Who says the movie musical is dead? Not the producers of Mamma Mia!, the Broadway hit that came to the big screen in the summer of 2008. Mamma opened the same weekend as the Dark Knight juggernaut and managed a less than scintillating $27 million during the period. That was $131 million less than Batman earned, a figure that may well be present the biggest difference between first and second place movies in history.

But Mamma turned into a steady earner. No ever thought it would compete with the likes of Dark Knight, but it consistently raked in good money each week over an extended period. Mamma ended up with a take of $143 million, which seems more than adequate for a relatively inexpensive musical.

The question becomes whether or not the fluffy Mamma deserved its success. The film concentrates on the upcoming wedding between Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) and Sky (Dominic Cooper). A former pop singer, Sophie’s mother Donna (Meryl Streep) runs an inn on a small Greek wedding, and this is where they plan to hold the ceremony.

Sophie dearly wants her father to “give her away”, but there’s a problem: she doesn’t know who he is. She raids her mom’s diary and learns that three men could be her dad. The solution? She invites all three of them to the wedding and plans to figure out the culprit when he arrives. That means Sam Carmichael (Pierce Brosnan), Harry Bright (Colin Firth) and Bill Anderson (Stellan Skarsgård) all come to the ceremony. While Sophie tries to identify her old man, Donna reacquaints herself with her old paramours – and maybe love will begin anew.

A few months before the flick hit the screens, I went to New York. A gay friend of a gay friend told me I must see Mamma Mia! during my trip. I reminded him that I’m straight and that was the end of that.

I stand by my assertion that few heterosexual males alive will get anything out of Mamma Mia!, a concept bolstered by my viewing of the movie. The big question now becomes this: what do gay guys and women like about this nonsense?

I don’t know, as I find it hard to imagine anyone would be entertained by this candy-coated glop. I will say this: ABBA put out some darned fine pop tunes. It’s taken me a couple of decades to admit that, as I always thought of ABBAas superficial pop piffle. Maybe it took Madonna’s sample of “Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)” for 2005’s “Hung Up” to crack that wall, but I can now see that ABBA made fun pop.

Those tunes act as the main – and maybe the only - positive in Mamma. At least the backing tracks prove satisfying, but the erratic vocals found in the film rob them of a lot of their power. Clearly the producers cast for acting skills, not for vocal prowess. The renditions vary from decent (Streep) to sketchy (Firth) to yikes!!! (Brosnan). Some of the others like Seyfried and Cooper sound good on the surface, but it quickly becomes obvious that the music producers used lots of Autotune to get their performances up to snuff.

I guess technology couldn’t fix the others; while the track may use some Autotune for Streep and the rest, the technique seems less obvious. Whatever the case, don’t expect much pleasure from the music. That’s a shame since the songs are good – and since this is a musical. At least that’s what it’s supposed to be, but I think musicals are supposed to be brighter and livelier than this exercise in forced fun.

Oh, all around you, everyone works triple time to convince you that there’s life to be found in Mamma. It’s all sugarcoated nothingness, though. The film pursues a relentlessly peppy, perky tone packed with over the top, Broadway broad performances. With their shouted lines and unsubtle gestures, you get the feeling the actors think they’re on stage and not in a movie.

I suspect this comes from the guidance of director Phyllida Lloyd. She was the first to direct Mamma on stage, but the flick marks her motion picture debut – and boy, does it show. Lloyd clearly has no idea how to use a camera or stage a scene for the big screen. Throughout the film, I was struck by the awkwardness of her shot choices, and she can’t deliver a quality musical number to save her life. Most of those sequences look like they come straight from early Eighties music videos; they’re stiff and cheesy.

Lloyd also doesn’t know how to tell a story. Granted, some of the flaws may come from the source material; I never saw Mamma on the stage, but I don’t get the impression its narrative does much to impress. Still, the awkward nature of the tale becomes a distraction. There’s no narrative flow, characters go missing for too long, and nothing blends together well. Songs come out of nowhere and don’t mesh with the dramatic scenes.

Speaking of elements that don’t make sense, would someone explain the chronology of the story to me? I get the feeling that the movie’s supposed to take place in modern day, as the fashions sure look current, and references to the Internet seem to set the tale in the here and now. This means that Donna’s trysts with the guys would’ve taken place in the late Eighties.

