Appaloosa, My Best Friend's Girl

Appaloosa (**1/2 out of ****)
(Director: Ed Harris, Starring: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger, Jeremy Irons, Lance Henriksen, Running Time: 118 min, Rating: R)

Ed Harris directs and stars in this methodical, lumbering character study. If you’ve ever wanted to see a movie focus squarely on two characters with a complete void of personality then this one’s for you. I love the Western as a genre and was thrilled to witness its resurrection last year with 3:10 To Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, but with the comeback of any genre there are bound to be setbacks. This is the first. It doesn’t necessarily feel inauthentic and Harris has a good understanding of the material, but the movie spins its wheels and as a result comes off feeling more like a Lonesome Dove mini-series than a feature-length film. Still, you can tell it was made with a lot of respect and appreciation and he deserves praise for trying.

Harris is lawman Virgil Cole, who along with his longtime Deputy, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen), must defend the lawless town of Appaloosa from murderous Rancher Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons). The arrival of comely widower Allison French (Renee Zellweger) is complicated for Virgil, as he must wrestle with the foreign concept of “feelings” when she slowly emerges as the town whore. To both the film’s benefit and detriment the story doesn’t go in the direction you’d expect. Allison doesn’t exactly drive a wedge between Virgil and Everett in the way you’d think and the situation involving Braggs doesn’t have your standard resolution. The issues with Braggs are infinitely more interesting and better handled than the sub-plot with Zellweger’s Ally, which at times feels more like a needless distraction.

Harris tackles the grizzled Eastwood badass lawman type role (think High Plains Drifter) well, but while he’s a gifted actor, he’s also a draining one to watch for 2 hours for obvious reasons. Not surprisingly, Mortensen gives the film’s best performance and even though he’s relegated to the background until the final 40 minutes he still makes a strong impression. The chemistry between him and Harris is a highlight despite the fact neither character is particularly exciting. Irons wages war with his accent. The casting of Zellweger seems slightly off, but that could be more because we’re not accustomed to seeing the depiction of a traditional Western woman on screen, faults and all. To her credit, she dives into the role head first, dirtying herself up (literally and figuratively).

Appaloosa can’t help but suffer from the release of two 4-star Westerns last year. There really isn’t enough here to sustain a film that’s appropriate in scope for the genre, despite Harris’ firm direction. Visually, it isn’t that interesting either as cinematographer Dean Semler won’t be mistaken for the next Roger Deakins any day soon, as impossible as that standard is to live up to. The film doesn’t work but in the very least it’s a noble near miss. Plus, you can’t go wrong with some Tom Petty over the closing credits.

My Best Friend's Girl (**1/2 out of ****)
(Director: Howard Deutch, Starring: Dane Cook, Kate Hudson, Jason Biggs, Alec Baldwin, Running Time: 101 min., Rating: Unrated)

We’re getting to the point where Kate Hudson should start reimbursing audiences for the money they’ve wasted on her films. But as much as I’ve disapproved of her career direction this past decade and the fact that it’s never a good sign when the actors somehow give a bad performance in the movie's poster, this isn’t one of the year’s worst films like you’ve heard. Not even close.

I’m guessing most critics went extra hard on it because it starred Hudson and Dane Cook. And who could blame them? Both have amassed an astonishing track record of awfulness in just a few years. But fair is fair and there’s nothing about My Best Friend’s Girl that sets it so far below other bad romantic comedies that it should land on anyone’s worst of the year list. At times I even forgot I was supposed to hate it. Its worst offenses are problems balancing tone and an illogical, overreaching third act, which would really put it at about the same level as Knocked Up. If nothing else, it just further demonstrates how difficult it is to make mix raunchiness and romance onscreen effectively. That Judd Apatow has proven to be the only filmmaker close to capable of doing it and even he’s missed a few times proves just how tough it is. But at least this does it slightly better (or less worse) than Cook’s last crude rom-com disaster Good Luck Chuck.

