Another Top 5 segment from The MacGuffin. This time Allen and Ed share their top 5 good actors in bad films.

This segment is also available on Stitcher, iTunes and from here. After you’ve watched the video please vote in our poll and share which one you think is the best.

View This Poll

Spencer is joined by Laremy Legel (Film.com).

Topics include: A look at the a buzz about Lawless, suggestions for the future of Highlander, reflecting on Jackie Chan’s career, questions about an Ian Fleming biopic, and discussing the potential of Blade Runner 2.

This episode can be played online via the flash player below or it can be downloaded from here. It is also available on iTunes, Stitcher, and Zune.

About fifteen years after the original Men In Black came out, and a full ten years since its first sequel was released, along comes Men In Black III. Starring the still-charismatic Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in stone-faced grump mode, the new film deals with a new alien threat in the guise of Jemaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords fame as Boris the Animal. Boris is a villain who has been in prison on the moon for the past 40 years. Possessing only one arm, he lost the other one when he was caught by Jones’s character, K, back in 1969. Breaking out of prison, he hatches a plan to steal a special device that will allow him to travel back in time and kill a younger version of K before he originally got arrested. When this plan unfolds, Smith’s Agent J must go back in time himself to stop the evil alien. Hijinks ensue.

For full disclosure, I am a huge fan of the first MIB film. It is quick, inventive, slightly profound, and genuinely a lot of fun. The makeup and special effects are convincing. Vincent D’Onofrio as the giant cockroach wearing an Edgar suit provides many fun physical comedy moments. And that movie has a couple of quotes that continuously resonate with me. The first is when K newly reveals what the Men In Black are about. As Will Smith’s character is letting it all sink in on a New York park bench, Tommy Lee Jones explains: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals…1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.” The other is that lightly moving moment at the end when K explains that being inside an exploding cockroach is one of a hundred memories “…I don’t want.” Jones puts such weight on that one word, “want.” It’s really fine acting being able to convey a lifetime of world weariness in one word. It’s economic and subtle.

Meanwhile, Men in Black II was underwhelming. I’ve heard a great many people actively hate it. Hate seems too strong. Hate takes effort. Half the time I forget about it entirely. It’s not without the occasional laugh. Patrick Warburton as J’s new partner is mildly funny (though what the hell happened to Linda Fiorentino from the first film?). Rosario Dawson isn’t terrible in it. And you get more of the cute little pug. But largely I give it the same headspace I give Ghostbusters 2. Ghostbusters was great. Its sequel, not so much. Same thing here.

That all said, in the grand hierarchy, Men In Black III is better than the second one, nowhere near as good as the first. The incredibly talented Josh Brolin does a dead-on Tommy Lee Jones imitation as he plays the younger version of K. He’s deadpan at first, but tends to lighten up the more J is around him. Some of the culture shock moments are funny, though I wish there were more of them. At one point, Will Smith’s character gets pulled over by the police for driving too nice a car while being black. While funny, it ends up being more of an idea for a bit than a fully realized moment. The best scene involves the agents searching for a clue at Andy Warhol’s Factory. Bill Hader as Warhol is quite hilarious. And this is where they are joined by Griffin, an all-seeing alien who can view multiple timelines at once. Michael Stuhlbarg (probably best known as the star of the Coen brothers film A Serious Man) plays Griffin as some sort of Robin Williams in full-blown whimsy mode. I found him interesting and irritating at the same time.

What is probably most surprisingly disappointing here is the special effects. The Men In Black series has always had very convincing effects. But this time around, they all look like way too much CGI. Everything looks digital and processed. At one point, Will Smith is on the roof of the Chrysler Building while an alien invasion is taking place in the sky. Instead of feeling realistic, it all looks like so much video game fodder. It’s like they took the Fresh Prince and dropped him into Mass Effect 3. The same goes for the 3D. Very little of this film is truly enhanced by the 3D effect. Boris the Animal frequently shoots tiny alien darts from his hand that are supposed to shoot out at you in a gimmicky way. And there is one fight scene that purposely has camera angles aimed straight at the audience. But the gimmick doesn’t help much.

Overall, Men In Black III is a slightly pleasant diversion. Surely it will be a big rental hit on its inevitable home video release. The actors are still fun people with whom to spend time. The script is mildly engaging. If you must see this in the theater, try to find some matinee pricing somewhere. Mildly recommended.