However, the flashbacks to those scenes never remotely resemble 80s fashions or music. The Harry sequences give off a very late Seventies vibe, while the Sam and Bill elements feel like they go back all the way to the Sixties! We even hear a reference to the Summer of Love – that was 1967! Donna’s pop group clearly existed as a Seventies entity as well; they would’ve been long out of fashion by 1988.

Why does the film use such anachronistic time references? For its warped sense of wacky fun, of course. The filmmakers don’t care that nothing makes sense; it allows them to dress up Streep, Brosnan and the others in silly period costumes.

Blech. Mamma Mia! feels like a mix of poorly shot music videos cobbled together with some loose story elements. It’s such an amateurish product that you wonder how it got to the big screen, much less how it found such a substantial audience. Other than Amanda Seyfried’s very, very fine breasts, there’s nothing worthwhile in this flick.

Back in 2005, the big-screen adaptation of Frank Miller�s Sin City became a moderate hit. Actually, I think it qualifies most as a cult fave and not something that reached a true mass audience. The movie�s $74 million take certainly is decent, but it doesn�t seem special in this day and age.

On the other hand, 2007 brought a Miller adaptation with much broader mass appeal. 300 became the year�s first really big hit. With its $210 million gross, it turned into a surprise smash.

Based loosely on historical events, we go back to the BC years for 300. Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) demands that Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) kneel before him � and by connection commit Sparta to Persian rule. Leonidas refuses to do so. Though the Persian forces outnumber his by roughly one million to 300, Leonidas leads his men to battle. Much mayhem ensues.

Those who seek more plot in 300 shouldn�t hold out any hope. Oh, the movie throws out a little intrigue back home between Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) and traitorous Theron (Dominic West), but those elements go virtually nowhere. The focus remains on Leonidas and his dudes as they hack and slash through the Persians.

If you�ve ever watched someone else as they play a videogame, you�ll know what to expect from 300. This isn�t a movie as much as it is a collection of action sequences. The narrative ties the events together in only the most loose of all possible ways. This is less a story and more a series of videogame �levels�.

I think it gets tiresome to refer to certain movies as triumphs of style over substance, but that clich� truly applies to 300. Director Zack Snyder clearly could not care less about such trivialities as story and characters. He cares about the way the film looks and that�s it. Everything else becomes irrelevant to Snyder, as even Leonidas receives nothing more than rudimentary character depth. Snyder nods vaguely in that direction but we still know � or care � little about the protagonist.

This means 300 looks like a compilation reel of Lord of the Rings fight scenes. Not much happens other than the battles, as we ricochet from one to another with little substance to fill the gaps. Snyder just makes this a �greatest hits� compilation of the Spartan�s baddest brawls and hopes that we love all the mayhem.

Apparently a lot of people do dig the non-stop action, but I don�t. Indeed, I think the incessant emphasis on fight scenes robs 300 of any drama, urgency or excitement. It�s like a meal that consists of 20 candy bars. They�re good in small doses but don�t satisfy when taken to such extremes.

Because of this, 300 becomes� dull. With one fight after another, the film seems tedious and repetitive. Maybe the first battle or two comes across as moderately interesting, but the movie quickly enters �enough already!� territory.

Snyder�s techniques make things worse. The fetishistic violence annoys more than it sickens, but irritate it does. Snyder films all of the gore in a rather loving way that also robs the material of any impact. Oh, and he chooses to use slow-motion all the time. I reckon that if the whole movie ran at normal speed, it�d probably last about 12 minutes. Maybe Snyder thinks we need the slow-motion to expand his feeble, slight narrative into feature length, and he might be right. There�s certainly not enough substance to fill out almost two hours of screen time.

300 comes with some of the worst, most clich� dialogue I�ve ever heard. We can usually complete statements before the characters get there since we�ve heard so many of them already. Basically, take the �rallying the troops� speech from Braveheart and repeat it over and over; that�ll give you some clue of the insipid lines heard here.

The film forces the performers to overact this material to a laughable extreme. In 300, the actors declaim the lines with the overwrought force you�d expect to find in a bad high school rendition of Shakespeare. This factor makes it even more impossible to view the film as anything other than a campy piece of schlock.

I respect Frank Miller and I actually liked Snyder�s Dawn of the Dead remake. I wanted � and expected � to enjoy 300. However, the film ended up as an enormous disappointment. It�s nothing more than a two-hour videogame demo released as a feature flick.

