Finding Amanda is the story of a guy with a gambling addiction who goes to Las Vegas to convince his runaway niece to stop working as a hooker and go into rehab. Sounds like a pretty good role for someone like Steven Buscemi. But somehow Matthew Broderick is the one playing it.

Fully embracing the sad sack middle-aged loser persona, Broderick stars as Taylor, a man who has traded his drug and alcohol abuse for a gambling problem. When his wife finally has enough and kicks him out of the house, he decides to head for Vegas, where his niece Amanda is now living and working as a prostitute. Taylor figures if he can not gamble while there and convince Amanda to enter rehab, maybe his wife will take him back. But Amanda’s not too interested in turning her life around, and even a nun couldn’t go to Vegas and not gamble, so problems with the plan naturally ensue.

The movie is currently a part of the Tribeca Film Festival with no immediate wide release plans, so I’ll eventually RENT IT to see Ferris Bueller all grown up and dealing with his hooker niece.

Finding Amanda is rated R with an unknown release date. (IMDB site)

Today’s lesson: Life is short. So live fast, play hard, and love much while you can.

There, I just saved you $11 and an endless amount of eye-rolling at this ‘tragic love story torn asunder by disease’ movie, so you can SKIP IT.

Jack and Jill vs. the World is rated PG-13 and has an unknown release date. (Official site)

Thanks to this TrailerSpy gig, I’m constantly searching the internet to see if there have been any new trailers released lately. However, the majority of the trailers I find are either for movies that really don’t interest me or for movies that I already knew were in the pipeline. But then, every once in a while, I’ll stumble upon a trailer for a movie that I had no idea was being made and which looks frickin’ awesome.

Such was the case with this Hancock trailer. Maybe I just wasn’t paying enough attention, but I had no idea that one of my favorite actors (Will Smith) was making a movie on one of my favorite topics (superheroes). And not only that, the protagonist in this movie is one of my favorite types of protagonist: the anti-hero (or in this case, anti-superhero). In other words, Hancock is about a superhero with serious character flaws, who really could care less about being a superhero. How can you not love that premise?

With the recent spate of cartoon superhero adaptations, it seems to me that this movie is exactly what we need right now. Superman is great and all, but all that do-gooder stuff can get a little boring sometimes. So why not utilize all that great CGI technology to make a superhero who’s a little more interesting. And did you see the scenes with him flying without a cape…tell me that didn’t look pretty cool.

As you may have guessed, Hancock is a SEE IT from me. I’ve been hearing bad things about I Am Legend (which is probably why I haven’t seen it yet), but even if that does flop, it looks like Will Smith has enough good stuff in the works that he won’t completely fall out of the public’s good-graces.

Hancock is not yet rated and opens July 2. (IMDB page)

I saw the trailer for Young @ Heart when I went to see Juno (terrific movie, btw), and like the true dork that I am, I laughed my ass off at it. It’s a documentary about the Young @ Heart Chorus; a group of New England-based senior citizens that get together to sing songs you never thought you’d hear coming from grandparents (there’s no “Bingo was his name-o” going on here). So what’s so funny about a bunch of old people singing songs from The Clash, The Ramones, and The Rolling Stones? Everything!

What really appeals to me about this movie is that it seems to be everything most documentaries aren’t: heartfelt, hopeful, and uplifting. As someone with a grandparent who’s wasting away in front of my family’s eyes, it’s nice to see a group of old folks with some spirit left in them. They may be a bit tone deaf, and a bit too slow to always be on the beat, but they’re out there doing their thing, and making lazy young whippersnappers look like the boring ones. You had me at “Yes I can”, Young @ Heart, I’ll RENT IT.

Young @ Heart is not rated and opens in select cities April 18.

I’ve been watching Adam Sandler for almost two decades now, and the entire time, I’ve been thinking the same thing: “What the hell is it that makes this guy so damn funny?” And to this day, I haven’t been able to figure it out.

Do you guys remember Sandler’s Halloween bit on Saturday Night Live, where he went on Weekend Update and described some possible Halloween costumes? But instead of elaborate costumes, he’d just use some minor prop (like a newspaper) to make a silly character. “Hey, I’m crazy newspaper face…now gimme some candy!” And for some reason, each character was hilarious.