Final Grade: B-

When you’ve run the gamut on monsters like vampires and zombies, it seems logical that the next best place to go would be werewolves. The cool thing about werewolves is that they’re a more primal, unchained, and psychologically imbalanced kind of monster than the brooding pseudo-sexual vampire, or the decaying, decrepit metaphor for humanity that is the zombie. Werewolves are a Jekyll-and-Hyde archetype, and, as such, can play the range of terror from tragic to downright rampaging emotion. Like any good monster, though, werewolves are not just great because they exist—it’s their application to the story that makes all the difference.

Somewhere between Joe Dante’s 1981 werewolf masterpiece The Howling and the teen soap Twilight series, werewolves lost their way. Shrouded away under some faint nostalgia, they’ve made their appearances when it seemed like a worthy moment of revival. Now, in Juan Martinez Mareno’s midnight horror comedy Game of Werewolves, we have a revival moment begging to crack beyond the surface of the public consciousness—at least, for those who can get the opportunity to see it. Originally titled The Wolves of Arga, the story follows Tomas, a struggling writer who’s decided to take up an offer of inheritance of some property in the rural village of Arga. Thinking it will be the perfect place to write his second novel, Tomas leaves his life with his grandmother behind and sets out for solitude. Of course, this being a horror film, things do not go according to plan and Tomas finds himself in the center of an old curse that haunts the town.

To both its credit and its disservice, Game of Werewolves‘s humor is prominently on front display. The nature of the curse itself comes with a certain sense of humor—one that even the townsfolk point out, as it turns out that if one part of the curse is not rectified by a certain hour on a certain day, then a new curse will take effect. This confuses everyone until the punchline is delivered a short time later, as the new curse takes place and a pack of werewolves descends on a small group of people left to survive. Tomas is not alone in his battle with the werewolf curse, as he is joined by a childhood best friend, Calisto (Carlos Areces), and his editor, Mario (Secun de la Rosa).

The film’s tone hovers somewhere between straight camp, with men in rubber werewolf suits, and a sometimes sobering brutality, as in one scene where a werewolf hunts an elderly couple in their home as prey. The dichotomy of the two tones can be extreme at times, and somewhat jarring because of that. In some films, like John Landis’s classic werewolf flick An American Werewolf in London, the switching of tones can be an added strength, but I found that not to be the case in this film. Too many variations between horrific and deliberate camp left me unsure what I wanted to feel at any given time. The relationship between Tomas and Calisto is also far too identical to that of Simon Pegg’s and Nick Frost’s characters in Shaun of the Dead.

The trailers for Game of Werewolves made it look to be the werewolf answer to Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive, but unfortunately the final package is a bit lackluster in comparison and left me a bit disappointed because of that. I loved the visual throwback to physical special effects, and thought the men in rubber werewolf suits were a near stroke of perfection for the film’s aesthetic, but the film is hindered by its desire to try too hard to be a film it doesn’t need to be. Edgar Wright and comapany did a fantastic job with their humor/horror mix, and it’s not to be said that others can’t either. But the films that succeed and are truly good at being that right blend of humor and terror seek to do so on their own merits. This film felt like its heart was in the right place, but its execution was not as over the top as I was hoping for. When chaos rains down in the final chapter, there are some great moments (of which one does not involve werewolves, but does involve fingers), but in the end, it’s all a matter of perspective and expectation. Those who have not seen a great deal of campy and well-done werewolf films will probably not be as judgmental, but I do feel that the movies elements on their own, without expectation attached, do not add up to the film it had the potential to be.

Still, Game of Werewolves is entertaining and far better than most horror movies coming out recently, and as I often say that modern horror films are not as successful as they used to be because they aren’t as fun to watch anymore, at least this movie has that going for it. It wants you to have a good time while you’re being terrified.

Game of Werewolves screens tonight at midnight at the Egyptian Theatre, May 29th at SIFF Cinema at the Uptown, and June 2nd at the Kirkland Performance Center.

Final Grade: B-

They say there are a few rules to writing that one should follow if you want to achieve something close to success. One of the rules is to never start your story with someone waking up. Another is, if you’re going to write about dreams, only use images the audience is going to experience. When it comes to film, perhaps an unstated rule is to never begin your movie with the words, “Here we go.” The very nature of a movie is an experience, a visceral one at that. The audience already knows it’s a ride; there’s no need to reiterate it in such a fashion. From the get go, this phrase tells me the filmmakers have no faith in their audience’s ability to discern that they are on a ride; therefore, they have no faith in their audience.