If you look at the 10 highest grossing flicks of 2007, Alvin and the Chipmunks provides unquestionably the biggest surprise. An unassuming little animation/live-action hybrid update of the old David Seville characters came with little hype among many bigger hitters in the holiday season. Nonetheless, the flick surpassed virtually all expectations and made a stunning $215 million at the box office.

The vagaries of the �family film� market continue to confound me. Some believe audiences are so starved for relatively inoffensive material that almost anything in that category will score big bucks. However, this ignores the reams of quality �family friendly� efforts that tank. What made Alvin different? I have no idea, but something about it really appealed to mass audiences.

The flick introduces us to a trio of chipmunks: Alvin (voiced by Justin Long), Simon (voiced by Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (voiced by Jesse McCartney). When their home gets cut down to become a Christmas tree, they stay on it and end up delivered to the offices of Jett Records.

Dave Seville (Jason Lee) works as a songwriter, but he seems to have lost his muse. Record exec Ian Hawke (David Cross) �an old college classmate � tells Dave to give us the cause because songs boast no commercial appeal.

Enter the talents of our homeless chipmunks. They stow away in a muffin basket Dave steals from the record company and freak him out when he discovers them. After a rough start, Dave discovers that the rodents can sing like nobody�s business and he hatches a plan to revive his career. Inspired by their dreams of a happy Christmas, Dave quickly churns out a number called �The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Is Here)�. After some snarls, the tune rockets to the top of the charts and the chipmunks become a pop sensation. The movie follows their adventures and the inevitable snags along the way.

We constantly hear about how audiences crave family films. That seems to explain the success of Alvin, though it doesn�t tell us why some flicks of this sort prosper and others tank. What about Alvin turned it into a megahit while other family-oriented pictures bombed?

I�ll be darned if I know. I guess there existed an untapped market for computer animated rodents. Maybe crossover appeal worked here, as adults who grew up with the Chipmunks might want to share the nostalgia with their kids.

Those are some theories, but I really can�t figure out the answer, as I find little here to distinguish Alvin from most other family flicks out there. That makes it neither bad nor good � it�s just �there�, without a whole lot of spark to lead me to figure out why it turned into a smash.

On its own merits, Alvin presents a mildly entertaining spectacle. It throws a lot at us and hopes some of it will stick. Clearly kids will get more of a kick out of the gags than adults will, although the flick tries to fling a few nuggets in the vague direction of the parents in the audience. A few mildly sly references come along for the ride, but the vast majority of the comedy remains aimed firmly at the youngsters.

At least the actors occasionally help make things more palatable for the adults. Cross provides a reasonably weaselly and amusing turn as the sleazy record company exec, and we also find a short but amusing turn from Jane Lynch as Dave�s boss; I wish we got more of her. I like Lee as a presence, though I wouldn�t call him much of an actor; he shows his usual broad work here, and a few small laughs emerge.

Overall, however, Alvin comes across as a bland and forgettable flick. I find it hard to muster much to say about the movie just because it�s so relentlessly ordinary. It creates a minor distraction for 90 minutes and then completely leaves your mind.

Footnote: stick through the end credits for a look at Chipmunks album covers throughout the years.

Set more than seven centuries in the future, humans overwhelmed the Earth with all their garbage and abandoned the planet until it again becomes habitable. �WALL-E� stands for �Waste Allocation Load Lifter � Earth Class�. That means WALL-E is a robot created to clean up the tremendous amount of trash that covers the Earth so people can eventually return. WALL-E used to have partners, but they�ve all broken down, so he remains the only cleaning droid.

WALL-E continues to do his job, but the little metallic guy feels lonely and bored. He befriends a cockroach but longs for something more. This comes into his life when a mysterious droid called EVE arrives on the Earth. EVE exists to find some signs of organic life on the Earth, and she does so when she discovers that WALL-E�s cultivated a little plant.

This cancels the couple�s burgeoning relationship. EVE�s programming puts her into shutdown mode immediately as she awaits retrieval from her masters. WALL-E stays by her side the whole time and follows her when a ship takes her back into space. We follow their adventures as WALL-E meets people for the first time, EVE�s discovery impacts humanity, and WALL-E simply tries to keep his love.

