Let us get this out of the way first off; 22 Jump Street ISN'T funnier than 21 Jump Street. This isn't a knock on the new film. A movie can be pretty damned funny and not be as funny as the first film.

This one uses running gags about the nature of sequels and the real life identities of the cast. They also bring back the drug hallucination sequences from the first movie with pretty hilarious results. It all works but it is just a little less of a surprise than the first movie. When we all walked into the theater for 21 Jump Street we did not know what to expect.

Here we know the formula. But, to the credit of the filmmakers they take this fact and make it part of the film. The film rolls its own eyes at the inevitability of a sequel to a financially successful film.

22, like the first film, is a movie that is best seen unspoiled by knowing what happens. These are jokes that are best told only once. This is a film full of gags--not personal stories, not character development. It is like a series of skits and if you've avoided seeing any of these? You will like the movie more.

One of the funniest segments of the film is during the closing credits. Another? Honestly it wasn't as funny as it should have been because I saw it in the previews.  When is Hollywood going to stop with the "every single joke is in the previews" crap?

This is a funny film--as noted--and you won't be bored at any point in it. But there really shouldn't be a 23 Jump Street.

Bad Words is a vulgar comedic effort, directed by and starring Jason Bateman. It almost works.

Deciding whether a comedy is a "good movie" is a simpler task than deciding if an action film, a drama or a documentary meets the criteria to measure up to that elusive word "good." Or it is an easier thing for me to determine.

If I laugh more than six times in a modern comedy I consider it to be above average. If I laugh into double digits it gets near what can be called "good" (good being, after all, a relative term).

Bad Words resides, in this regard, somewhere close to "good." It relies on a couple specific things to do this--one is the time honored use of children and vulgarity and the other is Bateman. The former usually relies on children saying bad words but, in this case, it is grown ups saying mean, vulgar things to children. The latter, Bateman, is the more effective comedic weapon here.

This movie wants to be Bad Santa but it never gets that vulgar or that funny. I am writing this a few weeks after seeing it and I cannot actually recall any of the gags. I can remember specific funny bits for REALLY funny films like 21 Jump Street, This Is The End or The Other Guys--months or years later after a single viewing. This an amusing but ultimately forgettable film.

This doesn't mean everyone aside from Bateman is BAD in the movie. They are all fine. In fact, Rohan Chand, as spelling bee contestant Chaitanya Chopra acquits himself well. He does recall the neglected kid from Bad Santa--except his parents are neglecting him in an entirely different way.

Likewise the film is fairly well-paced and directed. It doesn't need some unique plot twist to make it better it simply needs to be funnier. The idea of an adult competing in a kids spelling bee is full of potential and they use some of it--an adult in this competition would have a leg up if he wanted to rattle the other contestants.  It never fully mines all the possible laughs here, whether out of timidity or good taste is hard to say. There are other side plots such as Bateman's relationship with a reporter that have funny moments but never seem fully realized comically.

It is difficult to write about things a movie doesn't do--but sometimes it seems so glaring that it begs mention. Why does the razzing only go from Bateman to the kids and only ONCE back? A "tit for tat" series of retaliations from the kids seem like an obvious way to go when writing this comedy. And the resolution, the "why" of it all is so mundane that it is almost a suprise.

Bateman can direct and he is certainly funny. But the film is a little too safe to be a new Bad Santa.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson at his best. The stylish, performance-driven film is entertaining in every frame. Anderson, once again, creates a new world, a little bubble outside reality. Then, he relies on performances by a perfect cast to move the film along. It is funny. It is sad and magical, sometimes all at the same time.

The stand-out performance is, obviously, Ralph Fiennes, as M. Gustave. There is a plot but this film is about style (especially its almost animated design) and performances. Fiennes has the most screen time and he has to carry large portions of the film on his back. His character's predilections might not seem those of a sympathetic character but Fiennes sells it. He never chews the scenery either. He isn't alone in delivering--F. Murray Abraham, Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel and especially newcomer, Tony Revolori are all great in roles of varying sizes.