Chernobyl Diaries is a film that works hard to remind its audience that it’s on a rollercoaster ride, from the opening words to a deadpan shot inside a van—pointed at the cast, arms flailing, screams abound as they descend a slope into the town of Pripyat—a shot reminiscent of many on-board rollercoaster cameras that broadcast the riders’ experience to the people waiting in line. This is horror filmmaking that’s not just by the numbers, but done so painstakingly that it never for a moment gives the audience a reason to care.

The story follows a small group of friends who are on vacation around Europe. When in Kiev visiting one of the friends’ older brother, they get an offer to tour the town of Pripyat, once home to the ill-fated workers of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The town was abandoned in the few hours that surrounded the meltdown of the fourth reactor, and has since become a ghost town. Paying an extreme tour guide, the group sneaks into Pripyat to view the empty buildings that remain in Chernobyl’s wake. Of course, once they go to leave, it turns out the distributor cap for the van has been ripped out, cords torn apart. It’s clear someone, or something, wants them to stay. From there it’s nothing but And Then There Were None net; swish.

As the characters get picked off one by one, we are presented with the film’s only compelling aspect: who or what is after them. It is Chernobyl, so thoughts of course immediately draw conclusions to radiation influence, mutations. We are shown a mutant fish rather early. However, the film presents some aspects of the possible killer as being human. The guide seems shady; he’s ex-military, works alone, and even hides evidence of possible company other than themselves being present. Unfortunately, the movie’s creators, director Bradley Parke—whose previous endeavors include being visual effects supervisor on films like Let Me In and We Own the Night—and writer/producer Oren Peli—best known for the Paranormal Activity series—rely too heavily on the mystery of the what, and the film forgets to take time to develop its characters, or create some real suspense for the situation they’re in.

What Chernobyl Diaries does do is make full use of the medium’s effect on the audience’s senses, by simply using tricks that take advantage of what the audience is experiencing. Sound is one of the most prevalent; audio tracks alienate ambient sounds, honing in on only the important things the audience needs to pay attention to in order to create tension from the audience’s expectations. Like they tell us from the beginning—it’s a ride. It’s just not a very good one, and leaves little impression once it’s over.

The cast does fine with what material they’re given; they’re mostly newcomers or bit-part actors, which works to the movie’s advantage. Most horror films, I feel, fail as suspense generators when they cast major Hollywood actors in the lead roles. The audience feels safe when Tom Cruise starts having crazy, messed up things happen to him. It’s a shame for Chernobyl Diaries that the writing is so bad that there’s really not much anyone else can do to make it something worthwhile. The direction—Parker’s first feature—is solid for the most part, though it does take a questionable turn when the choice is made as to whether or not the audience should be visually privy to the terror that is stalking our fated group.

By the end of the film, it’s never made exactly clear to the audience what is what in the mystery that is wrapped inside an enigma. Instead, a few vague impressions, some stilted dialogue, and a specific wardrobe are supposed to be enough to satisfy the audience’s curiosity. When the film reaches its penultimate moment, there’s not much that can be done to inject a current of shock. There’s little to care about, or for, so there’s little in the way of being let down once the mystery is quasi-addressed. I admit, it was an interesting premise, if for no other reason than what fun something as toxic as a story set in present day Pripyat could be. I think the downfall comes from the film’s awareness of this aspect—hoping it could rest on the laurels of its own concept.

Final Grade: D+

James Dean was strongly rumored to have been gay or at least bi-sexual. Generations of film students have read much into Dean’s relationship with Sal Mineo in Rebel Without a Cause. Along with Marilyn Monroe, James Dean has always been one of the stylish gay community icons from the 1950s.

According to the new film Joshua Tree, 1951: A Portrait of James Dean, which is playing at the Seattle International Film Festival, James Dean’s homosexuality is far more than rumor. This film focuses on the actor before he became famous. While his talent awakens in intense acting classes, the film shows him hopping from lover to lover. Sometimes he sleeps with Hollywood moguls to purposely advance his career. Other times, he acts on simple attraction while picking up the stray young man. All the while he lives with his faithful roommate, who knows that Dean sleeps around but who remains true. This man loves James.