As I�ve undoubtedly mentioned in the past, Pixar�s unparalleled track record sets up extremely high expectations whenever the studio produces a new movie. Because the prior flicks have been so good, fans expect near-perfection from each release, so some of the movies may disappoint, at least during initial screenings. For instance, I didn�t find myself too impressed by The Incredibles when I saw it on the big screen, but my second go-round on DVD allowed me to more fully embrace its charms.

This doesn�t guarantee that each Pixar flick will improve with additional viewings. For example, I still have yet to really appreciate Finding Nemo, and I maintain lukewarm feelings toward Monsters, Inc. Don�t get me wrong: I think they�re enjoyable movies. I just don�t believe that they match up with the greatness of efforts like Toy Story 2 or A Bug�s Life.

As you probably already deduced, this means I didn�t find myself enchanted by WALL-E when I first watched it in the summer of 2008. I enjoyed it but it didn�t stick with me in a strong fashion. Like Nemo, I thought it offered a likable experience and that was about it.

Now that I�ve seen WALL-E twice, I still don�t feel especially enthusiastic about it, but I think I better embrace its charms. My main complaint both then and now relates to its heavy-handed message. During his audio commentary, director Andrew Stanton claims that he never intended the film to boast an environmental message or any particular statement. Seriously?

I suppose that may be true, but the satirical side of WALL-E seems far too pointed to be coincidental. The film depicts a future in which a wasteful consumerist society so ruins the Earth that they have to flee into the limbo of space. It shows humans so pampered by technology that they become sedentary and morbidly obese. It also features a world in which corporations dominate affairs to such a degree that a CEO runs the planet.

And Stanton wants us to think that he didn�t attempt a message there? Sorry, but I�m calling shenanigans on that. Of course, there�s a little bit of biting the hand that feeds him, as Disney offers a good example of a corporation with aspirations of world domination. Wal-Mart clearly acts as the main inspiration for the movie�s �Buy N Large�, but it�s not like Disney is without sin; any studio with the audacity to refer to �Disney DVD� and �Disney BluRay� � like they invented the formats � could stand to be knocked down a few pegs.

So I don�t mind the barbs aimed at anti-corporate and anti-consumer excess; I could just live without the obvious way the movie portrays them. We find very little subtlety in this side of things, as it makes its point very clear. Perhaps that seems appropriate for a film with a large contingent of child viewers, but I think Stanton and the other filmmakers could�ve done things in a more low-key manner.

Otherwise I find a lot to like about WALL-E, especially during its first 40 minutes or so. That portion of the flick offers some of the most gutsy filmmaking you�re likely to discover in a summer blockbuster, as WALL-E essentially offers a silent film during that span. Of course, we have plenty of sound effects, and both WALL-E and EVE vocalize in their limited fashion, but much of this section could�ve played back in the 1920s.

And it works. I don�t know if Stanton could�ve sustained our attention over 98 of that stuff, but I admit I felt almost disappointed when the robots met the humans and the presentation took a more standard turn. It would�ve been interesting to get a full feature-length flick with such minimal techniques.

That�s especially true due to the inventiveness seen in the first section of WALL-E. Of course, plenty of cleverness continues to appear the rest of the way, but dialogue gives the filmmakers a minor crutch absent from the first part, so the movie loses its distinctiveness.

But only to a minor degree, as WALL-E remains lively and enjoyable. Much of the credit goes to the depiction of the title character. He bears an obvious Chaplin influence, and the movie makes him charming and lovable. It�s not easy to make a robot with such limited movement capabilities into a three-dimensional personality, but the film pulls off that feat. WALL-E is a sweet, likable little guy, and his personality helps carry much of the film.

This leaves WALL-E as a Pixar flick that I like but don�t love. It maintains my attention, and it looks great; the production design really realizes the various settings to a terrific degree. I can find a lot to enjoy here, but I simply don�t think WALL-E ever quite makes the leap to brilliance. Still, pretty good Pixar beats most other efforts.

At least in concept, 2007�s Fred Claus sounds like a fun time; whether the reality lives us to the idea remains to be seen. It stars Vince Vaughn as the title character, Santa�s brother. In a childhood prologue, we learn that little Fred (Liam James) always suffered in the shadow of his �saintly� younger brother Nicholas (Theo Stevenson). This makes Fred bitter and angry.

