Tag Archives: metacritic

‘Boyhood’ Is Honest, Moving and Nostalgic

Boyhood_filmTrue story: when I was 10 and watching “Racing Stripes”, a thought came to me: what if a director filmed flashback scenes with children, and then finished the movie with the same kids when they got older? The idea never returned to my mind until I heard about the movie “Boyhood”, a movie filmed over 12 years using the same actors.

Directed and written by Richard Linklater, “Boyhood” follows one boy, Mason, from the ages of six to 18. Ellar Coletrane, who was seven when cast, portrays Mason, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette play his parents and Linklater’s real-life daughter, Lorelei, plays Mason’s sister.

Just the production story behind this film is enough to make someone interested to see it. The crew got together for 12 days a year for 12 years beginning in 2002, so we get to see the young actors grow and the adults age before our eyes. There is so much that could have gone wrong, yet somehow it all went right.

I personally have some additional ties to the film. Since I was 8 years old in 2002, many of the songs and pop culture references in the film played large parts in my own childhood. Nostalgic things such as the Oregon Trail computer game, or waiting in line for the midnight release of a Harry Potter book were enough to bring a lump to my throat. There’s a part where Mason says “the best movies of 2008” were Tropic Thunder, Dark Knight and Pineapple Express, which is absolutely true and instantly brought me back to that wonderful summer.

It is almost as if Linklater knew how to timestamp his film, using things that are relevant, but never doing it to be lazy or contrived, like some films do when trying too hard to convince you a scene takes place during a certain point in time.

The acting in the film is superb, save for maybe the first years of the children’s lives (you know, because kid actors). Ethan Hawke gives perhaps the best performance of his career as Mason’s dad. He is a man who is at first somewhat distant from his kids, and is trying to connect with them but just doesn’t know how. Over time he begins to form bonds with them, and we see how tough parenting, especially when single, really is.

Linklater just has such a delicate touch with the emotional scenes, and has written an honest script, looking at everything we all experience growing up, from awkward talks with our parents to peer pressure. We all know Linklater is a talented director (the guy has gotten two Golden Globe nominations out of Jack Black), and he cements his place among the Hollywood greats with this film.

There are a few scenes that could have been cut, however I understand why Linklater kept them in; cutting them would mean an entire year of filming, and an entire year of Mason’s life, would have been not seen and all for naught. The movie does have a running time of two hours, 45 minutes but it never gets boring and rarely lags.

You can believe the hype: “Boyhood” is as creatively impressive and emotionally moving as they say. But while the scope of the film is massive and ambitious, it truly is the little, intimate moments that make “Boyhood” so good. Everyone, parent, preteen or especially 20-something, should see this film and will have something to connect with. I enjoyed the movie, even when it was uncomfortably honest, and I almost feel like I should be thanking Richard Linklater for allowing me to relive my childhood over one last time.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Third Time’s the Charm for ‘Expendables’

Expendables_3_posterThe “Expendables” franchise in a nutshell: Sylvester Stallone has gathered the biggest action stars from the past 30 years, thrown in a few old jokes and sprinkled it all with excessive violence and gunplay. The results have been mixed, with the first film being fun but taking itself way too seriously, while the sequel was a little more self-relevant but was still sloppy.

With “The Expendables 3”, Stallone and his team have clearly taken notes because, while not a masterpiece or even particularly good film, the third time is the charm for this group for the steroid and Botox mercenaries.

Directed by Australian newcomer Patrick Hughes, “Expendables 3” follows Barney Ross (Stallone) as he tries to find new, younger blood in order to bring down an arms dealer, and former Expendables member, played by Mel Gibson. Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas and Arnold Schwarzenegger are among the many costars.

First things first, the jokes are much more prevalent than in past films. Stallone brought onboard Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt, writers of “Olympus Has Fallen”, to co-write the script with him, and it results in the same irrelevant, intentionally awful jokes that not only made “Olympus” so much fun, but the action films from the 80’s. Harrison Ford, filling in for Bruce Willis who was fired after demanding $1 million a day, has the most fun of the newcomers, and unlike Willis looks like he actually gives a darn about being there. He has smile on his face the entire film, and has one funny running gag where he tells Jason Statham to “stop mumbling” whenever he speaks in his British accent.

Also, unlike the first two films, we know and actually empathize with the villain. Gibson’s weapons dealing character is given an actual backstory and there is one scene where he is talking to Stallone about why he does what he does and feels genuine.

