"White House Down" 1 star out of 4 (D-)

Nobody watches a Roland Emmerich movie for its believability, wonderful characterizations, or interesting plot devices. You go into them to see things explode and people make quips. This is the man who made Will Smith say "Welcome to Errrf!", had CGI wolves attack Jack Gyllenhaal, and had Matthew Broderick use his scientist powers on Godzilla. A story directed by Emmerich where Channing Tatum must save President Jamie Foxx from terrorists seems to be fool-proof. Somehow though, "White House Down" is not only unbelievable and ridiculous but it is also boring. The action sequences feel sloppy and the dialogue is so laughably bad that it borders on "so bad it is good". Still, the plot holes and overall just shoddy filmmaking makes this easily one of the most disappointing big-budget summer movies in quite some time. 

John Cale (Channing Tatum), an Iraq War veteran, has come back from being a soldier to guarding the current Speaker of the House Ralpheson (Richard Jenkins). He usually this proximity to the White House to get an interview for a position of President Sawyer's (Jamie Foxx) security detail. This job would go quite a long way to winning the favor of his daughter Emily (Joey King), a tech-savvy teenager who has a passion for politics and American history. Cale, seeing an opportunity to make up for missing a recent talent show, takes Emily with him to the interview for the position. Shortly after the interview, chaos erupts as a group of terrorists run by Emil Stanz (Jason Clarke) and aided by the current Head of the Presidential Detail Martin Walker (James Woods) with a plot to make the country pay for the human costs of wars. Cale must protect the President, save his daughter, and hopefully walk out of the White House alive and with a job.

One of the sure-fire signs of a bad script is when good actors can't deliver lines. While Tatum might not be seen as a "good actor", he definitely has been able to get through recent films like "21 Jump Street" utilizing his charm. Foxx won an Oscar for his performance in "Ray". In "White House Down" both actors are forced to say lines so awkward and poorly written that they simply can't say them like a real human being. There are some lines in this movie that almost echo the same "so horrible that you are laughing" dialogue of movies like "The Happening". When a terrorist is seen killing his tenth person in 30 minutes and someone yells "You are going to go to jail for that!", the audience can't help but laugh. Lines like this and several others completely pull you out of the "brain off" mentality that we must employ with summer action movies here. It feels like a first-draft screenplay that was rushed into production. The actors simply took the paychecks and delivered the nails-on-a-chalkboard dialogue.

For such a large budget film, "White House Down" feels extremely limited in scope. A tour guide at the beginning of the movie goes on and on about the size and intricacies of the White House. When our heroes spend a good third of the movie trapped in an elevator shaft, this does nothing to make us think that the set designers or screenwriter had anything more than a cursory glance at what the White House actually looks like. Almost all shots of the Washington DC area are CGI messes where airplanes and helicopters fly around as if they were cut scenes from a 1990s CD-ROM game. "Olympus Has Fallen", this year's other film involving an agent protecting the president during a terrorist uprising on the White House, felt like a much bigger movie and yet was filmed with half the budget. If you are going to make an event film, you need to offer us more than we would see on the first portion of the White House tour.

Emmerich has made a career out of blowing up CGI cities in his films like "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Godzilla", and "2012". He proves here that he may have a grasp on orchestrating digital destruction but that he can't film shoot-outs, hand-to-hand combat, or any other mainstays of action films. The action scenes are choppy and poorly edited to a point where you almost don't have a clue what is going on. The PG-13 rating may have gone a long way to nurturing the action scenes but watching a man just slump over bloodlessly after being shot by a car-mounted machine gun is unbelievable. It pulls you out of the moment and takes away "the money shot" that is so often wanted and often promised in action films.

While "Olympus Has Fallen" featured a child actor who actually helps the plot, the character of Emily is every teenage stereotype we have seen in bad event films. She texts Cale even though he is sitting right next to her. She snaps at her father for calling her YouTube channel "a blog". Her voice mail message is her sassily asking "Why aren't you texting me?". She is a screenwriter misconception of what a ridiculous and technologically-driven teenager would actually look like. As a result, Emily is not only unlikable and annoying but she doesn't even feel like a real person. She doesn't advance the plot beyond the prerequisite terrorist kidnapping that is meant to only further fuel Cale's rage.