From there we leap ahead centuries to see Fred today. (As the film mentions, Santa and his clan don�t age from the point he formally earned sainthood.) Set about a month before Christmas, Fred now works as a repo man in Chicago and dates meter maid Wanda (Rachel Weisz), though he seems to be a pretty awful and unreliable boyfriend. Fred tries to run various moneymaking scams but never pulls off any of them.

An effort to open his own off-track betting shop leaves Fred in need of $50,000 by December 22. He even resorts to performing as a street corner Santa to scam pedestrians. This lands him in jail and no options other than to pester Santa (Paul Giamatti) for bail money � and he tries to claim that needed 50 grand as well. Nick agrees to hand over the big bucks, but only if Fred comes to the North Pole for a visit. Desperate for the money, Fred does so, and the film follows his relationship with Santa along with a mix of other complications.

If you want evidence that audiences will see virtually any Christmas-oriented family flicks, Fred gives us ample proof. While the film�s $72 million gross didn�t set any fires, it added up to about $71.9 million more than this piece of dreck deserved.

How could so much talent make such a terrible movie? I�ve seen bigger wastes of a good cast, but not many. In addition to the popular Vaughn, we find three Oscar winners via Weisz, Kevin Spacey and Kathy Bates, and both Giamatti and Miranda Richardson have earned Oscar nominations. In addition, solid performers like John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks show up in supporting roles.

With all that, how did Fred turn into such a dud? Most of the actors sleepwalk through their roles; they seem to realize the general crumminess of the project and act down to the material. Vaughn runs on cruise control, as he throws out the usual fast-talking shtick he patented back with Swingers. He almost feels like a parody of himself here.

All at once, Fred gives us too much and too little story. Its premise is really the only thing to muster our attention, and that�s not enough to carry a nearly two-hour film. Once you get past the wacky idea of meeting Santa�s bitter older brother, you won�t find much substance. Fred could�ve worked fine as a Saturday Night Live sketch or maybe even a half-hour TV special, but it doesn�t fly for such a long running time.

I think the filmmakers realized this, so they threw in one extraneous subplot after another. Fred lacks any semblance of focus, as it rambles from one pointless thread to another. Since it can�t fill its running time with a single good plot, it attempts to distract us with other antics.

This doesn�t work. Even when Fred finds something clever, it falters. For instance, at one point Fred attends a �brothers of famous guys� support group that features some fun cameos. This is a great idea for a moment, but the movie won�t let it go; it beats the gag into the ground.

All of this make Fred Claus utterly charmless and generally irritating. The smattering of mildly creative sequences become buried among all the witless dreck. Maybe this would�ve been a good short program, but there�s not nearly enough here to flesh out almost two hours.

With Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr. and Jack Black in the lead roles, Tropic Thunder looked like it could become a cinematic dynamo. However, the movie never quite ignited with audiences. It earned a decent $110 million, so it did fine, but it failed to live up to its billing.

Which is probably about right, as the film never quite entertains as much as it should. Tropic Thunder takes us to the set of a flick called� Tropic Thunder. Based on the memoirs of a vet named Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) stages a big Vietnam War-based drama. Unfortunately, he encounters plenty of problems, most of which connect to his actors. He has to deal with the egos of fading action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), drug-addled low-brow comic Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), and Oscar-winning Australian Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.), an actor so �method� that he undergoes skin treatments to play a black character.

With his movie over-budget and flailing, Damien takes a radical approach. Inspired by Tayback�s mumblings, he creates an immersive jungle setting and drops the actors in the middle of it. Damien plans to use hidden cameras to shoot the action as it occurs, with his actors away from civilization and their usual perks.

Matters don�t go quite as planned for Damien, mainly since he steps on an old land mine and explodes. Speedman thinks this is just a stunt, though, and he continues to attempt to follow the script. The flick traces the actors� antics as they deal with their situation.

When a movie includes such a famous cast, inevitably it comes with high expectations. That�s why it can be good to see such a flick twice, since the second screening allows you to take the movie on its own merits without the elevated expectations.

Because of that, I hoped to enjoy Thunder more on DVD. I saw it theatrically and thought it was moderately enjoyable, but it didn�t do a whole lot for me. I figured I might better absorb its pleasures when I saw it a second time.

Did I? Nope, not really. I found the same strengths and weaknesses during both screenings, so I didn�t feel it opened up new nuances when I watched it again. For better or for worse, I liked it about the same both times I watched it.