Similar to Chuck this film has a gimmicky premise in which “emotional terrorist” Tank Turner (Cook) is hired by guys to take out their ex-girlfriends and give them the date from hell. The idea being that he’s such a disgusting, perverted, self-centered pig that they’ll run back into their waiting arms, appreciating what they had. The opening minutes of the film surprisingly aren’t bad in setting this up. When Tank’s best friend Dustin (Jason Biggs) starts smothering his new girlfriend and co-worker Alexis (Hudson) she justifiably wants out. More accurately, she just wants to be “friends.” His solution? Hire Tank to traumatize her. It doesn’t work. He’s met his match, as Alexis could care less what a jerk he is. The last thing she wants is another relationship anyway. Then everything gets expectedly messy when Tank starts having genuine feelings for her, threatening his friendship with Dustin. And of course we get to hear The Cars’ “My Best Friend’s Girl” a couple of times (but you knew that).

The chief problem with the film is that it’s just too mean and nasty, uncomfortably co-existing with the sweet romantic comedy elements that are struggling to come out. Director Howard Deutch just can’t make up his mind what he wants to do and Cook isn’t helping matters. He plays the obnoxious jerk perfectly (perhaps too well) but when he has to display even just a shade of likability he runs into problems. His performance is grating, but most of the time it’s supposed to be. He's better off in supporting roles and this is a definite step-down from his surprisingly solid work in Mr. Brooks and Dan in Real Life. As for Hudson, she at least shows up to work this time with her game face on and actually does share chemistry with Cook. That chemistry, however, is the repulsive kind in a movie like this. She's also about as likable as Cook, which creates a problem . Biggs still has great comic timing, even if Deutch unwisely directs him to give off a creepy, stalkerish vibe.

There is a smattering of laughs (like when Tank takes an unsuspecting date to a offensively themed pizza restaurant) but most of them from the supporting players. Alec Baldwin is hilarious as Tank’s father, a “women’s studies” professor who takes that title way too literally while Lizzy Caplan impresses as usual in another thankless roommate/best friend role. In just her few scenes she suggests how much better the film could have been if she were given the lead instead of Hudson. Had either taken on a larger role it could have been enough to take this to the next level. Diora Baird also has a small part and a little of her always goes a long way in my book.

The film completely flies off the rails and loses its head in the final act, rushing and forcing a conclusion that isn’t necessary and getting there in the most ass-backwards way possible. It does have one great moment though. A Dane Cook slow-mo entrance set to Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around.” For just a brief moment Deutch accomplishes the impossible in making Cook briefly seem cool, suggesting the movie we could have had. That ends quickly. My Best Friend’s Girl is bad but it’s not THAT BAD. Still, it doesn’t say much for Hudson or Cook lately when two and a half stars is considered a major accomplishment.

Dan In Real Life

Director: Peter Hedges
Starring: Steve Carell, Juliette Binoche, Dane Cook, Alison Pill, Brittany Robertson, Marlene Lawston, Dianne Wiest, John Mahoney, Amy Ryan, Emily Blunt
Running Time: 98 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

There’s something to be said for not trying too hard. Dan in Real Life is the kind of movie that’s the toughest to make well because the temptations to go over-the-top and revel in stupidity are so great. If you don’t believe me just watch The Heartbreak Kid or Good Luck Chuck. Dan in Real Life joins Shoot ’Em Up as one of the most accurately titled films of the past year. It really is about "REAL LIFE." In fact, it’s so normal and true to life that the film’s one glaring flaw ends up being that it comes close to bordering on boring. It’s almost too intelligent for it’s own good, if that makes any sense at all. But if a romantic comedy is going to have a flaw, that’s an exceptional one to have.

There’s no slapstick or contrived situations here. It’s just a regular guy struggling with his regular family to make sense of his regular life. And that’s why it works. Well, that and the phenomenal performance of Steve Carell who elevates sitcom-level material to respectable heights and ends up really impressing in the second best starring role of his career. It was a relief spending time with likeable characters and Carell’s Dan led the charge. No matter how much you may think you like your family by the time this movie’s over you’ll want to trade them in for this one. Which is saying a lot considering Dane Cook is a member of it. But be forewarned that you’ll have to do your best to stay awake during their family stories, talent shows and Scrabble tournaments.