Joshua Tree, 1951 is the kind of slow, pretentious art house film general audiences often associate with the art-house/film festival circuit. It’s filmed in black and white with frequent use of self-important slow motion. Everything is supposed to be deep and meaningful. But just because you have characters quoting Rimbeaud and citing their love of Hemingway doesn’t mean your film is deep. James Dean was more than a pretty face. There was thought and emotion going on behind his façade. And while this film thinks it’s showing us that inner life, mostly it just portrays Dean as a sexually charged façade.

Part of the problem is with James Preston as James Dean. The filmmakers do everything they can to make him look as much like the famous star from the outside as possible. But none of the actual star’s magnetism comes through. We in the audience just don’t believe that the guy in this film is James Dean. You can’t just have a cigarette hanging out of the mouth of a guy with a red coat on and swoopy hair and instantly have a screen legend.

To the film’s credit, at least these gay characters have actual sex lives. While this was the ’50s, when all gay activity had to be on the down low, they do show a lot of how men used to hook up with each other. These are attractive guys going at it. Even if a mainstream Hollywood movie has gay characters, most of the time their relationships are very chaste, so as not to rattle the audience. And on that level, if you are up for watching some titillation, well, this may be the movie for you.

However, the narrative doesn’t go anywhere. Long scenes in the desert (hence the title) are interspersed with random unidentified sexual liaisons. Well-groomed men stare longingly at each other. And that Cartman line from South Park comes to mind: “No, dude, independent films are those black and white hippie movies. They’re always about gay cowboys eating pudding.”

Joshua Tree, 1951: A Portrait of James Dean screens today at Harvard Exit .

Final Grade: D+

It’s a difficult thing to be a dancer. The hours of rigorous training, the obsession with perfection—all to have a chance for that one moment to be in the spotlight. It’s even more difficult choosing to be a ballet dancer as your profession. Forcing your body to twist and bend into positions that it was not meant to, having to deal with the stigma of being in ballet from those who do not understand it, and the personal sacrifice one must go through to achieve stardom all play into being a part of that world. By the time a ballet dancer is in his or her mid-to-late twenties, their career is already in the decline. Those are just a few of the interesting things we learn in the documentary First Position (2011). While not necessarily breaking any boundaries, the film shows the difficulty a young person must go through for the sake of their art and achieving their dreams.

In the film, we meet six young people ranging from ages nine to nineteen, from all parts of the world and social classes, and each encompassing the same dream of being a professional ballet dancer. They all have the same goal in mind: to enter and win their regional competitions and move on to the Youth America Grand Prix, where they will have a shot at earning an invitation to an elite school or a chance of entering a professional company. This is their sole focus, what they strive for against everything else. One might say that practicing so hard and putting so much time into their craft can take away from their experience of being a kid, but the dancers would argue that their childhoods are richer because of it.

When thinking of films about ballet that have stuck with me, I tend to remember the ones that touch on the darker side of human nature. Films like The Red Shoes (1948) or Black Swan (2010) depict how people can lose themselves in being perfect, thus forgetting the pure joy they initially felt when they started dancing. This movie does not delve into that area. Instead, it focuses more on love of dance, and how much these kids want to succeed beyond anything else. There is a reason that they are ranked amongst the finest in their age bracket, and it’s because they put in the most dedication. I was fascinated to see young friends Aran and Gaya, who act and behave just like any other normal kids, but once they are on stage they are completely in their own worlds, dominating their performances like any other professional athlete.

The unique dancers that are featured here also have unique family members. To have your child enter ballet is to enter a world of anxiety, hope, joy, and sacrifice for a parent. The very cost of putting your child through ballet classes—as one teacher describes—is comparable to that of college tuition. The only difference is that ballet directors are cutting more people than they are hiring. So, as a parent, it takes a delicate balance between toughness and leniency. Take, for example, dancer Miko and her mother. Miko is a promising dancer who wants to win the Grand Prix, but before she started taking classes her mother knew next to nothing about the art. For her child, she learned everything she could, and pushed Miko to be the very best she could be. Some might mistakenly think that Miko’s mother is too tough, especially in the scene where Miko’s brother Jules makes a decision about his own dancing career. But I find that assessment to be inaccurate. I think the depiction of the parents in the movie is that of supportive ones, doing whatever they can to help their kids in whatever fashion they feel they must. In the end, the toughness they show is more of a positive factor than a negative one.