There are moments of "White House Down" that are so unintentionally hilarious that I almost have to give it the slightest of recommendations based on that. Overall though, it is a film devoid of any surprises or action that makes the audience feel cheated. It is as empty and unfilling as the popcorn this movie hopes you will be so engrossed in eating that you won't notice they have completely giving up on trying to surprise an audience.

Capsule Mini-Reviews (World War Z. We Steal Secrets. Much Ado About Nothing. The Bling Ring. Before Midnight)

Apparently vacations are good for movie watching but AREN'T great times to write reviews. I would like to imagine I'm going to write all these reviews either today or tomorrow... or Thursday.

World War Z (2 stars out of 4. C) - "World War Z" is two films that are constantly fighting with each other. One is a surprisingly nuanced drama about dealing with a national epidemic. That part is a more speedy "Contagion". The other is a messy and unbelievable zombie horror film where the creatures are super fast. They crawl up buildings like a giant snake of former humans. These scenes are never impressive and always eye-roll inducing. "World War Z" would have benefitted from being adapted into an HBO series. Had it been given an 8-episode season (a la "Generation Kill") starring a somewhat lower profile star and they dialed down some of the more ridiculous elements and expounded the more serious, you would be looking at a great show. As it is, it is hopelessly jumbled and frustrating. You see the movie that is trying to dig its way out of the rubble but it can't quite make it.

We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks (2.5 stars out of 4. C+) - An interesting documentary about Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and the culture of "leaking" confidential information. Alex Gibney (the director of 2005's "Enron: The Smartest Men in the Room) puts together a sprawling, if not somewhat confusion, tale involving leaks, leakers, the paranoid mental-state of Assange. "We Steal Secrets" is interesting but could have used a good 20 minutes cut from it. Gibney again proves that he can't edit. This is the type of movie you add to your Netflix Queue and plan on watching because you know it is good for you. Then you decide to watch "The Avengers" because... EXPLOSIONS.

Much Ado About Nothing (3 stars out of 4. B) - A charming retelling of the Shakespeare story directed by Joss Whedon. It is a lot of fun although not of much substance. Completely worth a viewing but nothing you need to rush out and see.

The Bling Ring (3.5 stars out of 4. B+) - "The Bling Ring" deals with a group of teens who are so engrossed in celebrity culture that they will do whatever it takes to become just like their idols. Instead of doing the real work, they decide to simply break into the houses of celebrities and steal objects that they believe the stars will never notice disappeared. Much like "Spring Breakers", "Bling Ring" is devoid of likable characters but you end up laughing at the moronic capabilities of these characters. While the overall message of the film can be a little heavy at times, it is definitely well delivered.

Before Midnight (4 stars out of 4. A-) - The conclusion (maybe?) of the "Before Sunrise" series. Much like the other two films in the story, "Before Midnight" involves long, interesting discussions between the main characters. You will see yourself and past conversations in the dialogue, even when you really wish you couldn't see it. Some scenes echo 2010's "Blue Valentine" although "Before Midnight" seems to do them in a manner that seems much more plausible and believable. It is far from a breezy and fun time at the cinema but it is definitely amazing in its realism.

"Monsters University" 2 stars out of 4 (C)

It has become almost expected for Pixar movies to be looked down on. The former critical darling now seems to be spinning its wheels (sometimes literally) in recent years. While "Toy Story 3" received glowing reviews (although I found it very underwhelming), Pixar has since been releasing films that have been lightly torn apart by critics. Films like "Cars 2" and "Brave" were seen as derivative of other works both from Pixar and Disney. They were seen almost as cash-ins from a company that had all but proven you don't need promotional items to pull in the attention of critics and audiences. "Monsters University" unfortunately continues this streak of underwhelming films. While it is not a bad film, it pales in comparison to other Pixar films and even a great deal of the animated films Dreamworks and Fox are producing. It takes a story we already know and then mixes it with genre conventions that we already know to create a beautiful looking film that is unnecessary. It feels like the most visually-impressive straight-to-video film that was designed to sell "Monsters U" t-shirts rather than tell an interesting story.