Carell is Dan Burns, a widowed newspaper advice columnist with three daughters who can’t stand him. A chronic overprotective father, he smothers the two eldest (Alison Pill and Brittany Robertson), one of whom is forbidden to drive while the other isn’t allowed to go anywhere near a boy. Keeping with the annual family tradition, the Burns’ drive out to Rhode Island and gather at Dan’s parents’(John Mahoney and Dianne Wiest) palatial Oceanside home with the rest of the clan.

When Dan runs out to pick up the newspaper he encounters a beautiful stranger named Marie (Juliette Binoche) at the bookstore. They strike up a conversation, immediately hit it off and end up sharing a long lunch together. However their time is eventually cut short when Marie reveals she’s involved in a new relationship and must leave to meet with her boyfriend. It isn’t until Dan returns to the house that he discovers his soul mate’s new boyfriend is actually his younger brother Mitch (Cook). Now that’s awkward. The rest of the movie consists of the threesome attempting to co-exist under the same roof while Marie and especially Dan painfully struggle to keep their feelings for each other under wraps, resulting in some amusing situations.

Writer/director Peter Hedges, whose big claim to fame is directing a pre-TomKat Katie Holmes to arguably her best performance in the sweet Thanksgiving comedy Pieces of April, really has a firm handle on this type of material. Here he’s not afraid to just let the camera roll and let us watch this family interact in a way that a real family actually would. While that doesn’t result in the most exciting film imaginable, it does lend the situation a degree of realism and lets us empathize with these people. They’re just like us, except maybe even a little nicer to be around.

When the film began I was worried its entire running length would be dedicated to treating us to yet another unbearable portrayal of a psychotically overprotective dad. I was waiting for a series of contrived catastrophes with the daughters that would cause Dan to overreact. That never happened. When the love triangle was introduced I cringed and looked at my watch attempting to count down the minutes to when the plot flew off the deep end. That didn’t happen either. It also doesn’t dwell on the corny premise of an advice columnist needing some of his own. His occupation doesn’t really figure in until the end and even there it’s minimal. Much to my surprise, there really isn’t any stupidity of note to be found in this entire screenplay. That may seem like a backhanded compliment, but when we’re talking about romantic comedies it isn’t.

Hedges lets the actors do their thing and they’re all charming, especially Carell who knows just the right notes to hit as Dan. He never comes off as neurotic or pathetic, but just basically as a good guy who’s having some problems in his life he thinks can be fixed by this woman. And he’s right. They can be. Carell is such a natural in this he seems to elevate everyone around him, including even Dane Cook. This is supposed to be where I praise Cook for just not be annoying, but he actually takes it a step further this time and delivers a fairly likeable supporting performance. He was good in Mr. Brooks but his character in that was really just a goofy hanger-on. This is the first time I’ve seen Cook play someone that could actually pass as a human being with real thoughts and feelings and he does a good job at it. Subtlety is not a quality usually associated with him but he’s so restrained here that, if anything, you may find yourself wishing (just a little bit) that the old Dane Cook would show up to annoy the hell out of us just so we have something to complain about. I don’t know if I’ll be able to get used to this new side of him. Academy Award nominee Amy Ryan has a small role as one of the sisters and she’s given basically nothing to do. That’s okay though because, outside of the main love triangle, this film is more about how the family functions as a unit. There are a lot of scenes with all of them interacting with one another and they all work. It’s tough directing scenes with so many actors in it so give Hedges credit for not only challenging himself, but getting solid performances from everybody in them.

The funniest part of this movie just might be unintentional. It’s bizarre that the family would be so taken with Marie, considering she isn’t exactly the most exciting woman in the world. She’s actually pretty boring. Then again, you’d believe a family whose idea of an exciting Saturday night consists of staying in and playing charades would be impressed by her worldly low-key charm. As I watched part of me couldn’t help but wonder how different the movie could have been had another actress been cast in that role. Let’s say a Drew Barrymore or a Kate Hudson. But I came to the conclusion I’m approaching this all wrong. Even though either of them would have undoubtedly added more excitement to the film I’m not sure they would have been the right fit for the material and may have given off the impression we were watching a worse (and stupider) movie.