Two people stand out from the rest, both in the older age group. Joan and Michaela come from different parts of the world and have seen different things, but both feel similar in their paths. Joan was born and raised in poverty in Colombia, came to the United States to train, and hopes to one day be accepted into the Royal Academy in England. Michaela was born in Sierra Leone, in the midst of violence and rebellion. She has seen death and mayhem, but at a young age was adopted by American citizens and brought to the country that introduced her to dance. Both Joan and Michaela, despite their different backgrounds, represent how dance can really save the lives of many of these young people, and thus their stories are the most interesting. Dance has given them a sense of direction, something to strive for, and a goal to reach out to beyond their more humble beginnings.

Director Bess Kargman has given us a documentary that doesn’t present much beyond what we have seen in other films like it, but is an entertaining and enjoyable experience nonetheless. There isn’t a large amount of tension besides seeing whether or not the dancers win at the Grand Prix; what we see of their personalities is basically what we get. All of the kids have spark and each is easy to root for, and at the end of the day we get a sense that regardless of what happens, fate will be kind toward each of them.

Final Grade: B

In honor of the release of Men in Black III, Spencer and Greg discuss Will Smith.

This episode is available on iTunes, Blip.TV, YouTube and Miro. Additionally, you can find our podcast RSS feeds on our subscribe page and use whatever system you want.

You can follow all of the happenings on our website through our blog’s RSS feed.

Picking out which movies you are going to watch can be a bit of an adventure. It is easy to sift through the summer blockbusters that have million dollar advertising campaigns, but picking out independent films can be a bit of an art. Usually they have little information available about them—if you get a still image, that’s a victory a lot of the time, and finding something up your alley can be daunting at a festival like SIFF that has over 450 films. Sometimes luck is in your favor, and when you find a solid film it makes it that much more satisfying. That was my experience with The Fourth State.

The story follows German reporter Paul Jensen (Moritz Bleibtreu), who has been brought to Moscow by a family friend to help energize the entertainment section of a local magazine. While working there he meets Katja (Kasia Smutniak), an alluring girl who introduces him firsthand to the conflict between the Russian government and the Chechen. After he witnesses a terrorist attack at a train station, Paul is blamed as being a conspirator and must fight to prove his innocence and discover the real culprit behind the attack.

This has been an interesting year for film, with narrative films that seem like they are almost documentaries, and documentaries that are so incredible they feel like they must be fiction (How to Survive a Plague, for example). That is great, because to me the best thrillers are the ones that blur the lines between reality and fiction, and have more meat than just a clever twist at the end. That is why I find a film like Arachnophobia so unnerving…while it probably isn’t something that would happen, I can’t rule out that it could. The Fourth State is a successful example of this as well, as it uses the Chechen conflict in Russia as a backdrop for the story where both sides are playing dirty. Wars are one of those areas where there is a lot of gray area and morality seems to go out the window; that is something the filmmakers take full advantage of here. While I have no direct connection to the conflict in Chechnya, it has been one of those ongoing conflicts that I’ve witnessed in my life that has left a lasting impression on me. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of a film like this, then you should check out films like the documentary Terror In Moscow, which was about the Moscow theater hostage crisis—then you will see how it adds a depth to the tension that only reality could.

The film also addresses a couple of the most disconcerting topics in our everyday lives: do we really know everyone around us, and do we know only what people want us to see? As the layers of manipulation are slowly revealed, it becomes clear that there is a thin line between enemies and friends. Since I have my college degree in psychology, this is one of those areas I think about a lot (probably too much). The commentary on this topic is thinly veiled, as Paul’s job is as entertainment reporter to cover the gossip about celebrities and parties, and he is immediately reprimanded for putting anything of substance in his section. These questions are common tropes in film, but are done very effectively here, and as Paul’s world turns upside down, it is hard to know who to trust.

The actors do a good job across the board, making it that much easier to get sucked into the drama. But the standout for me was the cinematography and set decoration, which provided a perfect complement to the Moscow setting of the movie, with the gray skies and muted colors giving a brutal tone for the story. In contrast, it also helps the colors pop more in the beginning, as the Moscow party scene looks that much more amazing.

As clever and as well executed as the film is, ultimately it is pretty predictable. If you are like me and can’t help but try to solve the mystery as you watch the film, you probably won’t be too surprised. I did appreciate that as the mystery is revealed, Bleibtreu does not become a tough guy…it adds so much more tension by having him just be a regular guy trying to figure his way out of this situation. The action scenes are remarkably well done, since they are supposed to be realistic and not out of some Jason Bourne-style movie—though, realistically, he probably would’ve been killed several times over.