I don�t want to leave the impression I dislike Thunder, as I actually think it�s reasonably entertaining. The movie works best during its first act. The various movie parodies � especially those in the fake trailers that open the film � are quite good, and Thunder offers a neat spoof of Vietnam flicks as it goes. Granted, we�ve seen that kind of material in the past, but Thunder creates a clever twist on the subject.

The cast sure doesn�t hurt. Downey came under some scrutiny for his blackface routine, though I actually thought he�d suffer from more criticism. I suspect that�s because Thunder mocks the super-�method� actor, so it�s clear Downey isn�t a white guy playing a black character; he�s a white guy playing a white guy playing a black role. With a serious nod toward Russell Crowe, Downey�s Lazarus is the best thing about the movie, as his absurd refusal to break character creates many amusing moments.

While the others don�t stand out to the same degree, they do well. Actually, when I mentioned earlier that my opinion of Thunder didn�t change after my second viewing, that wasn�t totally true. Jack Black�s performance came across better to me when I saw the flick again. He doesn�t exactly stretch his legs as the tacky comic, but he amuses more than usual. At times he seems to get a bit lost in the film, and that�s why he stands out a bit more during a second go-round.

On the negative side, I�m not wild about the Tom Cruise cameo. He didn�t seem to get the message that he�s in a comedy, so he plays the studio head with an odd intensity. Maybe he does know that Thunder is a comedy but just lacks the right comic style � it�s hard to tell. All I know is that the flick grinds to a halt when he appears on screen; he�s close to creepy than he is to funny.

Thunder also suffers from diminishing returns as it progresses. The first half fares substantially better than the second hour does. It splits up some of the actors and goes off onto a tangent with some Asian drug smugglers. When the movie concentrates on the actors� attempts to make their flick, it does pretty well, but the plot twist just doesn�t work. The pace slows and gets bogged down in material that fails to do much for me.

That leaves Tropic Thunder as half of a good movie. Yeah, some funny bits emerge during the second hour, but the best parts are front-loaded, and the piece runs too long as well; at two hours, it wears out its welcome quite a while before it ends. Thunder entertains to a reasonable degree, though. As inconsistent as it may be, it still has a fair amount of laughs.

Note that this DVD provides an extended unrated cut of Thunder that adds about 13 minutes to the theatrical flick�s 107-minute running time. I don�t know the original well enough to determine all the changes, though I noticed a few minor extensions to existing scenes. I don�t think any significant completely new segments occur; instead, we just find little bits and pieces scattered all over the place. Overall, the extended cut works about the same as the theatrical version; I don�t see one as superior to the other.

Ever since Independence Day became a smash back in 1996, the 4th of July has turned into Will Smith Blockbuster Weekend. Men in Black followed in 1997, and Smith has racked up plenty more mid-summer hits over the following decade.

Smith scored again with 2008�s Hancock, a superhero flick with a twist. Smith plays the title character, a man with tremendous powers who uses them begrudgingly. Bitter and depressed for reasons that become apparent as the story progresses, Hancock hits the bottle hard, and his attempts to do good often backfire. This means he often earns the animosity of the mortals, a trend that Hancock exacerbates with his caustic personality.

After Hancock saves his life, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) decides to repay the hero with a PR makeover. Ray pushes to rehabilitate Hancock with the public and turn him into the hero he should be. The film follows that path along with some problems with baddies and mysteries related to Ray�s wife Mary (Charlize Theron), a woman with a complicated past.

On paper, Hancock looked like it could be a real winner. The anti-hero concept boasted tons of potential, and the flick�s position as a summer blockbuster meant it would feature top-notch production values. It looked like something with tremendous potential.

For many people, Hancock became a disappointment. It did fine at the box office, though its $227 million gross left it as the fourth biggest seller of the summer. It placed behind The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Given the high-powered competition, fourth place is no embarrassment, but since many felt it might be the summer�s big winner, its final standing must be a letdown to some.

Many also felt less than enchanted with the film itself. Hancock earned lackluster reviews and quite a lot of animosity from the usual fanboys � undeserved animosity, I believe. No, Hancock doesn�t dazzle, but it satisfies most of the time.