"Monsters University" is a prequel to 2002's "Monsters Inc." Here were are reintroduced to Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal), a one-eyed monster who grew up with only one goal in mind: being a "scarer". "Scarers" are sent into the human world to capture the screams of startled children which are used to power the world of the monsters. The only way Mike knows to get into the "scaring" business is to attend, Monsters University, a college with classes on every aspect of adult monster life. Mike is a quick-learner who is constantly at the top of his class. The only problem is that Mike is not naturally scary, unlike fellow new student Sullivan (voiced by John Goodman). Sullivan comes from a family of "top scarers" and has a natural ability despite the fact that he has no motivation in studying. Soon Mike and Sullivan are in competition as they attempt to see who can be the best student at the university.

The original "Monsters Inc." was arguably the film when Pixar perfectly melded humor with emotion. It involved Mike and Sullivan dealing with Boo, a human child who had made it into the world of humans. It was a hilarious and original story that had a deep emotion core. Unfortunately "Monsters University" is not trying to make you feel anything at all. It is a piece of entertaining fluff that takes the genre conventions of "college films" and applies them to the world of monsters. A movie that deals with monsters using their ability to scare humans as day-to-day job is a novel and interesting idea for a film. Having these same monsters go through the process of frat initiations, being "popular", and studying hard is not a novel or interesting idea. It is a story more situated for a short animated piece or a "Muppet Babies"-esque television series. Here we are expected to simply care about Mike and Sullivan because we are familiar with their characters. Neither are the likable characters we knew from "Monsters Inc". Mike is a bookish straight-man character who has no strong character to work off of while Sullivan is a jock who we can't root for because of his attitude. It is a movie about characters who we are supposed to hope will succeed all while we don't really care if they manage to achieve anything. Even if we hadn't known from "Monsters Inc." that they will succeed, it would be difficult to hope or care about these characters.

The problem that Pixar movies seem to have these days is that they seemingly "have" to hit specific points. We need an underdog character (Wall-E, Princess Merida from "Brave", Remy from "Ratatouille). We need a stubborn or cocks character who learns a lesson (Buzz Lightyear, Lightning McQueen). We need a cast of supporting characters who are voiced by recognizable actors yet we can't exactly remember their names. We need to laugh until we are expected to feel emotional in the very last act. All of this these tropes are not comforting. They just point out how by-the-book a company that had been so adventurous in the past has become. A film like "How to Train Your Dragon" are taking these ideas and running with them in interesting ways. Pixar can no longer simply repeat what has worked in the past. They cannot just produce films with characters or character types audiences are familiar with and make their way to the bank thanks to critical and audience love. We have seen this all before and there is no reason for us to want to see it again.

All these negatives aside, "Monsters University" might be the most visually-beautiful film that Pixar has put out. Pixar is at its best when it is dealing with non-human characters in a bright atmosphere. The animation of the monsters and the college campus is nothing short of amazing. I found myself tuning out of the story and dialogue and just watching the slight details such as the rusting of a college bus. It almost seems as if it the locations were filmed in live-action and the monsters were digitally inserted later. It is the perfect blending of cartoonish elements and natural and believable animation. I can only assume this high level of work will continue in future Pixar productions.

"Monsters University" is more fun than the last few Pixar films. It has Mike and Sullivan taking part in interesting competitions which are mostly original and usually funny. The supporting cast also goes a long way to getting laughs. Charlie Day of "Horrible Bosses" appears as a Muppet-like monster who can't seem to control himself. If you enjoyed his character in "Bosses" or in "Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia" you will no doubt laugh at this G-rated version of his "Wild Card!" character. Joel Murray from "Mad Men" and last year's "God Bless America" is a welcome surprise as a non-traditional student who has gone back to college when his sales career crashed. These two characters go a long way to helping this film although they definitely can't rescue it.