Sometimes an "all star cast" should be looked on with caution. Many directors/producers seem to think that throwing a bunch of names at an audience is enough but Anderson gives everyone something to do--even if they are, literally, in the movie only for a few minutes. He seems to get the best from everyone.

This is a film about a time gone by and a place now lost that never were. There are parallels to the real world but these are broadly sketched. Ultimately this is a sad story, a story about loss. But such is Anderson's skill that you will see this but never be dragged down by it. There is a "feeling" created here, a sort of hope in the face of despair. Anyone that can make various murders seem cute is a master filmmaker.

If Charles Chaplin were alive today he would be making movies like Anderson.  Neither director was afraid of sentimentality--and indeed both are masters of it.  A comparison to Chaplin is pretty close to the highest praise you can give a filmmaker.  Some will see this film and think; what's the big deal? But it is.

I would suggest looking at all the big budget epics who spend hundreds of millions to "create a world" and fall on their face in a pile of CGI. Anderson, here, has made what is quite similar to a cartoon and he succeeds without a hitch.

A fine film and one that begs to be seen more than once.

The Coen Brothers' Inside Llewyn Davis is an odd film. It is a "slice of life" taken from a fictionalized character in the early 60s Greenwich Village folk scene (yes he has a great deal in common with Dave Van Ronk). It has moments--especially an early scene with Oscar Isaac (as Llewyn Davis) and a cat--that are beyond beautifully shot. The film is full of historical markers, characters based on real people (sort of), jabs at the music industry and the subtle humor that graces most of the Coen's films.

The main character, a folk singer who isn't necessarily an easy character to like, is obnoxious, self-centered and a bit of a loser. You know, he's a musician. Somehow, you like the character regardless of his flaws. Isaac plays him with humanity, as a sort of everyman with talent. Sure he is a jerk but aren't we all jerks sometime? As you see bits and pieces of the business he is trying to succeed in you begin to see where how the seeds of his attitude were sown. When he decides he wants out he seems trapped in a career that he loves and hates. It is a dilemma familiar to any small time musician.

The film is also a fine bit of writing, editing and directing. It is so seamless and professional. Any attempt to describe the plot, the action, will sound flat compared with what you see. It is as much about a feeling, creating a place and a time as it is telling the story of any individual. The film does a fine job of recreating the early 60s Greenwich Village scene without being obvious.

While there are numerous characters in the film--and many of them are music archetypes--the only one the audience really gets to know in depth is Davis.  In the movie Davis is given the chance to make up for his decisions, to atone for his sins. In most Hollywood films characters leap at this chance. Not here.  It isn’t so easy here and it makes him more human. When there is an easy out, something to make an audience feel good? The Coens do not take that easy path.

No one in the film seems rotten to the core (with one or two exceptions) but there are not many angels either (with one or two exceptions). The people who seem decent may have had to sell their souls, or other bits and pieces, while the people who represent the worst in the music business may have more integrity than it seems.

The film leaves you with a feeling that while there is usually something dirty behind success, there is nothing noble in failure.

The World's End is a funny movie. No doubt about it. Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost all involved in a movie seems to be a pretty solid recipe for actual laughter. Is it as funny and original as Shaun of the Dead? Probably not but it is probably a hair better than the also amusing Hot Fuzz.

There is one problem with the movie and it isn't actually WITH the movie but a broader problem that Hollywood needs to deal with right NOW; they need to stop telling us so much in previews.

I would have been much happier if I hadn't KNOWN this film was about robots? As an avid movie goer I should, at least, have the opportunity to not know. If I want to have a movie spoiled there are tons of reviewers willing to do that for me. I didn't need to go see the Harrison Ford/Gary Oldman movie, Paranoia, because the previews pretty much told me what was going to happen in the film. Even more egregious are the previews for the remake of Carrie, the new Vin Diesel film, Captain Phillips...hell pretty much every single preview I've seen for months.

Hollywood thinks we are stupid and won't understand if they don't spell it out for us. Please, stop! It actually stops me from going to certain movies and I am sure I am not alone in this.

But let's get back to The World's End.