That that thought would cross my mind probably doesn’t speak too highly of their film choices of late and is an issue they should probably take up with their agents. Plus, while they’re good actresses and easy on the eyes, Hudson or Barrymore wouldn’t exactly be the most believable choice to play a sophisticated world traveler. So while Binoche does add a degree of boredom to the film, she is the appropriate choice for the part and does a good job with it. This also might be the first time in the past year a lead actor is actually given an age appropriate love interest. The exciting love interest comes in the form of Emily Blunt who makes a strong impression briefly as a blind date for Dan.

There were times during the picture where I almost kind of hoped the movie would do something dumb just to liven things up a little. That’s how flawlessly normal this story and its characters are. It’s as if someone took a camcorder into a real family’s home and just started rolling. I’m willing to bet a lot of people will see pieces of their family in this. Even the home itself looks real and takes on a personality of its own. This was actually shot in Rhode Island, not a soundstage, and you can tell that’s true just watching the film. Having been to Rhode Island I knew that, but what surprised me was that the movie got the feel of the state just right. That’s especially impressive considering I wasn’t aware of the fact Rhode Island even had a "feel" when I was there myself.

It comes as almost a relief when a little bit of Hollywood screenwriting contrivance does rear its head toward the third act of the film when it’s most needed but it wasn’t anything we wouldn’t believe could actually happen with these people. That’s reflective of the entire film. One thing did bother me though: The movie poster is guilty of false advertising. I was really expecting Dan’s head to be lying on a plate of pancakes before the final credits. What a disappointment. Remind me to try that at breakfast tomorrow morning. Regardless, Dan In Real Life is a charmer of a story that goes down really easy without pushing any unnecessary buttons. More importantly, I actually liked all these people. Yes, even Dane Cook.

Good Luck Chuck

Director: Mark Helrich
Starring: Dane Cook, Jessica Alba, Dan Fogler, Ellia English, Chelan Simmons, Sasha Pieterse
Running Time: 96 Min.
Rating: R

** (out of ****)

I like to think I go into every film objectively, but who am I kidding? When you go into something like Good Luck Chuck there comes with it a certain set of expectations and not all of them are good. Especially when it stars two celebrities like Dane Cook and Jessica Alba who have so far proven themselves unworthy of being referred to as anything other than just "celebrities." This film does very little to change that and didn't go far at all in exceeding my already low expectations. I anticipated it being bad but I think what surprised me most was the manner in which was.

Cook is Chuck Logan, a dentist who in his adolescence has a hex put on him by a goth girl he rejected at a "Spin The Bottle" party in 1985. Now every woman he sleeps with falls in love and marries the next guy she dates after him. The secret gets out and girls are banging down his door. Of course, only in the movies would that be considered any kind of "curse." The only person who actually seems to recognize this is his best friend, Stu (Dan Fogler), resident plastic surgeon and pervert. That he's a plastic surgeon is a much more important detail in this film than it should be and a fact Stu not so subtly reminds us of throughout. Come to think of it, Stu is incapable of doing or saying anything "subtly."

The full effect of this hex is felt when Chuck meets and dates the clumsy but beautiful Cam (Alba) who he meets at his ex-girlfriend's wedding. She's prone to pratfalls, an unnecessary addition to josh Stolberg and Scott Glenn's already somewhat brainless script and a joke that's executed about 15 times too many during the course of the picture. It gets very, very tiresome. She's also a penguin keeper at the local zoo, one of the few details I enjoyed in the film. I like penguins because they're funny without ever trying to be, something you can't say about any of the humans in this picture. So now Chuck's problem is that if he sleeps with Cam he'll lose her for good. But how can he NOT sleep with her? It's Jessica Alba! So now Chuck (with help from Stu) has to figure out how to reverse this curse or at the least find some way around it. You probably won't be surprised to hear that the results of this are often vulgar and disgusting, lacking even the slightest hint of wit or intelligence on the part of screenwriters.