Of all the newcomers, two stand out for reasons they may not like, the first being the lone female Expendable, played by UFC fighter Ronda Rousey. Her acting has a lot of opportunity for improvement (nice way of saying she’s not very good), and on more than one occasion she clichély says “men” when a group of the guys do something stupid. The other “standout” is Antonio Banderas, who, I swear to God, pulls a Jar Jar Binks. He is just over-the-top, quickly saying unfunny lines and never stopping the talking.

When news broke that this film was PG-13 instead of R, most people freaked out. We saw what happened when an R-rated franchise goes PG-13 earlier with RoboCop, so many people were nervous that this one. However the 4th Die Hard was rated PG-13, and that is arguably featured the best action of the series. And “Expendables 3” luckily falls closer to the Die Hard side of things.

Director Patrick Hughes stages some fantastic action sequences, and right from the start of the film you know you’re in for a thrill ride as it opens up on a train during a hostage rescue. Yes, there are the obligatory close-ups and shaky cams that accompany PG-13 films, but it never distracts you (this was shot as R but was cut to PG-13, because money).

At this point you know whether you like these films or not. I personally found the mix of new age tech versus old school fist fights an entertaining step in a new direction for the franchise, and is the best film in the series (take that statement for what it’s worth). There’s a part in the film when Ford turns to Stallone and says “that’s some of the most fun I’ve had in years”. I wouldn’t be lying if I said “Expendables 3” is some of the most fun I’ve had all summer.

Critics Rating: 7/10

You Have the Right to Laugh at ‘Let’s Be Cops’

Let's_Be_Cops_posterWhat would happen if Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill finally stopped looking young enough for school and had to become actual patrol cops? Well, probably something like “Let’s Be Cops”, which features insane buddy cop chemistry between Jake Johnson and Damon Wayans Jr.

“Let’s Be Cops” focuses on two down-on-their-luck friends who dress up as cops for a costume party, only to quickly realize that people believe they are actually police officers. They play along until they get mixed up with the mob, and have to put their fake badges on the line. Andy García and Rob Riggle costar as Luke Greenfield directs.

I am a huge fan of Jake Johnson. He is by and far the best part of the show “New Girl” and is memorable in smaller roles in films such as “21 Jump Street” and “A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas”. Now he finally gets the opportunity to star in his own film, alongside fellow “New Girl” alum Damon Wayans Jr., and he does not disappoint.

The chemistry between Johnson and Wayans is what makes the movie. They have great back and forth, and you truly believe that these are two longtime friends from Ohio (which the film oddly feels the need to remind you of numerous times, for whatever reason). Whether it is improvising an interrogation, or simply telling the other one to “shut the [blank] up”, you can’t help but smile every time these two are on screen together.

“Let’s Be Cops” also has some very well done cinematography and editing, two aspects that don’t receive enough credit by the average filmgoer, especially when it comes to comedies. Cinematographer Daryn Okada has some beautiful pan-up shots of the Los Angeles skyline, and also infuses the film with some throwback TV cop drama-style techniques. Meanwhile, editors Bill Pankow and Jonathan Schwartz keep the film moving at a brisk pace and it makes for an enjoyable 104 minutes.

Now the script is a bit shotty, with some scenes featuring a joke and then cutting to the next scene quickly. In many cases the scene cut because you realize had it continued, the characters would be exposed as fake cops and the movie would be over right there (like waving their guns in a restaurant or driving their homemade police cruiser through the middle of a park). Also, much like last August’s “We’re the Millers”, “Let’s Be Cops” does begin to slow at the homestretch, because both films’ gimmick plots began to wear thin.

I laughed countless times watching “Let’s Be Cops”, and on more than one occasion I laughed very hard. True story: I missed gym session today (well, skipped it). Luckily, I still got a solid ab workout from watching this film. Get it? Because I laughed so often?! Ohhhh boy. I’m just too funny sometimes.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ an Empty Shell

Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_film_July_2014_poster            If I told you a film starred Megan Fox, was produced by Michael Bay and was directed by the guy behind “Battle Los Angeles”, you would probably not be interested. But wait! What if I also tell you that the very same movie was produced by Nickelodeon Studios? Interested now? If you’re over the age of eight, the answer is hopefully no, and the very film I just described to you is “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”.