Well, it seems to me that Sandler has taken that bit and stretched it out into a unbelievably successful movie career. Instead of creating elaborate characters by drastically altering his personality or appearance (i.e. acting), Sandler has basically just used minor character devices and then proceeded to act like himself but with a funny voice. “Hey, I’m a crazy waterboy who plays football.” “Look at me, I’m a crazy 1980’s wedding singer.” “Hey, I’m a crazy gay firefighter…” And for some reason, it’s been hilarious every time.

But I guess maybe there just isn’t anything complicated to figure out. Maybe it’s just that good old fashion “it factor.” I mean, the guy is obviously one of the funniest men in Hollywood, and apparently anything he does is going to be funny. Period.

Which is why this new movie, You Don’t Mess With the Zohan, is an automatic SEE IT for me. I don’t know why, but I know this movie is going to be funny. Because it’s Sandler, and he always cracks me up, even if all he’s doing in this film is putting on a funny Israeli accent and saying “Look at me, I’m a crazy Mossad agent turned New York hairdresser…now gimme your money!” And give him my money, I will.

You Don’t Mess With the Zohan is not yet rated and opens June 6. (IMDB page)

As I promised in my Sweeney Todd trailer review, I’m going to tell you to go see Mamma Mia! this summer. I’ve seen it on Broadway (at the request of my ABBA-loving mother) and can sum up the show in a few brief words: cheesy, unsubstantial, and bloody good fun.

The story is as flimsy as tissue paper: Girl wants her dad to attend her upcoming wedding, but she doesn’t know who he is. She finds three possibilities by digging into her mother’s sordid past, and invites them all to the wedding. They all show up, mom gets flustered, girl attempts to find out which one is her dad, lots of silly singing and dancing ensues.

But as most Mamma Mia! fans will tell you, the story doesn’t matter, it’s all about the music. The show was constructed around the tunes of everyone’s favorite 70’s Swedish pop group, ABBA (if you can’t at least admit that “Dancing Queen” is a catchy tune, you may have no soul). And in trying to create a show around preexisting songs, some (OK, a lot) of artistic license is taken with the storyline.

While the stage show is certainly entertaining, I’m somewhat concerned about how well it’ll translate to film. What makes the stage show so entertaining is the fact that it’s all live; you feel like you’re at an ABBA cover band concert. Audience members can even sing along and dance in the aisles at the end of the show. So how well will this translate to the screen, where you’re supposed to sit in the dark, quietly, and watch actors who are unable to feed off the audience’s energy? I don’t know, but I’ll be at the theaters to SEE IT opening weekend and find out.

Mamma Mia! is not yet rated and opens July 18. (IMDB page)

Is it possible to have absolutely no desire to see a movie and yet, at the same time, be very excited to see that same movie? Well, I suppose it is possible, because that’s exactly how I feel about this new Speed Racer flick.

When I first heard that they were making a Speed Racer movie earlier this year, I recall feeling very nauseous. Granted, I had recently eaten some bad sushi, but I’m sure the Speed Racer thing didn’t help. Maybe I’m alone on this one, but I personally think it’s a horrible idea to make a movie off of the Speed Racer cartoon. Not that the cartoon wasn’t entertaining, but I don’t remember the episodes being all interesting or the plots that engaging. All I remember is some fun animation and a catchy song. Plus, I’m still not convinced that cartoons make for good live-action movies (Scooby-Doo comes to mind).

Of course, then I heard that the Wachowski brothers (The Matrix, V for Vendetta) were writing and directing this film, and my nausea started to subside a bit (then again, I hadn’t eaten any sushi in a while). And then I heard that Emile Hirsh was playing the starring role, and that again made me feel a little better (have you seen Into the Wild yet????). And then I finally saw this trailer, which does look pretty cool, so now I suddenly find myself very excited about seeing this film.

Except that I still have absolutely no desire to see a movie based on Speed Racer!!!

As you can see, I’m still fairly confused about this one. But I guess when I really think about it, I know I’m going to SEE IT in the theaters. And that’s really for only one reason: the Wachowski brothers. Those guys are geniuses, and I know that this movie will be great because of them. But I still wish that they would have chosen a different vehicle (pun intended) with which to display their genius.

Speed Racer is not yet rated (though it’s rumored to be rated G) and opens May 9 (Official Site)

I admit it; I enjoyed watching Sex and the City when it was on HBO. It was an entertaining show, often both hilarious and heartbreaking, and it was a fun way to escape into a fantasy world where I could live in one of those swanky Manhattan apartments, afford those ridiculous shoes, find a date with the snap of my fingers, and have a group of fiercely loyal gal pals. And yet, I have no desire to see the movie when it opens this spring.