Considering the commercials and trailers for the film (which marketed it as a light romantic comedy) it really came out of left field how crude and crass it ended up being. There isn't a single scene that doesn't feature people either talking about sex or having it. Nearly every woman (except for Alba) appears topless and I was starting to think my copy of Good Luck Chuck was replaced with a soft-core porno. Don't get me wrong I'm not usually one to look a gift horse in the mouth but here it comes off strange and creepy. Besides the tone being way off, the way it's presented by director Mark Helrich is actually disturbing and uncomfortable. Imagine if a light, fluffy comedy like You've Got Mail was interrupted mid-film by a Boogie Nights training video. The obvious inspiration for this was raunchy R rated comedies like Wedding Crashers and Knocked Up, but all it does is succeed in imitating the misogynist spirit of the latter without any of the heart. In all fairness, even Knocked Up (which I didn't enjoy) was better than this. Not by much though. If your idea of a good time is watching Dan Fogler pleasure himself with a melon I'm sure you'll have a blast.

Jessica Alba is actually fine here. She's cute and adorable, which is really all she needs to be. She's in her comfort zone with this role and far from the biggest problem in the picture. But before she uncorks the champagne and starts celebrating not being awful for a change I still say she desperately needs to take this time off to sit down with her agent and have a long talk. In the past year or so you may have noticed the public's perception of her has slowly shifted from "She so hot!" to "Wow, she can't act at all." Unless she finds better projects with directors who will push her to improve as an actress she'll have problems because moviegoers are starting to catch on.

Cook, on the other hand, is woefully miscast. He has many critics but in his defense with this and Employee of the Month he hasn't exactly been given the greatest material or leading ladies. I don't think he's a bad actor but he's one that gives off a certain vibe and unless he's cast in the right role he won't be effective. He excels when playing a leech in a supporting role like in Mr. Brooks, but when we're asked to root for him as an underdog in a light comedy it doesn't work because he comes off as a womanizing creep. He has zero chemistry with Alba and they give off no sparks at all. Hilariously enough, he has better chemistry with the actresses who play the myriad of topless women who appear throughout the picture, one of whom (Chelan Simmons) is blessed with considerably more charisma and even looks better than Alba. She probably would have been a better choice for the lead.

The film's real horror is my old pal from Balls of Fury, Dan Fogler. It's never one person's fault that a movie fails but Fogler's performance here is as close as you're ever going to get. Every line of dialogue he shrieks and each word he yelps is like a hammer to the skull. The sole purpose of his presence in the film is to annoy the hell out of us. Mission accomplished. Scariest of all, this Tony-Award Winning star of stage and screen is actually set to play Alfred Hitchcock in the upcoming film, Number 13 later this year. The "Master of Suspense" is shaking in his grave I'm sure.

I have to admit there was one scene I found hysterical. It occurs toward the end and involves airport security. Although I'm not sure what it says when the actor playing the airport security guard gives a better performance than just about anyone else in the film. As bad as this movie is I'd still rank it above other comic disasters like Cook's own aforementioned Employee of the Month or something like The Heartbreak Kid because it did take risks and I wasn't bored. Just occasionally repulsed. The kindest thing I could say about Good Luck Chuck is at least it failed memorably, and not at all how I expected it to.

Mr. Brooks

Director: Bruce A. Evans Starring: Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Marg Helgenberger, Danielle Panabaker
Running Time: 120 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

The devil is in the details. It's a phrase we hear often but I can't think of a more appropriate time to use it than in describing Mr. Brooks, easily one of the most bizarre, but fascinating films of this year. No, actually "bizarre" doesn't cover it. "Insane" is probably the better word. It reminds me how much I hate assigning movies star ratings. No star rating I could give this film would provide anyone with a better idea of what to expect going in, as it's an overcooked, overambitious spectacle you'll either love or detest with a passion.

Just look who's starring in it. Based on their track records I can't think of three actors more likely to send audiences fleeing from the theater than Kevin Costner, Demi Moore and Dane Cook. If you told me even one of those actors had starred in a movie that was somewhat decent I'd probably go into shock. That all three not only co-star in a really good one together, but two out of the three give great performances, may be cause to resuscitate me.