How many of you recall high school as the pinnacle of your life? It is to be hoped very few. Even so it is a certainty that you know someone who feels this way. They have never gotten past their "glory years" which were usually far less glorious than they recall. That is the starting point for this film.

Pegg plays Gary King, the vaguely goth high school superstar who decides (at a little too much length) to get his old friends together to relive their youth via a particular quest. He wants them to return to their hometown to go on a pub crawl--having a pint at each of a dozen pubs, culminating at The World's End.

Frost is decidely NOT Ed from Shaun of the Dead in this movie, instead being cast in the sober, responsible role. He and Gary's other friends are all gainfully employed, fairly successful and only moderately nostalgic for days gone by. But with clever lies and manipulation Gary gets them all on board for the trek.

All along the way gags ensue. Much like Hot Fuzz before it this movie will improve upon second viewing. Some of the early jokes are put into context by what happens later. That is one of the beauty of the "Cornetto Trilogy" all the films stand up well to repeated viewings.

There are some lessons in this one but these are never used as a bludgeon. And also the ending sort of leaves it open for interpretation what, precisely, these lessons are. Maybe it is ok, under some circumstances, to live in the past? Perhaps when the present is miserable?

But life lessons are not really the point here in any case--humor is and The World's End gets that part right. It does it in a way that induces more chuckles than uncontrollable laughter but that is by design. It is to be hoped that this isn't the final curtain for this group working together.

Kickass 2 is not unwatchable but there is something, a thread of "not right-ness" that permeates the movie. In fact it isn't just ONE thread but several.

The first of these is the juxtaposition of horrific violence in a movie where most of the violence is cartoon-like. There are two brutal murders (one that is like something from The Sopranos but with silly costumes and another that seems like something off of Oz or Breaking Bad) that are mixed with half-hearted attempts at humor that fall dreadfully flat.

It isn't that you cannot make jokes about horrific things but those jokes damned well better be funny. There is even a scene where a rape is about to take place that turns into a penis joke. Not funny.

Can you tell jokes about rapes that are funny? No, you cannot. But you can allude to the subject. Check out the scene in This Is The End that does it. The joke isn't ABOUT rape but about the attitudes of the characters, showing their mindsets and, to a degree, their hypocrisy.  Remember how the film Something About Mary used a mentally handicapped character to  set up jokes? Remember how that worked? Because we were laughing with him and not at him, because the jokes were funny and because the jokes were at the expense NOT of the handicapped character but of those around him.

That is probably the crux of the matter with why this movie just doesn't work--most of the jokes are obvious, most of the deaths are obvious and telegraphed and there is a pointless side-plot that seem designed to include ONE gag. That gag? A vomit and poop gag.

Do not get me wrong. I am not high brow. To quote the sage wisdom of the Frank Reynolds character from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia; "Poop is funny." But it isn't ALWAYS funny.

Then there is the violence. The one thing I walked out of this movie thinking was that Jim Carrey's denunciation of the film's violence was the result of three possible things 1) an attempt to promote the film (OH this is SO violent...don't see it! wink wink) 2) Jim Carrey does not see very many movies or 3) Jim Carrey is an idiot.

The film, comparatively, is just not that violent. There are more violent basic cable television shows. I have seen a dozen films in the past year that are more violent than this. And the violence is generally the best part of this movie.
There are some pretty decent action sequences in the film, although the "final confrontation" seems more than a little flat.

All the actors in this movie acquit themselves pretty well--with a few exceptions. They are handed pretty mundane lines to deliver and the spit them out like pros.

But WHY, in the name of all that is holy, in an action film that glories in violence and mayhem, a film about vigilantes who dress up like super heroes, do you include a long aside that seems like something out of a teen high school TV series? This who portion of the movie is yawn inducing and could have been handled in a tiny fraction of the time (and as noted before the "payoff" is a poop and vomit joke).

Kickass 2 isn't all bad. There is some decent action. There are a few jokes and gags that sort of work. The actors elevate the rather dubious material and with a few, previously noted exceptions the film moves along fairly well. It just falls short across the board.