It is unfortunate that Pixar has created some of not only the best animated films of the last decade but also some of the best films period. It makes it all the more disappointing when they make a film that is unsurprising and relatively fluff-filled. While "Monsters University" is not a bad film, it comes nowhere near what we expect from the name Pixar. It is predictable, underwhelming, and even occasionally boring. These are three adjectives that would have never been connected with Pixar. Here is hoping that Pixar sits down and creates some interesting and original ideas. Until then, we have our BluRay copies of the original films around to remember what once was and what could be again.

"The Purge" 0.5 stars out of 4 (F)

Bad horror films come out all the time. The genre is well-known for producing low-budget pictures that don't necessarily scare as much as they cause the audience to laugh. I'm not above enjoying "bad" horror films. I wrote a favorable review for "The Last Exorcism II", a movie that was universally panned but that I enjoyed in all its silly small-budget goodness. I even somewhat enjoyed "No One Lives", a film I didn't review recently. It was pointless, stupid, and shoddily made but it had a few surprises. There is nothing surprising about "The Purge", a low-budget attempt at a high-concept horror film that is among the most frustrating and disappointing films I've ever seen. It takes an interesting idea and buries it in stupidly all well seemingly turning to the camera and saying "Do you get this metaphor? Aren't we clever?" It is a student film that somehow attracted slightly big-name talent. It is a great idea for a movie that is so completely and totally failed that you stare at the screen in disbelief while cliche after cliche is presented. The only crime that is truly committed during "The Purge" is how much of your time it wastes.

"The Purge" deals with the titular event and the impact it has on the characters in Miscellaneous Suburban Town, America. "The Purge" is a yearly event where all crime is legal for a 12-hour span. Since they have instituted this event, unemployment has dropped and everyone has seemed to profit. Few have profited more than James Sandin (Ethan Hawke), who has made a (ahem) killing off of selling home security systems. He lives in suburbia with his seemingly stay-at-home wife Mary (Lena Headey), rebellious teenage daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane), and their Tim Burton-character younger son Charlie (Max Burkholder). They have all settled down for a night inside their protected fortress as The Purge begins. Outside, a man (Edwin Hodge) is screaming, bleeding, and begging to be let in. Charlie, who amazingly enough has the security code, lets the man in and he quickly disappears inside the house. Minutes later, a creepy man (Rhys Wakefield) appears at the doorstep saying that the Sandin family has taken in a "fugitive" and he and his group of murderers want him back or else they will find a way in. The family must decide what to do next: save this unknown man or save themselves.

The worst part about "The Purge" is that it is a wonderful concept for a film. Although it resembles a storyline from an original "Star Trek" episode, the idea of all crime being legal for a period of time brings up images of a John Carpenter-esque dystopian mess. The concept raises questions, not of if something like The Purge is actually a good event but how such an event would no doubt result in lower employment. The homeless and those who aren't rich enough to protect their homes would no doubt be killed off. "The Purge" is a wonderful idea for a short story or an hour long TV movie. Unfortunately, writer/director James DeMonaco, has completely failed the concept of this movie resulting in a stupid film that tries for cheap scares and completely fails at them. This is the type of movie where one scene contains a "There is someone behind a refrigerator door! Oh good! It is a false alarm" scare and the next tries to make a quasi-intelligent connection between race, poverty, and white privilege. It is a 90-minute trudge to a conclusion where nothing interesting occurs and you openly hope for the death of all characters involved.

There are enough "Are you kidding me?!" moments in "The Purge" for at least five other films. There are characters who are introduced, do crazy things, die and then are completely forgotten about. There are characters and character design that are stolen right out of 2008's "The Strangers". There are action scenes so haphazard and difficult to follow that you won't know or care what is happening. Low budget films often film these action scenes as close-ups in order to save on budget. Usually, you still have an idea of what is happening. "Low budget" doesn't mean your movie has to look cheap or be impossible to follow. "The Purge" does both of these things.

There is nothing fun about "The Purge". I'm not saying that horror films need to be "fun". There are plenty of dark films where you walk away shaken, thinking introspectively, and telling yourself that you will never watch them again. The events and questions that "The Purge" contains are not necessarily fun. There is no enjoyment in this film though. It isn't scary at all and relies on characters who we don't know attacking characters we don't care about in the dark. It contains characters who we really don't care if they live or die. It contains a villain who is not scary who does things that are so stereotypically villainous, and at times impossible, that we aren't scared of him. The film fails at every possible step of the way. The fact that the concept is so interesting makes it all the more disappointing and infuriating.

I can't recommend you ignore "The Purge" strongly enough. The audience I saw it with on opening night did not care about what they were seeing in the slightest. No one jumped. No one screamed. They simply watched it, got up, and left. There is no redeeming elements to this film. It is a complete failure and only receives a half-star because I didn't leave the theater before the movie finished and the concept is interesting enough that you might be able to re-write it into a better story. How do I end this review: "I'd like to purge this film from my memory"? "The Purge is pure vomit"? "The crimes committed by this movie should be illegal?" How about I just end it now?

"This is the End" 3.5 stars out of 4 (B+)

Seth Rogan's new comedy "This is the End" offers a lot of what we usually expect from him. It stars many people who usually co-star with him like James Franco, Jonah Hill, and Jay Baruchel. The characters take a large amount of drugs. Everyone is at their most vulgar. There is a "buddy" element where characters bond over events. There is the matter one one plot point though: "This is the End" takes place during the apocalypse. Yep. As in full-on, end of the world, apocalypse. It is also the funniest movie of the year and may stay that way.

Jay Baruchel has flown in to visit his friend Seth Rogan in Los Angeles. They have a close friendship as they were both actors growing up in Canada. Soon after getting into town, Rogan takes Baruchel to James Franco's house for a large housewarming party. The party is going pretty well until Baruchel starts feeling as if he doesn't quite belong in the same group of Hollywood stars. Things go especially bad when the world starts to end. Rogan, Baruchel, Franco, and fellow actors Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, and Danny McBride need to band together and defeat the various forces of evil to survive "the End of Days".

"This is the End" is easily the funniest movie that has come out in quite some time. The comedy genre has been extremely dried up in the last few years. I can honestly say the last movie I found myself laughing hard at was "Django Unchained" and I would have to go back maybe as far as "Zombieland" to think of the last time before that. "This is the End" has scenes where I was laughing so hard my face and neck hurt. It throws event after event along with cameo after cameo that it completely catches you off-guard. This film is easily one of the most unpredictable comedies ever made. The plot summary above was kept short so as not to spoil anything or anyone that appears. "This is the End" will easily be the film this year that is quoted and has word-of-mouth pulling in .

The cast works so incredibly well with each other, no doubt because they have worked so well in the past. While each actor is playing themselves, they are playing a version of themselves that is grossly different from themselves. Jonah Hill, often thought to be cocky and abrasive, is hilariously nice to everyone around him. On the other hand, Michael Cera, often thought to be rather tame, is presented as a womanizing drug-addict. There are no stand-out performances and nobody steals the show. Every actor pulls in ridiculous laughs and has a few catch-phrases that will no doubt catch on.

There are a few missteps throughout "This is the End". Unfortunately there are three very long comedic sequences that involve either the discussion or the comedic assumption of rape. Rape jokes have not been funny for quite some time. They have been the subject of a large amount of controversy, news articles, and overall agreement that rape jokes are not acceptable. Here, all the humor is delivered by the all-male cast which makes it all the more uncomfortable. These jokes are unnecessary, unfunny, and could have easily been cut from the film. They are the only parts where I saw the audience look genuinely uncomfortable, a feeling that shouldn't arise in a comedy. Had these three scenes been omitted or modified, you would have had a truly great film.

To go on about any of the other plot points in this comedy would do it a great disservice. My recommendation to you is that you try to miss every TV spot and trailer you find. You should stay far away from any cast list as some of the cameos are among the biggest surprises of the film. The missteps aside, we are looking at what will more than likely be the funniest film that comes out this summer.