I get a headache just thinking about how much effort must have gone into writing a script you could argue approaches brilliance in its commitment and attention to detail. The film, which falls somewhere in between a deep psychological thriller and black comedy, also provides Costner with one of the best roles of his career. It's his most interesting, nuanced performance in years and continues his career resurgence that began with his great, understated supporting work in 2005's The Upside of Anger. The script tries to pack a little too much in but stands as further evidence that it's always better to risk failure swinging for the fences than just playing it safe. Mr. Brooks is a true original and one of the more entertaining serial killer films to come around in a long time.

Earl Brooks (Costner) is a successful business owner with a beautiful wife (Marg Helgenberger), a devoted but rebellious daughter (Danielle Panabaker) away at college and is being honored as "Man of the Year" by the Portland Chamber of Commerce. He's a pillar of the community and to those who know him he can do no wrong. But he harbors a terrible secret. An addiction. Mr. Brooks is a serial killer and he just can't help himself. Just as other addicts get their thrills from gambling, drinking or drugs, Brooks gets a rush from the kill. He knows it's wrong and he has to stop, but just can't because there's that voice inside telling him to go through with it. It'll be fun.

That voice is his sadistic alter-ego Marshall (William Hurt) and he seems frighteningly real, appearing at the most inopportune time to talk Brooks into restarting his run as the "thumbprint killer," after a two-year sabbatical. The night of his "Man of the Year" speech, he's back in action committing a grisly double murder, except this time the normally meticulous Brooks wasn't careful enough and he's spotted by nosy neighbor Mr. Smith (Dane Cook). Smith, who had an unhealthy habit of photographing his now murdered neighbors having sex, is armed with incriminating photos of that night and blackmails Mr. Brooks. But he doesn't want money. He wants Brooks to take him under his wing and show him how it's done. Together they'll commit a murder and Mr. Smith will have the learning experience of a lifetime. Brooks, not the least bit happy he has to babysit this goof, is obsessively pursued by tenacious police detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore).

Given enough sub-plots for 15 movies, she's a millionaire heiress going through an ugly divorce with a much younger man and was just taken off a big case involving another notorious serial killer. As she moves closer to discovering Brooks' identity, he struggles with another very messy situation at home with his daughter. Vowing to never kill again, Brooks must wrestle with his own demons and the lingering threat of being caught and exposed not only to the world, but most importantly, his family.

Bruce A. Evans' (who also directed) and Raynold Gideon's script for this film is so clever at times. There's no question it overreaches, but it's very rare you see a movie jam this much in and have it work so well. A big reason for that is how sharply written the title character is. Everything comes back to Mr. Brooks. We've seen plenty of serial killers onscreen before, but their psyche and motivations for murder were never played quite like this. By presenting murder as an addiction afflicting an otherwise likeable family man the movie opens up a ton of dramatic possibilities and nearly all of them are fully exploited.

What's so frightening and often times comical about the whole situation is that the gentle Mr. Brooks we see with his wife and daughter isn't all that different in demeanor from the cold-blooded "thumb print" killer. This would mark one of the few times Costner's infamous low-key, subdued presence helps a film immensely. Less is always more with Costner, an actor who was never flashy or painted with broad strokes. He's tried to be in the past and the results have been disastrous. In contrast, this is a role that suits his casual acting style and emphasizes his strengths. It's his best performance since 1993's A Perfect World.

In a great early scene we see Brooks leave his wife in bed to commit a murder and his obsessive attention to every physical detail concerning the set-up, execution and clean-up of the crime scene is fascinating. Criminologists always claim serial killers secretly want to be caught and are craving attention. For Brooks part of that may be true (especially when you evaluate his rare error at the crime scene), but mostly being caught represents his worst nightmare. While it would definitely end his murder spree he can't bare for his wife and daughter to know the truth because it would destroy them.

As Detective Atwood closes in, you can almost feel Brooks' control over the world he created for himself slipping and his alter-ego Marshall fearing for his existence. An event happens with his daughter during the course of the film (which I won't give away) that changes the way Brooks' looks at everything and forces him to do something that isn't necessarily unfamiliar, but just never presented itself in that particular context. The results are potentially life-altering for both himself, his family and his alter-ego.