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” is based off the classic characters and follows them as they take on their first big challenge: The Shredder. That’s pretty much the extent of the plot of the film; giant talking turtles fighting a giant metal robot. Should be fun, right? (It’s not, though). Megan Fox, Will Arnett and William Fichtner star in non-reptile roles as Jonathan Liebesman directs.

I don’t think there’s a single person who thought this film was going to be good. First it took forever to get into production, and then Michael Bay annoyed everyone by saying the Turtles weren’t mutant but were actually aliens. And then there’s the fact that every film the director has made has a 5.8 on IMDb. Seems like there were a lot of red flags, and that was before the film’s awful trailer even debuted. If you’re waiting for a “however”, then don’t hold your breath; this film is every bit as not good as expected.

First things first the script is beyond bland. Every character in this film is a typecast, just a stereotypical personality that are found in most summer films. There’s the hot coworker who keeps asking the main character out, the boss who doesn’t believe the main character’s crazy story, and the reporter who wants bigger and better stories. People’s characterization is literally learned by lines by other characters (“you’re the most persistent person I’ve ever met, you know that?”)

There are aspects to “TMNT” that are head-scratchingly lazy. The film begins on the first day of spring, yet two scenes later the main character is at a snow-coated resort after a 20 minute drive from New York City. Why couldn’t the film take place in winter and erase this problem? I’m not sure, but what I am sure of is that I just put more time into thinking about this script than the writers did.

Oh, and the villain’s plot in this film is literally that of The Lizard’s in “The Amazing Spider-Man”, right down to infecting New York City with a chemical weapon by using a large antenna on top of a company’s skyscraper. Like I said. Lazy.

The action scenes, for the most part, are well-shot so I will give the film props where due. It is some fun seeing giant turtles throw human beings like they’re ragdolls into moving subway cars and trees, and the film does a good job at putting this on screen. However none of the action is engaging; it all feels contrived.

The Turtles really aren’t even the stars of the film, at least not for the first half. That honor falls into Megan Fox’s lap, and she does what she does best: gives a performance just passable enough to make us not hate her. When the Turtles do start to get screen time, it’s just potty humor and fan service references, neither of which work for a 20-year-old guy like me with limited Ninja Turtle knowledge.

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” isn’t an awful movie, and it is not the pop-culture mockery many feared, but it is by no means good and is just barely watchable. A lot of the time the film is boring, and when it’s not boring it will still be so not fun that it will make you ask yourself: “what the actual shell am I watching?”

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Zany, Brilliant Fun

GOTG-posterImagine “The Avengers” and “Star Wars” had a child and it listened to nothing but music from the 1970’s and 80’s. That’s pretty much what “Guardians of the Galaxy” is, and it’s about as awesome as you imagined when you read that description.

Directed and written by James Gunn, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is yet another film set in the Marvel Universe. It stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper as the Guardians, a group of rag-tag intergalactic criminals who set out to save the world from a radical tyrant.

The first time I saw the trailer for “Guardians”, I thought it was a joke; like a parody skit from a late night show. It was so sarcastic and over-the-top and self-referential that it couldn’t be an actual film. But it was, and the final product is as entertaining as that first trailer implied it to be.

Everything about “Guardians of the Galaxy” has been done before, yet the film manages to be fresh and new all at the same time. The heroes in the film, despite ranging from a walking tree to a talking raccoon, are more relatable than the average superhero. They curse, get drunk, and debate not saving people because it would endanger their own life. You know, people stuff.

Gunn, who directed “Super”, a film where a regular guy becomes a vigilante hero, has written a script that doesn’t forget about its hero’s humanity, as well as their humor, and it is what makes “Guardians” such a fun ride. Honestly, this is one of the funniest films of the year. All the Marvel movies have their share of wit and humor, especially “Iron Man”, but “Guardians” is different. It’s just plain zany. Characters will say things that on paper shouldn’t work, or may seem awkward in a superhero film, but on screen it turns to gold (“I have a plan! I have…I don’t know, 12% of a plan!”).

The only true flaw in “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the use of filler scenes. While I was never bored, and at times was having the most fun I had had at a cinema all year, there are a few scenes that just felt unnecessary, and created some pacing issues. If the film had been an hour 45, instead of pushing it to the two hour mark, I think it would have been perfect. But hey, I’m not complaining I got an additional 15 minutes of seeing a raccoon shooting a machine gun.

The villain was also very Darth Maul-ish in that he looks cool, but in actuality has a cliché plot and is just a puppet for the main villain of the series. But that’s neither here nor there.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is like everything you’ve seen before in superhero and science-fiction films, yet unlike anything you’ve ever seen. It’s stupid, cliché, and over-the-top all while being brilliant, original and relatable. I honestly had a blast with this film and feel no guilt saying that it is just as good, and slightly funnier, than “The Avengers”. In a month of the year that normally has studios dumping out trash, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is anything but.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Hoffman Great, ‘Most Wanted Man’ Not

A_Most_Wanted_Man_Poster            Sometimes a performance in a film is so good that it actually takes away from the film itself, and makes you realize how average the movie surrounding the performance is. It happened with Denzel Washington in “Flight” and it happens with Philip Seymour Hoffman in “A Most Wanted Man”.

Directed by Anton Corbijn and starring Hoffman in his last non-Hunger Games role, “A Most Wanted Man” is a thriller based off a John le Carré novel. When German intelligence receives word of a possible terrorist hiding in the city of Hamburg, Günter Bachmann (Hoffman) and his team must act quickly in order to stop a possible threat, as well as bring down a terrorist funding operation. Rachel McAdams, Willem Dafoe and Robin Wright all co-star.

In my 20 years on this earth, I have found there are two kinds of espionage thrillers:  ones that are non-stop, pulse pounders, and others that are slow-burning and dry. There really is no in between. Unfortunately, “A Most Wanted Man” falls into the latter category, despite yet another immensely dedicated performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Hoffman plays a German in the film, accent and all, but he is never campy. Despite having seen him in over a dozen films, and having personally graduated from the same American high school he once attended, I never doubted Hoffman as a German. He smokes, drinks and growls his way through the film, portraying a man who sticks to his guns, even when every other person around him is doubting the flimsy evidence. When Hoffman is on screen you cannot take your eyes off of him, and when he is not there you instantly notice his lack of presence.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is not as engaging. The film wants to have you constantly guessing whether Hoffman’s target is actually a terrorist or simply just a misunderstood refugee, yet it only really feeds one side of the argument. You never really feel conflicted or question whether or not Hoffman’s team is making a mistake. You know exactly how to feel about the suspect and that takes away from some of the suspense.

The film also takes a while to get going to where it wants to get going to. Early on it makes it out to seem like the whole film will be a manhunt for a character, but then they quickly absolve that situation and then linger for about thirty minutes before finally realizing the big fish they really want to go after has been there the whole time.

There are worse espionage thrillers out there (just look at “Paranoia”, for example), but “A Most Wanted Man” is nothing special or memorable in its own right, either. The real enjoyment from the film comes from watching Hoffman on screen for one of the last times, and with every scene that passes we are reminded that we truly lost a legend. It is just a shame that everything surrounding Hoffman is nowhere near as interesting as his character. The narrative is just too bogged down and most characters outside Hoffman’s are just too underdeveloped.

There is a part in the film where Robin Wright’s CIA agent asks Hoffman, “What is it you want to achieve here?” I wanted to ask the film the same question.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Lucy’ All Dumb, No Fun

Lucy_(2014_film)_poster            Oh, boy.

Well, here goes nothing. In “Lucy”, Scarlett Johansson stars as the title character who begins to access more and more of her brain after accidently being injected with an experimental drug. Morgan Freeman costars as Luc Besson writes and directs.

The trailer for this film made it look like the film was going to be very, very bad; awkward dialogue paired with that awful Besson “humor” where random violence is supposed to be funny (because it’s a riot and totally hashtag relatable when someone shoots a cab driver for not speaking English in Taiwan, right?). Well rest easy because “Lucy” isn’t as bad as the commercials made it out to be; it’s worse.

I don’t think I have ever seen a movie try to be so smart, and then end up being so dumb. For the whole film, “Lucy” tries to ask questions while giving the impression that it has all the answers. It then pulls the rug out from under the audience in a messy (and moronic) climax. Seriously, by the time the film was wrapping up its painfully long 88 minute run time, I didn’t know what was going on. And you know you you’ve lost a filmgoer’s interest when I was questioning why a character still had a flip phone in the year 2014 instead of pondering what had just happened during the climax.

The film’s main interest point (at least in its own pretentious mind) is “oh boy, what’s going to happen when Lucy reaches 100% access of her brain?!” Only thing is, you don’t care. The more intelligent Lucy gets, the more dumb the movie gets. By the time Lucy has accessed 30% of her brain (instead of the normal person’s 10%) she can already throw other human beings with her mind. So do I really care to wait and find out what is going to happen when she reaches 70%? Spoiler: No, I don’t.

If this was a sitcom, it would be called “I Hate Lucy” (OK that was a lob down the middle). I just didn’t like much of anything in this movie. Besson does know how to shoot an action sequence, as demonstrated by the final 15 minutes being the only enjoyable part of “The Family”, and once again his climatic action scene is the highlight of the film. It’s fun enough when the guns are going off, but the fight isn’t enough to distract you from a plot that has become unintentionally hilarious.

“Lucy” is too moronic to be a smart sci-fi and too boring to constitute as dumb fun. The film doesn’t know what it wants to be, nor what message it wants to send. Really all I got out of it is “drugs are bad, m’kay?”. Johansson is an emotionless robot for most of the film, and nothing in the film is engaging. The film maintains that human beings use 10% of their brain; this film would be lucky if the people who made it exhumed anything over two.

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Hercules’ Much More Brawn than Brain

Hercules_(2014_film)            Because there truly are no original ideas left in Hollywood, we now have the second film in 2014 about the legendary mythical character of Hercules. The first movie, which few people remember and even fewer liked, was released in January. This second attempt features Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in the titular role, so it should be awesome right? (That was rhetorical)

Directed by Brett Ratner, “Hercules” follows The Rock as a sword-for-hire, having completed his legendary twelve labours. When a king’s daughter approaches Hercules to save her father’s kingdom, his skills will be put to the test. Ian McShane and John Hurt costar.

Walking into a film directed by Ratner and starring Dwayne Johnson in a loincloth and sandals, one shouldn’t have very high expectations. However I still expected more than what this film ends up delivering.

The world of Greek myths and gods is an incredibly immersing one, and has created some amazing stories and movies. And this telling of Hercules takes an interesting twist on the legend, implying that perhaps Hercules really is a mortal man, and his legendary triumphs are just that: legend. But instead of taking these questions somewhere, the film breezes over all of the stories and confirms them as fact or fiction in the first 10 minutes of the film, leaving the rest of the time for you to simply wonder what could come next. No, literally wonder what could be possibly be next; most everything shown in the trailers are part of the opening montage.

Johnson does a solid job as Hercules however he is given surprisingly little to do. He is pretty one-note, just having to play the solider with bulging muscles who yells things during battle. Many of the other performances range from hammy to awkward, especially those of the princess and her son. Both shriek and scream most of their dialogue (in distracting British accents, I might add), and you actually debate rooting for the villains when the two are put in danger. Plus, a lot of the characters have that forced, unfunny Brett Ratner humor, which rivals Michael Bay for the worst in films.

There are two main battle sequences in the film, and both are shot well by Ratner, especially by PG-13 standards, so I must give him props there. There isn’t an overabundance of shaky-cam or slowmo, and there are a few fun camera shots that put you in the action. However in both instances the scenes overstay their welcome, and become redundant and derivative instead of exciting and invigorating.

The special effects are nothing special, the dialogue is at times abysmal and the story flips between rushed and underdeveloped. I went in wanting an over-the-top sword-and-sandal blockbuster and “Hercules” doesn’t delivery even that. The Rock tries his best but it was just too big a Herculean task (pats self on back) to save this drawn out, and awkwardly paced, adventure that we’ve seen many, many times before.

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘The Purge: Anarchy’ Vastly Better than First

The_Purge_–_Anarchy_Poster            “Spider-Man 2”. “The Two Towers”. “The Purge: Anarchy.” Bet you never guessed those three films would be mentioned together, yet here they are. And what do all these films have in common? They are all sequels that vastly improve upon their predecessors.

Set in the year 2023, America has been “reborn” (as the film reminds you a dozen times) due to one night a year where all crime is legal. A stranded couple, a kidnapped mother and daughter, and a man out for revenge are all left on the streets when the annual “Purge” commences, and must team up to survive the night. James DeMonaco, writer/director from the first film, returns.

The first “Purge” film was very meh. It had an interesting premise, but that’s about as far as it got. It really didn’t take advantage of its “no laws” world, and instead opted to become a basic shoot-em-up home invasion thriller. With “Purge: Anarchy”, the filmmakers actually listened to the audience and gave us what we wanted: a glance at a world where all crime is legal.