"Man of Steel" 3 stars out of 4 (B-)

Superhero movies are coming in two different forms these day. The first is the bright, colorful, and relatively single-minded superhero film that the Marvel films are presenting. Films like "The Avengers" or the "Iron Man" series are quick, breezy and entertaining with just enough surprises to keep you interested and enjoying yourself. Then there are the DC films like Christopher Nolan's "Batman" series. They are darker films that try to deal with heavier themes and entertain through powerful film scores (often created by Hans Zimmer). These films are often considered more serious and are often more respected by critics. "Man of Steel" is a DC film. It features the pre-requisite Zimmer score. It presents a superhero story with seriousness, weighty metaphors, and contains powerful imagery. The problem is that is a reboot that is trying to tell four sides of Clark Kent's life: Krypton's (his home planet) destruction, his childhood, his drifter days, and when he finally becomes the "Man of Steel". As a result of trying to fit four major stories into a 150-minute movie, none of the stories feel fleshed out enough. What we have a film that some glimpses of what it could be. We are never given a chance to see Clark truly fly because he is just too fast.

Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is a drifter who goes from place to place doing odd jobs and occasionally saving people with his amazing strength and ability. Having come to Earth from the planet Krypton as a child, he was raised by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) to keep as low as profile as possible. This all changes when he comes across journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who exposes his story. This draws the attention of General Zod (Michael Shannon), a Kryptonian prisoner who has been trying to find Clark since he was a baby. He will stop at nothing, including the destruction of Earth, to get an object that Clark holds which will he believes will restart the Krypton race. It is up to Clark to save the planet he has always called home.

Zack Snyder is an interesting and often torn-apart director. After making movies like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, "300", "Watchmen", and "Sucker Punch", he has an aesthetic that many people thought wouldn't fit well with a Superman story. He often cuts his films with violent, choppy editing which is often scored by contemporary music. With "Man of Steel", Snyder shows restraint that we have never seen before. Scenes like the first time we see Clark take flight are given the attention to detail they deserve. The Snyder of a few years ago would have most likely just had him jump in the air. Here, he holds himself back giving us the necessary feeling of awe. His soundtrack flourishes are almost entirely gone. Where films like "Watchmen" had Jimi Hendrix playing and "Sucker Punch" had female covers of Stooges songs, here Zimmer's amazing 

score is used to accent the story. While Snyder's direction is not on the level of someone like Christopher Nolan (who he will no doubt be compared to), it is still an impressive presentation.

In sharp contrast with 2006's "Superman Returns", "Man of Steel" jumps from one plot point to the next in almost breakneck speed. The 150-minute runtime feels much shorter than that. This sense of speed is often caused not just by alternating between story lines featuring various parts of Clark's life but also in the small amount of time each is offered. While this will no doubt please those who thought "Superman Returns" was overly long and slow, it doesn't necessarily do a service to any of the plot lines. "Man of Steel" feels like a movie was originally three hours long but was cut down to 150 minutes. While it is never difficult to follow or understand, this fast storytelling doesn't necessarily give the story the weight it deserves. It would almost seem that this story could have benefited from being told in two parts. As it is, the story is told in a serviceable way but is missing something.

The performances in "Man of Steel" are especially impressive for a superhero film. Cavill was a perfect choice for Clark Kent leading believability to a superhero story that could easily veer into silliness. Costner delivers what might be the best performance we've seen in decades. While he isn't given nearly enough screen-time, he proves that he was an interesting and well-thought choice as the father who must tell his son to hold back his urge to help everyone. Shannon is quite powerful as Zod, although when compared to the previous characterization by Terrence Stamp and even other Shannon performances it seems a little subdued. Many people were expecting something on the level of Heath Ledger's Joker performance when people saw a actor as respected and as passionate as Shannon in the role. While it is a good performance, it is an almost subdued performance compared to what we have seen in the past from him.

"Man of Steel" calls to mind 2005's "Batman Begins". Both films were written by David S. Goyer, the man who is almost always in charge of writing DC movie scripts. "Begins" and "Steel" are both reboots with origin stories that are hastily included. Both stories go very fast, introducing characters and concepts in a fashion that feels like they aren't exactly telling us the whole story. Hopefully the next Superman movie will follow in the footsteps of "The Dark Knight". Now that they no longer have to worry about setting up who Clark Kent   is and was we no longer need to spend time on that. We can just focus on the amazing action and the story that goes along with it. While "Man of Steel" does successfully reboot the franchise, we are still a movie away from the film truly great "Superman" movie since the original.)