The decision to have Brooks' addictive personality physically manifested onscreen is very effective, giving the film a Fight Club-like feel. That he's played by William Hurt, one of our creepiest and engaging supporting actors makes Marshall's presence that much more satisfying. I liked how Evans' and Gideon's script made Marshall smart, logical and contemplative instead of a loose cannon screaming at Brooks to kill people at every turn. Serial killers are careful and clever and this was one of the few scripts in what's become a very tired genre that accurately depicts that. The arguments Brooks and Marshall have throughout the film make sense and move the story forward, while at the same time reflect Brooks' conflicted state of mind.

While the Brooks' character is given first class treatment the same can't exactly be said for Moore's Detective Atwood. She's a little too busy with various sub-plots and story threads you're not sure will tie together by the end. Most of them do, but one doesn't. Yet, there are even flashes of brilliance with this character. How many movies have you seen where a hard-boiled cop just happens to be a millionaire? She doesn't even need the job, or any job for that matter. A lesser script would introduce her inherited wealth as a plot device for some kind of blackmail or extortion sub-plot. Not here. It instead is used to invest the character with more depth and psychologically deepen the cat-and-mouse relationship between her and the unknown killer she's pursuing. Mr. Brooks respects her and what she's doing, which just makes him more afraid. He may have finally met his match.

I can't lie and tell you this is one of Moore's best performances (she's kind of stiff) but at least she's finally taken the kind of strong lead role she usually excels at and should be playing at this stage of her career. Tough as it may be to believe, Dane Cook does really delivers here as Mr. Smith, channeling his annoying persona to a film's advantage for a change. Maybe not having the pressure of being a comedy lead reined him in, allowing him to finally fully inhabit a character. Watch the scene in the parking lot with Moore's detective trying to rattle him. Cook plays it just right. I can't say for sure another actor wouldn't have done better in the role, but he does a great job with it. Maybe if he tackled more interesting roles like this in the future he'd be known as a hard-working supporting actor instead of one of our most hated celebrities.

Will Detective Atwood capture Mr. Brooks or will Mr. Smith turn him in? Will his family find out who he really is? Can he give up a life of crime? Will he live? The movie answers all of these questions and the last half-hour of this film is impressive, somehow converging all (or at least most) of the storylines and sub-plots in a way that's not only surprising and exciting, but holds up very well logically. When the film ended I had a feeling I hadn't had in a while. I actually wanted to see a sequel. Given the movie's poor box office returns that doesn't seem likely, but if there ever is, the possibilities are endless.

Hopefully, the film's odd originality will give it a well deserved following on DVD and we'll get the next two films in the trilogy producer Costner had originally envisioned. Costner has taken a beating for years from critics and audiences for what essentially amounts to just two horrible choices (you know what they are), but overlook the fact that when he's on he's really on. It's great to finally have that Costner back, at least temporarily. There's a lot to laugh at during the overstuffed Mr. Brooks, but when you look beyond that you see a smart, original thriller that takes some big risks. Even if you hate it, you can't deny its guts.

Employee of the Month

Director: Greg Coolidge

Starring: Dane Cook, Jessica Simpson, Dax Shepard, Efren Ramirez, Andy Dick, Tim Bagely, Brian George, Danny Woodburn
Running Time: 103 min.
Rating: PG-13

** (out of ****)

Jessica Simpson may look great but she can't act to save her life in Employee of the Month. I figured I would get this out of the way immediately since it's undoubtedly the part of the review everyone is most interested in, and likely not surprised at all to read. I'm not saying this to pick on her, as I'm sure she's probably a very nice person who tried her best with what she was given, which in her defense wasn't much. I'm saying this because much of whether we care about this movie hinges on her (in)ability to call upon a wide variety of emotions and make us care about her relationship with the main character.

