the most fun I've had at the cinema since.... well... a long time ago. The Losers is an explosive action fest with terrific humor and a stellar performance by Chris Evans. You owe it to yourself to spend an evening at the theater with this movie.

So lets begin, as is so often the case, with the plot. A special forces team comprising of Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Jensen (Chris Evans), Roque (Idris Elba), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) are on assignment for the CIA. Their target is some sadistic drug lord, whom they have tracked to his shady retreat in the middle of some backwater jungle. In order to eliminate the target, in an homage to Tom Clancy, is to use a laser guided missile. While lasing the target, a bunch of kids show up in truck, and the guys are no longer inclined to incinerate the place. However Max, the man puling the strings, overrides their ability to communicate with the pilot launching the missile and they decide to go in on foot to rescue the kids. Then, without spoiling the specifics, there's a big double cross and they are all left for dead. Cue your standard revenge plot and things get rolling.  

As I pointed out already, the clear winner in the movie is Chris Evans. He steals every scene he's in and manages to inject something really natural and likable into his character. You might argue that he's channeling his Fantastic Four character a little too much, and you might be right, but honestly I think it works in this particular instance. Having said that the entire 'team' of actors worked very well together, and were quite convincing in their portrayal of a group of guys who've been working together for a while and really trust each other. Morgan in particular was fun to watch as the leader of the little group of misfits, and seemed to enjoy channeling Hannibal Smith - yes I am also looking forward to the A-Team movie. Oh, and lets not forget Zoe Saldana, who couldn't be further from Uhura in this movie, which was good as I wasn't particularly impressed with her Star Trek role. Amazingly she seems to have pretty good chemistry with Morgan, which I honestly wasn't expecting.While I do like Jason Patric as an actor, he has done some really good movies over the course of his career (and yes some stinkers too), but I'm not really convinced he was the best choice for the role of the arch villain. He just didn't seem all that menacing, and his character was bat shit crazy. You have to be one hell of an evil genius to randomly kill off your aids and henchmen by the bucket-load every time the wind blows.

Now, let me take a moment to discuss some of the criticisms of this movie. First, folks seem to have issue with the cliched action movie stereotypes that are present in The Losers. Yes I admit it, they probably do cram almost every one of them into a little under 100 minutes. However, just because a movie contains action movie cliches does not mean that it's automatically a bad movie. I would argue that this movie works because of the cliches, I enjoyed it, the movies suspension of disbelief was maintained fairly well throughout (with the exception of the snuke, but I'll get to that in a minute) and the characters kept me interested in what was happening to them. So just because there were gun fights and explosions, things that happen in every other action movie on the planet, this is somehow a bad movie? I disagree. Point number two, once again arguments that the plot does not make sense. Virtually every movie made in the last fifty years is guilty of some kind of plot hole appearing. Sometimes these plot holes are minor and excusable, to the extent that you don't even catch them on your first, or even second viewing, and other times these plot holes are horific craters that actually causes the audience to stop following the movie for a moment as their brain tries to understand what the hell just happened. The Losers, without doubt, is closer to the snafu end of the spectrum, than the earth shattering "what the hell is going on" end. Yes there are plot holes, but when we live in a world that allows Sam to be resurrected by the robots in heaven, you have to put things in perspective. As such, as long as Mr Bay and Mr Cameron are still making movies, I give The Losers a free pass in regard to plot holes. Plus, every movie based on a comic book sacrifices plot at some stage in the game (even the Dark Knight - the best comic book movie in the history of the human race had plot holes).

I will, briefly, comment on my one complaint about the movie: the snuke. The sonic dematerializer was probably the dumbest thing they could have come up with (having not read the comic I have no idea if this is accurate or not), but suffice to say I didn't particularly care for it. Why couldn't it just have been a regular old nuclear warhead? Would that not have been deadly enough? Not to mention that every time somebody said snuke, I flashed back to that episode of South Park.

Aside from the snuke issue, I loved this movie. I highly recommend it to everyone out there who appreciates a good old fashioned action flick. Of our own little group, 3/4 people loved it and the fourth though it was 'alright'. I'd say that's a pretty damn good average, wouldn't you?

Final Verdict on The Losers:

Date Night

"Put your junk in reverse!!"

Surprisingly fun and entertaining! I didn't expect too much from Date Night; like most folks I figured most of the best gags would be in the trailer. Well I was pleasantly surprised by the overall entertainment value of the movie, the best jokes were not spoiled in the trailer, the gags all landed very well, the audience were all having fun and laughing along with said gags. Overall it was just a really fun movie with a great cast and a ton of laughs.

The plot (lets all remember this is a comedy, pure and simple) revolves around Phil and Claire Foster (played by Steve Carell and Tina Fey respectively) a middle aged married couple who seem to be stuck in a rut. When their friends Brad and Haley Sullivan announce they are filing  for divorce, it shakes up the Fosters enough to try and add a spark to their marriage again. This leads them on an impromptu trip into the city for a romantic dinner at a very exclusive restaurant. Without reservations they have no chance of getting a table, so they 'innocently' snag someone else's table when they fail to show up. One unfortunate case of mistaken identity later, and they are stuck in the middle of an extortion scheme and running for their lives.

Steve Carell was an actor I tended to ignore, at least until I saw Dan in Real Life and Get Smart (both of which I liked). After seeing those two movies, I decided Carell was worth my time, prior to that the only time I had seen him was in The Office, which I despise. Well once again I can say Carell was a lot of fun to watch, especially when coupled with Tina Fey. The two actors have great chemistry together and play terrifically well off of each other. I do like Tina Fey, she earned my undying respect with her Sarah Palin parodies. It was also nice to see Mark Wahlberg flexing given the opportunity for some comedy, personally I loved his scenes and I think he was a good match for Carell and Fay. I have to give a special shout out to James Franco and Mila Kunis who were especially hilarious in their brief appearance - keep an eye out for them when you see the movie.

Overall I found this to be a fun and entertaining comedy, it managed to keep the 'stupidity' level in check, such that while there were rather ridiculous moments in the movie, on the whole it stayed out of national lampoon territory. I loved the characters, the acting was great and you can really tell as your watching that everyone involved was enjoying the experience. So, Date Night get's my stamp of approval, I recommend that you see it either in theaters or later on DVD.

Final Verdict on Date Night: