This page contains Dave's reviews of films seen from April to June 2011.

“Cars 2”: The winning streak is over. In terms of sheer critical consensus, in its history, Pixar Animation Studios produced 11 straight “winners,” ranging from “Toy Story” in 1995 to “Toy Story 3” this past year. Their latest computer-animated effort, “Cars 2,” is a sequel to arguably their previous weakest effort, “Cars,” (2006). “Cars 2” returns most of the character cast and a lot of the behind-the-scenes talent (including “Cars” director John Lasseter), but moves most of its setting overseas where Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson) is competing in the World Grand Prix against his chief challenger, Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro). The storyline quickly shifts to an international spy spoof involving characters like Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), Rod “Torque” Redline (Bruce Campbell), and Finn McMissile (Michael Caine), with (Tow) Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) tasked to save the day. This film has more wink-and-a-nod name references in it than ten episodes of “The Flintstones,” but I guess the filmmakers can be excused (once again) due to their movie’s lack of actual human characters. Overall (including its pedestrian spy story), “Cars 2” is strictly Saturday morning cartoon stuff. I was half-expecting a snickering dog and a goggled man twirling his mustache. This might work if you’re ten years-old, but this considerably older adult has grown a little too spoiled with the often-profound magnificence of Pixar’s previous works. Should I penalize this film because of its change of direction? I choose to. I will preface my criticism with the disclaimer that if you view this film accompanied by small children (I did) and lower your expectations a lot (I didn’t) then “Cars 2” can be a good time at the movies. And to the filmmakers’ credit, the animation is once again very first-rate. But taken as a whole, “Cars 2” has to be considered a disappointment. ** (out of) **** (6/26/11)

“Super 8”: For some, the summer blockbuster movie is an event. Heck, I remember where I first watched “Star Wars” (San Carlos theater in San Carlos, CA) and “Top Gun” (Fashion Island Mall), and where I first debated the merits of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” over “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (Hillsdale Cinema). Over the past several years, the genre (if you will) has been reduced to efforts by some combination of one or more of the following: Michael Bay, Will Smith and Jerry Bruckheimer – or to a sequel to some other box office hit or comic book hero. And sometime between then and now, a 45-year-old lifelong film fan named Jeffrey Jacob Abrams was taking very good notes. The writer-director-producer of such popular television and movie titles as “Lost,” “Alias, “Fringe,” Mission Impossible 3,” and “Star Trek” (2009), clearly has an idea of what it takes to do a summer film right. Abrams, with a small producing assist from one of the kings of the summer, Steven Spielberg (hello, “Jaws” and many others), created “Super 8,” a loving homage to all the good things Mr. Spielberg has given us for most of the past 40 years (I’m going to count his underrated TV-movie, “Duel”). “Super 8” is set in 1979 in a small town in Ohio. 12 year-old Joe (Joel Courtney), his buddy, Charles (Riley Griffiths) and their young friends are working on a secret zombie movie project, using Charles’ budding filmmaking skills, a borrowed Super-8 camera, and some help from pretty Alice (Elle Fanning). While filming a scene from their short movie, the kids accidently film a crashing train, leading to the uncovering of the mystery as to why the small town is suddenly crawling with government and U.S. Army-types. Abrams, who also wrote “Super 8,” completely re-captures the spirit of watching “E.T.” again for the first time, or even “Stand by Me.” Blessed with pitch-perfect performances from his mostly-inexperienced young cast, Abrams’ film hits it out the park. “Super 8” is an absolute blast. See it – and don’t forget the popcorn. *** ½ (out of) **** (6/12/11)

“The Tree of Life”: Jack (Sean Penn) is at a serious crossroad in his life. He is deeply haunted by his childhood, especially the loss of a person very close to him. This is affecting him both personally and professionally. Jack is also struggling with years of emotional pain inflicted upon him by his father (played by Brad Pitt), who we see through the older Jack’s flashbacks to his youth. Most of “The Tree of Life” is spent in the 1950s in Waco, Texas, where young Jack (played by Hunter McCracken) grew up with his younger brothers R.L. (Laramie Eppler) and Steve (Tye Sheridan). Dad (Pitt) is a failed musician and inventor-turned disenchanted working stiff, and Mom (played by Jessica Chastain) is a devoted and loving homemaker. Father is Nature while Mother is Grace. And it’s Mom who is the glue that keeps her boys, especially Jack, together, and not completely messed up because of their domineering father. “The Tree of Life” was written and directed by the enigmatic and reclusive filmmaker, Terrence Malick, who reportedly drew upon his own life for this film. I’d love to know if this is true, because it would at least partially explain Malick’s intentions, and it could validate some of the theories I have about this very impressive work. Spirituality is at the heart of “The Tree of Life,” but Malick’s film isn’t religious. Instead, the spiritual references are there as an attempt to resolve an internal struggle within both Jack and his mother. Malick doesn’t appear to take sides. If anything, he questions “why” a lot. Malick also uses little vignettes of Jack’s childhood as a device to describe his character’s pain, as well as the positive memories with his mother and brothers. These quick and unorthodox scenes can be jarring, but if you stop to think about it – isn’t that how most of us remembers our childhood? I couldn’t recreate more than thirty seconds of most of my oldest memories, so, in the course of the potential recollection of his own life (in his case, dating back more than fifty years), why should Malick pad his ‘scenes’? And yes, as rumored, there are dinosaurs, ancient explosions and other oddities, but, again, in the presumed context, it generally works, even if it seems a little over-dramatic considering this is a movie about the struggles of a family, albeit with generous dollops of love and loss. The film’s pacing will likely make for some uncomfortable moments in your theater seat (or sofa) while you’re waiting for the story to find its point. The story, by the way, isn’t at all conventional. It jumps back and forth and has only a handful of sustained scenes with dialogue between the characters. It’s Malick and it’s his art. It will certainly be viewed as pretentious, but I’d still rather be drenched in all that beauty than watch the latest Vin Diesel movie. Speaking of beauty, “The Tree of Life” has virtually no peer in this respect. Terrence Malick, with help from his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, and composer Alexander Desplat (and a ton of classical works), engulfs his film with scene after scene of jaw-dropping gorgeousness. Yet, at the same time, you don’t feel like you’re getting socked over the head with it. It’s just so…wow. Sean Penn isn’t the star of the film, but it’s really about him, and by stating this I don’t feel like I’m giving anything away. His character is brooding and has almost no lines, so it’s almost unfair to attempt to judge his performance. It’s Brad Pitt and Hunter McCracken who are given almost all the true acting opportunities, and they both make the most of it. “The Tree of Life” isn’t a perfect film. It’s sometimes painfully slow and it has an ending that may upset some people, but it’s that ending that ultimately makes this movie. Originally I felt the film could’ve concluded ten minutes earlier (let the viewer fill in the blanks). But those extra ten minutes caused me to rethink the entire movie. I also watched it a second time, which answered many of my questions. The next viewing (the following day, after spending a lot of time thinking about the first viewing) also helped me to understand some of Malick’s intentions, especially since I was no longer going in cold. The first-time watcher isn’t likely to give this film its proper due, especially if they know nothing about its unusual structure. It’s probably a little cliché to proclaim that “The Tree of Life” is unlike any film I’ve ever watched, but it’s true. Calling it ambitious is almost doing it a disservice. Terrence Malick reportedly spent over 30 years working on this very personal project (it was originally titled “Q”) and he threw in everything, including enough for a future IMAX film called “Voyage of Time.” It’s really amazing he managed to get this movie made, as he smashes traditional film conventions. I guess it helped that “The Tree of Life” had a little star power to please its financiers, and a director with a mystique and talent that’s possibly rivaled only by Stanley Kubrick among filmmakers who’ve worked at least indirectly in the Hollywood studio system over the past 35 years (when producing blockbusters really started to become the order of the day). I think it’s also safe to say that Hollywood may not allow another film quite like it, which is perhaps the reason why the normally deliberate Malick has already completed principle photography on his next feature film. “The Tree of Life” should be mandatory viewing for any filmgoer who feels movies are more than just a form of quick entertainment. **** (out of) **** (6/4/11)

“Get Low”: is a strange little film that stars Robert Duvall as Felix Bush, a hermit in a small southern town sometime in the 1930s (none of this is made very clear). To the town-folk, Bush is that weirdo with the unkempt beard who lives in near isolation on a vast patch of land. There are plenty of rumors about the man, but no one truly knows him. Well, except for Mattie (Sissy Spacek), an old flame who once found him to be the most interesting man in the world. There’s also a local preacher named Charlie Jackson (Bill Cobbs) who knows a lot more about Bush than he is telling. Fed up with all the whispers and rocks thrown at his property, Bush decides to do something about it. He contacts Frank Quinn (Bill Murray), the town’s funeral director, and makes an unusual request: he would like to pay for a funeral party for himself…now. Quinn’s business is struggling, so he accepts the man’s proposal. And to make it a little more interesting, Bush agrees to raffle off his property for $5 a chance. Predictably, the money starts pouring in, which presents a challenge for Quinn’s principled employee (played by Lucas Black) and the not-so-ethical Quinn. “Get Low” was directed by Aaron Schneider (making his directorial debut) and written by Chris Provenzano and C. Gaby Mitchell. I admire Provenzano’s work on “Mad Men,” but it’s not happening on this project. Quirkiness and eccentricities might make for interesting neighborhood gossip but it doesn’t translate well to film, at least not here. The film is nice to look at (Schneider, a veteran cinematographer, knows how to set up shots) and Robert Duvall is at his crusty best. I also enjoyed the performances by the entire cast, especially Cobbs and Murray. But the ultimate mystery was fairly pedestrian and the motivations by the characters were too confusing. The filmmakers wanted me to care, but I couldn’t. ** (out of) **** (On DVD) (4/02/11)