Much Ado About Nothing is a new page in the career of Joss Whedon. Whedon, doing Shakespeare, is something of a film fan's dream come true. But sometimes such "dreams come true" fall on their face.

This one does not.

This stylish reimagining of the Shakespeare comedy is as seamless and funny as any Shakespeare comedy ever put on film. Much has been made of how the movie was shot in 12 days or so at Whedon's house in between shooting and editing The Avengers. That is an interesting bit of trivia but you'd never know it from just watching the film. The haste is never in evidence in the finished product. Maybe the urgency was a blessing.

There isn't a bad thing to say about this movie. Everyone in the cast, from small roles to the leads shine. Alexis Denisof as Benedick and Amy Acker as Beatrice have such chemistry you wonder if watching this movie will make their respective spouses a little nervous. More likely the two have residual chops from their days together on Whedon's Angel.

The two are not the only Whedon alumnus in the film; Nathan Fillion of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Firefly and Serenity, Clark Gregg of The Avengers, Reed Diamond of Dollhouse, Fran Kranz of The Cabin in the Woods and many others. In fact, most of the people in the film have had at least bit parts in Whedon movies or television shows. That is an ancillary part of the fun of this movie; you get to figure out the various actors connections to Whedon. Some are easy. Some are unrecognizable from previous roles.

The film sticks pretty close to the play. Sometimes with updated Shakespeare the modern becomes a distraction. Here it never does. Where it actually is even noticeable at all it is used by Whedon for a laugh. The characters wear suits and ties and have cocktail parties. There are tons of small sight gags and physical humor that Whedon tosses into the mix that are unique.

It is often more difficult these days to make Shakespeare as a period piece--frilly costumes and elaborate period sets are as likely to distract from a production as add to it. Even in some modernized Shakespeare trying to go elaborate with the sets works less than well. The 1995 version of Richard III, set in a Nazi Britain, leans too heavily on the imagery and props--even when some of the acting is fine.

There are no distractions from the words here.
It just all works like a charm. It is to be hoped that when Whedon is shooting The Avengers II he calls everyone over to shoot another of the Bard's comedies. How about Twelfth Night?

This Is The End is a notch up on most comedies these days; it will actually cause laughter. There is a great deal in this film that will make you laugh and, simultaneously, feel embarrassed about said laughter.

This is not what could be called highbrow humor. There are far too many penis jokes for that but let's face it; penis jokes are funny. So are vomit jokes and making fun of celebrities with penis and vomit jokes.

And these are the primary topics explored in the film:Penises, vomit, celebrity, drugs, oh and the biblical "End of Days" too. That is a big part of the movie. Penises also wind up incorporated in the biblical apocalypse.

Everyone in this movie--in large or  small roles--is hilarious. No one slows down the pace, no one shies from making themselves look silly. If there is anything about the movie that could be changed it might be more footage of the reality-style video confessions or maybe more stories from the characters talking about "bad things" they have done in their lives. They might also have found a way to have a penis smoke a joint.

The basic plot of this movie is that Seth Rogen goes to the airport to pick up Jay Baruchel at the airport in Los Angeles. They then proceed to smoke weed and play video games (did I mention there are a lot of drug jokes too?). The conflict in the film first arises when Rogan says they are going to a party at James Franco's house. Baruchel doesn't want to go. He hates Hollywood. He says Franco can't even remember his name.

But they go.

And it is funny. So go see this. If you wait for video it won't be the end of the world  but it will benefit from a viewing on the big screen.

Pain & Gain is based on a true story. Usually a film has to add some weirdness, some drama, to a crime story. In this case? They didn't. Considering the vaguely horrific nature of the real events some may have been shocked to learn that the film is a comedy (albeit, a dark comedy).

More shocking than making this dark, disturbing, bizarre crime into a comedy is that the director is Michael Bay and that the result is reminiscent of the Cohen brothers. Yes, you just read a comparison of the Cohen brothers and Michael Bay. It is a funny film but it has some very serious undercurrents that flow, consistently, throughout.

This is the best film Bay ever directed--by far.