"The Internship" 2 stars out of 4 (C-)

A joke that is utilized at least three times in "The Internship" is Billy (Vince Vaughn) comparing what his group of underdog Google interns is going through with the 1983 film "Flashdance". It gets to the point that when Billy isn't even on-screen, the characters mention that had he been there he would have been referencing 80s films. There is nothing about "The Internship" that doesn't feel dated. The film consists of montages to show struggles and improvements of groups. The soundtrack features songs like "Ironic" by Alanis Morisette, "Jump Around" by House of Pain, and "Lowrider" by War. It feels like a film that was kept in a time capsule digitally swapping out the name of a technology company from the 90s with Google and then simply releasing it. While it is incredibly difficult for stars Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to not be charming and elict laughter, the feeling that we have already seen "The Internship" made it a wholly unnecessary film.

Billy (Vaughn) and Nick (Owen Wilson) are down on their luck. After losing their sales jobs, they stride out into the harsh economic climate with no modern-day skills. On a whim, Billy applies the two for an internship to Google. Through a rambling and quasi-enlightening interview they are accepted into Google's headquarters. When there, they find themselves at least double the age of everyone there. They team up with another group of outcast interns and try to beat the team run by a smug Brit (Max Minghella) in hopes of receiving a full-time job.

Everything about "The Internship" feels like a movie we have seen repeatedly on cable networks for years. The "outcasts vs preps" plot is utilized to almost eye-rolling degrees. There are montages set to music that think that simply by having up-lifting music we can see that they are bonding. It contains a sports competition that is meant to show how even outcasts can come together as a team and win. There are scenes of characters leaving the group when they think they are bringing the group down only to show up at just the right moment. The group of "preps" even has a male character who wears a tight pink polo shot. The only thing that is missing is a conclusion that involves a skiing competition. In the hands of a more capable director by Shawn Levy (the man who continues to release mediocre films like the "Night at the Museum" series and "Real Steel") this movie might almost be a nostalgic homage. Unfortunately, "The Internship" never reaches this. The cliches and stereotypes are never pleasant or entertaining. Every character feels like they are simply filling a necessary component (attitude, ethnicity, gender). Every plot advancement is seen a mile away. You will no doubt know what is going to happen just by reading the plot summary. This is not comforting or meant to bring up images of other films. It is simply lazy film-making.

It is impossible for Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson to not be entertaining. We have seen both actors deliver enjoyable performances in the past and it is almost to the point where anything they do can make an audience laugh. Here, both Vaughn and Wilson feel tired and rushed. It has nothing to do with age and entirely is blamed on the material they are given. We are constantly being told hat both characters are hopelessly flawed and they are constantly having to prove that they are not. They are trying but not nearly as hard as we have seen before. Most comedic scenes feel like first-take improv sessions from a bunch of actors.

Another big problem with the film is that the plot set-up is not necessarily fun. While it is topical (sort of) to have characters dealing with the economic downturn, it is not that much fun to hear 20-somethings being depressed about their job prospects. When the top five out of hundreds of interns are actually given a job for their hard work, it is hardly a victory. You are actively rooting for other characters to fail and be unemployed. While it is understand to dislike the main villain, the rest of the opposing cast didn't necessarily do anything wrong to make us want them to necessarily fail. This is a championship basketball game where the outcome doesn't really matter.. It is unemployment. That is not a good basis for a comedy.

While "The Internship" is not without its charm, that charm mostly comes from what we have already seen and know about Wilson and Vaughn. If you dislike either (and there are plenty) this movie will be near unbearable. It offers nothing new or special and takes far too long to get to its obvious and cliched outcome.