Why? Because the show ended so neatly. Each character’s story arc came to a definitive close and was tied up with a neat little bow. I watched as Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte grew and evolved and all settled down into their versions of ‘happily ever after’. There’s a reason fairy tales end after the happy ending; because after ‘happily ever after’, it’s boring!

One of my favorite parts of the television series was the endless string of losers the girls would date. Some of my personal favorites were Charlotte’s ‘likes to get into fights guy’, Miranda’s ‘overeater’, and Samantha’s ‘other Sam Jones’. But at the end of the series, each one of them settled down (in various ways) with their chosen guy. Where’s the fun in that? What is Sex and the City without Carrie and Mr. Big’s ‘will they or won’t they’ relationship? Or without Charlotte “The Rules” York single-handedly setting the women’s movement backwards with her constant mantra of “get married, make babies, get married, make babies, get married, make babies”? Or without Miranda keeping everyone at a distance with her snarkiness and quick temper? And let’s face it; if Samantha isn’t treating her vagina like the drive-thru at McDonald’s, she’s just not being the Samantha we all love/hate.

So unlike many other Sex and the City fans, I will not be at the theater opening night, wearing an “I’m a Carrie” t-shirt, and I’ll instead wait to RENT IT. It was an entertaining television show, not a lifestyle to mimic, and it ended, quite nicely, several years ago. Now if HBO ever gets its act together and makes a Deadwood movie, I’ll be all over that. There isn’t anything neat and pretty about the way they left those fans dangling.

Sex and the City: the Movie is not yet rated and opens May 30. (IMDB page)

Recipe for Made of Honor:

Take two parts My Best Friend’s Wedding, one part Four Weddings and a Funeral, a couple of cheesy pratfalls, shake well, and pour over McDreamy Patrick Dempsey. Serve chilled and enjoy!

I’m slightly curious if there’s an original bone anywhere in this movie, which seems to have just borrowed bits and pieces from some of the most popular romantic comedies ever made. I admit to enjoying a chick flick when it’s clever and original, but this rehash of pilfered pieces leaves me cold. In a nutshell, Dempsey takes too long to realize he’s in love with his best friend (yes, a female best friend). By the time he realizes that she’s his one and only, she’s engaged to someone else. And to add the extra twist to the knife, she asks him to be her maid of honor. Can he put a stop to the wedding to go after his own happily ever after? Should he even try to meddle with his best friend’s happiness? Does anyone really care?

I may watch this whenever it finds it’s way to basic cable, but for now this is a SKIP IT for me. I’ve seen more original plots in episodes of Saved by the Bell (and there ain’t nothing original about Saved by the Bell).

Made of Honor is not yet rated and opens May 8. (Official site)

So I’ve been in a relationship for 4 months now (actually, about 4 months, 2 weeks and 1 day), and everything has been really great. Except for one thing: it seems that me and my girlfriend have completely different tastes in movies. You see, she likes independent and foreign films, and I prefer mainstream American films.

But then I saw this trailer for this year’s winner of the Cannes Palm d’Or award, and it got me thinking: I wonder how many of the Palm d’Or winners I’ve seen in the past ten years? And for that matter, I wonder how many of the Sundance Grand Jury award winners I’ve seen in the past ten years? And after I searched wikipedia for a minute (Cannes and Sundance), I found my answer: Two. Of each. That’s right, from the past ten years, the so-called movie-buff that is me has seen exactly two winners from the world’s biggest international film festival and two winners from the world’s biggest independent film festival. Pathetic.

So I’ve decided to do something about it. Specifically, I’ve decided that I am going to watch this year’s Palm d’Or winner: 4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 Days. Now, I realize that this may seem like a miniscule gesture and that if I were really serious about watching more indie and foreign films, I would go back and rent all the other award winners that I’ve missed. But really, who has the time? And if you think about it, sitting through a 2 hour-long subtitled film about an illegal abortion in pre-democratic Romania really is quite a feet.

So to summarize, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is going to be a RENT IT for me. And just so that you don’t think I’m being completely idealistic, I should mention that I am planning to earn some brownie points by watching this film with my girlfriend. From what I’ve heard, the post- Romanian illegal abortion film sex is amazing.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is rated R and opens January 25.