The film isn’t anything that is going to leave a long-lasting impression, but it is a slick thriller that will keep you engaged throughout. If the film does ignite your curiosity on the subject, be prepared, as there is a much scarier world to be found in documentary films.

The Fourth State screens tonight at 9:00 PM at Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center, and Saturday June 2nd at 9:30 and Monday June 4th at 9:45 PM at SIFF Cinema at the Uptown.

Final Grade: B+

The Eye of the Storm: Australian matriarch Elizabeth Hunter (Charlotte Rampling) has decided she is on her deathbed and summons her two children, Basil (Geoffrey Rush) and Dorothy (Judy Davis), home to pay their last respects. While her children certainly do want to say goodbye, they also want to make sure her fortune is still intact. Basil is an actor who has always plied his charm to make him irresistible to his mother. He’s trying to get a new play off the ground, and his share of the inheritance would be more than enough to let him do exactly what he wants. Dorothy, who married a prince and has only been able to hold on to the title, has been living very frugally off her past glories in Paris. Neither one of them is particularly close to their mother—Basil is too self-centered, and Dorothy is unable a forgive a wrong done long ago. The two of them go head-to-head with their mother’s staff regarding what is best for her—their main concern being the conservation of her money and the staff’s being the comfort of her remaining days.

There is no other way to say this: The Eye of the Storm is a crazy trainwreck of a movie. Elizabeth Hunter is a virago who, in her quest to experience all that life has to offer, has never really had much time to ponder how her actions might hurt others. She wants what she wants when she wants it, and being near death doesn’t do much to change her behavior. Everybody else in the story, if not equally annoying, is pretty damn close. But the performances are good and there is a lot of scenery chewing if you are into that sort of thing. The simple fact of the matter is that this story has too much plot and not enough character development. Things (crazy things) just keep happening, whether they further the story or not. I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of days, and I still have no idea what the overarching theme of this movie was. I got to know the characters better, but I don’t think they learned anything about themselves or each other, and what was the point of all the little subplots if they weren’t going to go anywhere? If you really like these actors, I’m not going to tell you not to see this; I talked to some people who really enjoyed the performances, if nothing else. But just be forewarned, this movie is all over the place. Also, there is this very unsubtle bug/rot motif running through the film that is just weird.

The Eye of the Storm screens May 25th at the Everett Performing Arts Center and May 26th and 27th at the Egyptian Theatre in Seattle.

Final Grade: C-

Any Day Now: Female impersonator Rudy (Alan Cumming) just may have met the man of his dreams when he also meets the child who might make him a better person. Rudy comes home from a pick up with Paul (Garret Dillahunt) when he notices his neighbor has left her teenage son with Down syndrome, Marco, home alone. He takes the boy in for the night, and when he realizes the mother isn’t coming back (she’s been picked up for prostitution), he asks Paul to help him become the boy’s foster parent. He knows that Marco (Isaac Leyva) is going to get lost in the system, and he wants to do the right thing because he knows no one else will. As Rudy and Paul embark on a relationship as lovers, they also become instant parents as they try to give Marco a stable home. But this movie takes place in the late 1970s, when there was no precedent for gay men being foster parents, and they must fight against homophobia and the law to become the parents of the child they love.

This is a big, heartbreaking, teary drama, and it definitely tries to send a not-too-subtle message about tolerance and civil rights. But I have no issue with a movie aspiring to a higher purpose, and I enjoyed both the acting (I am partial to Alan Cumming, even—or especially—when he attempts a broad Queens accent) and the story. It has just enough humor to allow the audience to engage, so when things get tough, they have enough emotional attachment to the characters to be willing to ride it out. It’s a little watered down in order to appeal to a more general audience (read: “heterosexual”), but I didn’t find that to be a problem until the last act. The ending did not have the impact that it should have; I felt it was totally muted. At the moment when I should have been weeping openly into my popcorn bag, I was just tearing up a little and thinking about how good Alan Cumming looks with long hair.

The film does a pretty good job of building to the finale, but then it just fizzles out. It was like being broken up with over voicemail; it still sucks, but the satisfaction of having it out with other party is not there. But, Any Day Now is still worth watching, and tells an important story.

Any Day Now screens May 26th and 27th at the Harvard Exit theater.

Final Grade: B