It takes a bizarre and vicious crime and finds humor in it--and of course people found humor in it at the time? There are weightlifters, shady money men, pornographers and barbecued body parts involved. AND it took place in Miami which means it was probably only in the top five weird crimes of the year.

The film does more than find humor in the darkness--it manages to also be a multifaceted morality tale. The victim's problems begin because of his great personal flaw (he is a jerk). The three partners in crime want an easy payday.  They are jealous of the wealth they see daily in their clients. They are willing to work but they overvalue themselves and take short cuts that lead to their doom.

Virtually every character introduced could be in a medieval morality play. They are all flawed and their flaws lead to disasters on varying levels. The only exception here is the moral center of the movie--a retired detective played by Ed Harris. Harris, content in his life, does not strive, does not run afoul of The Furies that inhabit the film.

The acting in the film is over the top when it needs to be and it often needs to be, especially from Tony Shalhoub as the victim. It can also be more restrained when it needs to be both by Shalhoub and Harris. Duane Johnson as an ex-con, ex-addict who found religion but is lured back to the dark side is especially good here. There are so many important roles that are just a hair more than cameos: Rob Corddry, Ken Jeong and the wonderful Rebel Wilson all help to elevate the film.

The grisliness and the sheer stupidity of everything that happens might fall flat if the audience didn't walk in knowing this is a more or less true story. Not everyone who sees this will delve deep enough to see the morality play here and there is no reason they should. The film works perfectly fine if the viewer only cares to see the surface.

It isn't uproarious or obvious but it works as a straight up comedy. Michael Bay has done himself proud. Let us hope his next film is a smart comedy with no buddies, no robots and no explosions.

To Rome With Love is not just a shout out to The Eternal City but a shout out to Italy’s greatest director, Federico Fellini (with all due respect to De Sica, Bertolucci, Visconti Antonioni, Rosselini and Zeffirelli). Watching this movie is a joy in and of itself but it will also make you want to pick up a copy of Amachord. The film is sort of Woody Allen’s Roma excepting it is more than a little more narrative and coherent than that film. Before jumping up indignation, Fellini, wanted Roma to be chaotic, Allen has a different aim and audience for his film.

It is a series of unconnected vignettes all set in Roma, a young couple coming to the city, a schmuck who suddenly becomes famous for no apparent reason, a man visiting where he spent his youth, and Allen himself along with his wife coming to Rome to visit his daughter and her fiancé.

While the film does channel Fellini it also, in some cases, takes Allen back to his “older, funny movies.” There are scenes in this that call to mind Take The Money And Run—except instead of playing the cello in the marching band the sight gag involves an opera. Allen isn’t a youngster anymore.

The collection of actors, as usual for Allen, is stellar. Alison Pill, wonderful as Zelda Fitzgerald in Midnight in Paris, is Allen’s daughter and Judy Davis his wife. This segment is probably the funniest followed closely by the portion featuring Alec Baldwin “running into” Jesse Eisenberg. Or is it the segment with Roberto Benigni as a schlemiel suddenly famous across Italy with the press on his heels at all times the funniest? Benigni is a stand-in for Allen, in a movie including Allen. In his last film Owen Wilson was Allen’s “self.”

The portion of the film about the young couple, a schoolteacher and her husband, is also wonderful and reminiscent of Felliini. He comes to the city to meet uptight relatives who mistake Penelope Cruz, a hooker, for his wife. She, played by the lovely Alessandra Mastronardi, gets lost in Rome while trying to find a place to get her hair done. The husband, played by Alessandro Tiberi, is another version of Allen and he is a perfect Italian Woody Allen. How many Allens can you fit in one film?

As in Midnight in Paris, Allen takes his audience on a tour of the City of Lights. He also takes time to skewer the pompous (making himself a target) and fire a couple shots across the bow of our “reality television” entertainment world. None of it is done in a heavy or ham-fisted way. This is a light movie, it is a sweet movie. It is a movie you get to see Penelope Cruz in a short skirt.

Where is Woody Allen going to go next? Allen has turned into a directorial version of “Where’s Waldo.” He took on Paris last year and Rome this year. I am hoping Sweden.