"The Kings of Summer" 3 stars out of 4 (B)

The name of writer/director/soundtrack compiler Wes Anderson will get bandied around so much near the upcoming independent film "The Kings of Summer" that you will think he had any hand in it. Many of Anderson's tropes are there. There is the soundtrack which seems to reflect the character's every emotion all while completely catching you off-guard. One moment they are playing Thin Lizzy and the next they are playing something that sounds like it is off the "Spring Breakers" soundtrack. You've got quirky characters saying snappy dialogue with a speed and voraciously that almost pulls out of the element. You even have a character played by Moises Arias who looks oddly like Jason Schwartzman. Still, Anderson has absolutely nothing to do with the film. It is a coming-of-age wilderness story (barring a slight similarity to the plot of Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" from last year) directed by first-timer Jordan Vogt-Roberts and written by first-time writer Chris Galletta. Even with the similarities to Anderson's style, "The Kings of Summer" is a pleasant, funny movie that shows that Vogt-Roberts and Galletta might be filmmakers to look out for in a few years when they've learned to fine-tune their craft.

Joe (Nick Robinson) and Patrick (Gabriel Basso) are completely sick of their parents. Joe's cold and calculating father Frank (Nick Offerman) is so controlling that he even times the exact amount of minutes that Joe has been using the shower. Patrick's parents (Megan Mullally and Marc Evan Jackson) are so plain vanilla that they find buying a different variation of ciabatta bread is an adventure. With school ending and summer beginning, Joe and Patrick don't know how they are going to survive the time they must spend with their strict and boring families. While in the woods, they come across an open area. Employing Joe's rudimentary skills at building learned from wood shop class coupled with his extreme distaste for being stuck with his father, he and Patrick along with their eccentric new friend Biaggio (Moises Arias) set out to build a house in the middle of the woods. Not a tree house or a clubhouse but a cabin of manliness and solitude. Here they will learn quite a bit more than carpentry.

Writer Chris Galletta has taken a fairly standard coming-of-age story (teenagers rebel against family by going into nature) and turned it into a genuinely funny comedy/drama. The strength (and also sometimes weakness) of Galletta's script is that it is openly quirky. This isn't quirky in the "Napoleon Dynamite" sense. Instead, it has most of the characters delivering smart and witty lines that will no doubt have audiences laughing. Many of those lines are delivered by Arias as Biaggio, one of the oddest characters we have seen in some time. Biaggio almost always has some oddly cryptic line of dialogue to completely confound Joe and Patrick. Again though, this comedy and wit is a bit of a downfall for "The Kings of Summer". A little bit of Biaggio goes a long way. You will find yourself laughing at many of his off-kilter lines at the beginning but by the end, you will be rolling your eyes. There is a reason a character like McLovin (who Arias will no doubt be compared to) was a supporting character and not a main character. You end up wondering why you laughed at Biaggio when he is delivering his 40th cryptic line.

There are also moments in "The Kings of Summer" that try too hard for the comedy in the situation and end up limiting the dramatic impact of other scenes. Scenes where Joe has melodramatic daydreams are especially impressive and recall John Cusack daydreams from "Better Off Dead". Sometimes though, they are trying too hard to pull laughs from something that isn't there. As talented and hilarious as Offerman often can be, he is simply too cold in this roll. While his cold demeanor is all but a trademark thanks to his wonderful performance in TV's "Parks and Recreation", here he almost goes too far. When he finally does warm up, we don't know if we truly care that he has. Other times, the film pushes for dramatic scenes too close to comedic ones. They almost pay off, making us feel deeply for the characters, until Biaggio pipes in with another catch phrase. While I wouldn't say "The Kings of Summer" has an identity crises, it may have succeeded more by dialing down on the comedy and focusing more on the relationships between characters.

"The Kings of Summer" is a charming film that is worth catching on a hot day when you have become sick of seeing the countless big-budget blockbuster sequels. Like last year's "Safety Not Guaranteed", it fills a void in the multiplex. It is genuinely entertaining and holds a few surprises. Just don't think too hard about it. I firmly believe we will be seeing more work by Vogt-Roberts and Galetta in the future. This is their "Bottle Rocket". We will just have to see if they have a "Royal Tenenbaums" in them somewhere down the line.