Instead we're too distracted by her wooden, stilted performance that sucks all the life out of this movie like a leech. It's a shame too, because there are some good things about this film and it had a lot of potential. Instead it ends up being largely forgettable with a couple of decent laughs along the way. As a vehicle for comedian Dane Cook the movie mostly succeeds and he comes out of this unscathed. Simpson isn't so fortunate.

Cook plays Zach Bradley, a slacker "box boy" at Super Club, a Costco-like wholesale retail store. His arch-nemesis is head cashier Vince Downey (Dax Shepard) who has seventeen consecutive "Employee of the Month" titles under his belt and is going for a company record eighteenth. He also has the fastest register "ring time" in the Southwest region, which provides the film's funniest joke as we watch him juggle items and pass them to his "wing man" Jorge ( Napoleon Dynamite's Efren Ramirez) as hot women cheer him on, drooling over his impressive cashiering skills. This is so stupid it's actually funny and Shepard plays it just right. Zach has exactly zero "Employee of the Month" titles to his name, but hopes to change his slacking ways with the arrival of Amy (Simpson), a hot new cashier who's tranferred from another store and is rumored to only date employees of the month. A war begins as Zach attempts to become a model worker and thwart Vince's attempts to seduce Amy.

The fact that Zach lives with his grandmother and is slacking his life away is only vaguely referenced because actually exploring that avenue may give the film some insight and intelligence. Instead the filmmakers chose to have Amy stand there like a moron in tops that accentuate her breast size while Zach and Vince battle it out for her affection. I have to admit some of the stuff was funny such as Zach selling Vince's car to a customer and a timed cashiering face-off between the two at the film's end. Andy Dick and Harland Williams are on hand as the token goofy co-workers a movie like this is required to contain. That reminded me that usually when I see Andy Dick in a movie I laugh. Of course, I'm laughing at him but the point remains the same: I laugh. This time I didn't. As a nearly blind, bespeckled one-hour photo employee, he looks like he's auditioning for the sequel to Mr. Magoo.

The movie strives to create the workplace atmosphere of an Office Space or even an Empire Records, but not many of the supporting characters are funny. The movie works best when it's spoofing retail management and Tim Bagely gives a terrific performance as the clueless manager of the store. He does so good a job it's almost as if he walked onto the wrong set thinking he'd be involved in a smart, subversive comedy. His feud with his midget brother boss (well played by Danny Woodburn) is actually pretty funny and I wish more time were spent on it. How sad is that? I'm afraid to even mention this because it may have give the studio an idea for a sequel.

I couldn't help thinking of Clerks II when I watched this. That movie took place in a similar setting, but it cared about it's characters and bothered to surround them with a good story that had heart. It feels wrong to even mention that film in the same breath as this movie. Employee of the Month arrogantly expects us to care about Zach's quest to bed Amy when they do nothing to let us know or like his character and Simpson gives the performance of a wooden board. I noticed at the end of the film the producer credited with this mess is Joe Simpson, who's Machiavellian control over his daughters' careers has officially reached alarming levels and is now doing more harm to us than them.

America fell in love with Jessica when she starred in Newlyweds because of her great looks, quirky personality and charisma. MTV pulled off a great magic act because only one of those traits (actually two) is on display here with this role not playing to any of her strengths, if she had any. During the movie I started wondering how different (and better) the whole enterprise would have been had a different actress been cast in the Amy role. One who could, you know, act and show emotion. I've never seen Ashlee Simpson in a movie but I'm willing to bet even she'd do a better job than her sister here. She couldn't possibly be worse.

The good news is that Dane Cook does somewhat prove he has what it takes to be a leading man in a comedy as he's likable and funny, it just would be nice to see him star in a good one. He'll survive this. Dax Shepard does one better though as he actually seems like the only person in the cast who knows what kind of movie he's in and what he should do. He knows just how to walk the line between being an asshole and still getting the laughs. With the material he had to work with here, that's nothing short of a small miracle. Strangely though, the filmmakers seem to think their bread is buttered with the Cook and Simpson pairing despite the fact Cook would likely have better chemistry with a blow-up doll. Employee of the Month does have a couple of moments, but unfortunately the film, like it's characters, is just punching the clock.