The characters in this sequel are much more relatable, and much more intelligent, than those in the first. Frank Grillo, who is very underrated but a boss in most every role he takes, steals the show as a man who is trying to get revenge for his son’s wrongful death. He is the leader of the ragtag group, and is the glue that holds the film together. He’s much more entertaining than Ethan Hawke’s rich daddy role in the last film. You feel sympathy for the other characters, too, but you never feel any real emotional connection to them, which is pretty standard in a horror-action film.

That brings up another aspect where “Anarchy” improves: it doesn’t try to be an actual horror film and instead knows it’s an action thriller, that implements moments of tension and shock. There are some genuinely edgy parts of this film, especially when the group is lurking around the dark streets of Los Angeles, trying to stay out of sight from maniacs.

Now the film isn’t perfect, and most of the flaws are the same thing that held the first film down, albeit this time they aren’t as prevalent. There are still some dull moments, particularly those leading up to the commencement of the Purge, and there are still some horror film clichés, such as people tripping for no reason and cars dying just as they are needed most. Although, the film does give a solid explanation for the car’s battery failing, enough that I didn’t roll my eyes, so I’ll give them some points.

I enjoyed “The Purge: Anarchy”, probably for the same reasons most people will: it’s much better than the first film, and it actually delivers on its creative promise. Grillo is engaging, the action is very well shot and the immersing into this twisted world is very convincing. You can’t take a film like this too seriously, and it may try and reach too far towards social and political commentary, but if you take it at face value, “The Purge: Anarchy” is a fun time at the movies.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Sex Tape’ a Satisfying Comedy

Sex_Tape_(film)“Sex Tape” is pretty much what “The Wolf of Wall Street” would be on Casual Friday’s. The drugs, sex and language are all still present, just at a much more toned down level.

Cameron Diaz and Jason Segal star as a married couple who haven’t had as much personal time as they would like due to their two kids. So one day, in an effort to spice things up, Diaz suggests the duo makes a…sex tape! [cue applause for most inventive movie title ever] However when the tape is uploaded to the internet, they set out to destroy every copy. Jake Kasdan, who directed Diaz and Segal in “Bad Teacher”, directs here.

I went into this film hoping for the best but expecting the worst. While Jason Segal is always a likable presence, the last time he, Diaz and Kasdan teamed up was “Bad Teacher”, which was should have been entitled “Bad Movie” (ok, that one was a lob down the middle of the plate). But, to my surprise, I walked out of “Sex Tape” with a smile on my face.

Segal and Diaz have very solid chemistry together and that is obviously crucial in a comedy. They have some good back-and-forth, including several fantastic one-liners from Segal. Every supporting character lends a hand and has great give-and-take, too.

Rob Corddry and Ellie Kemper play another married couple and they have one of the best jokes in the whole film. The real show stealer, however, is Rob Lowe, who plays Diaz’s boss. In a role that breaks his normal mold, Lowe seems to be having a ball, and it’s a shame he only received 15 minutes of screen time.

What holds “Sex Tape” back, and what some people may not be able to overlook, is the script. While there are moments of true inspired comedy gems, there are also some forced jokes, and other juvenile ones that feel like they belong in an Adam Sander film. The tone sometimes shifts rapidly, too. This is probably due to there being three screenwriters credited; Segal, his writing partner Nicholas Stoller and Kate Angelo. One can assume Segal and Stoller did rewrites on Angelo’s earlier script, which would explain the sometimes messy storyline.

The film is also pretty tame, considering its plot and title. Save for an opening montage, the movie really never fully utilizes its R rating, which makes one wonder why they chose to play it so safe?

In a lot of ways, “Sex Tape” is like last year’s “We’re the Millers”; multiple screenwriters make for an uneven and bumpy trip, but you are willing to overlook most of the flaws because you are having such an enjoyable time. Plus it features a lead actress who proves that she is still very attractive, err talented. You know, at acting.

“Sex Tape” may not be for everyone, but I found it had enough laughs to warrant a viewing, and an entertaining one at that. In a summer of poor comedies (“Tammy”) and great comedies (“22 Jump Street” and “Transformers 4”), “Sex Tape” falls somewhere in the middle. If you can turn your brain off and just watch it for its entertainment value, then Segal and Diaz deliver the goods. (Upon rereading that last line, it sounded much dirtier than I intended and I apologize…)

Critics Rating: 6/10