I do agree with one of the complaints, though. Many thought Hancock offered a disjointed, rushed story, and I feel the same way, especially in its theatrical cut. (The DVD also provides an unrated edition with 10 additional minutes of footage; more about that later.) Hancock follows the thread with the lead character�s rehabilitation well but falters somewhat when it gets into the Mary side of things, and it particularly sags during the scenes with the villains.

Honestly, I get the feeling that Hancock includes the baddies just because it feels they�re a requirement of a superhero flick. It sense that the filmmakers would love to eschew villains entirely but they didn�t want to go too far astray from the standard superhero formula. That�s a mistake, more due to the execution of the subplot. This side of the film simply fails to go anywhere; it feels tacked on and vaguely unnecessary.

The Mary subplot proves more satisfying, and it�s certainly a more important aspect of the tale. I don�t want to spill too many beans because I want to avoid spoilers, but the Hancock/Mary relationship becomes a crucial aspect of the film. It just doesn�t fill out as well as it should. This part of the flick doesn�t truly disappoint, but I think it could work better than it does.

Despite those issues, Hancock as a whole entertains. Some of that comes from the sheer sizzle of its concept, and a lot of the credit goes to its star. Smith has truly grown as an actor over the last decade. Back in the Nineties, he carried flicks more with his considerable charm and charisma, but over recent years, Smith has been able to demonstrate greater skill.

That proves true for Hancock. Before the film�s release, many fans feared that his performance would consist of little more than proclamations of �aw, hell no!� Those concerns proved unfounded. Although Smith doesn�t give Hancock the same depth he brought to 2007�s I Am Legend, he does give the role much more personality than it might normally warrant. Perhaps since he came up through action flicks, Smith doesn�t treat the role in a condescending way. No one told him that superhero movies are supposed to feature two-dimensional characters, so he brings true heart to the part.

Really, the combination of Smith�s performance and the cool concept give Hancock enough juice to succeed. Nothing else about the flick excels, and it does sag at times; the first have definitely works better than the second segment. Nonetheless, Hancock delivers enough excitement, action and fun to make it an entertaining diversion.

As I mentioned earlier, this DVD includes both the 92-minute theatrical cut and a 102-minute unrated edition. The most significant addition comes early in the film when a girl picks up Hancock at a bar. That scene runs about five minutes, so it takes up about half of the longer cut�s extensions.

Other additions seem less substantial. I noticed a little more to the scene during which Hancock puts a drunk Ray to bed, but otherwise I�d be hard-pressed to spotlight any specific alterations. I guess they�re there, but I didn�t detect any other additions; one line changes a piece of profanity, but that doesn�t extend the film.

Did any of the changes make Hancock a better movie? I don�t think so. I liked the theatrical cut, and the unrated version doesn�t alter the problems I had with it. The villains remain sketchy at best, and the film still has its pacing problems.

In fact, the scene with the girl at the bar slows the flick even more. It�s an interesting scene on its own, but it doesn�t fit into the context of the film very well. It�s the kind of thing perfect for DVD deleted scenes; I just don�t like it as part of the movie.

20 years after Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers became a cult classic, the genre that combines sex, horror and campy laughs remains alive. We find proof via 2008�s Zombie Strippers, a flick that essentially infuses the Living Dead movies with hot babes.

Set in 2012, a government lab develops a way to reanimate dead tissue. However, matters go awry and zombies result. A Marine team takes care of the undead at the facility, but an infected soldier named Byrdflough (Zak Kilberg) makes it out and brings the toxin with him.

In his panicked flight, Byrdflough ends up at Rhino�s, a strip club. He dies, comes back to life, and attacks stripper Kat (Jenna Jameson) during her routine. This immediately kills Kat, but she also returns to the land of the living, only partially worse for wear. In fact, her performance skills seem to be better than ever, and her act thrills the patrons.

Except for the one she takes back for a private dance, of course, since she eats him. The club�s management doesn�t really mind this, though. They deal with their undead patron and decide that zombie strippers will be a good thing because the customers go nuts only for the dancers who lack a pulse. The film follows the club�s operation and eventual attempts to quell a zombie plague.

I found it tough to write my synopsis because Strippers really doesn�t boast much of a story. It�s more of an idea than it is a narrative. Really, the title tells you all you need to know: this is a high-concept operation about zombie strippers, and that�s the extent of its ambitions.

Because of this, Strippers provides spotty entertainment at best. On the negative side, it thinks it�s much funnier and more clever than it is. The movie starts with a news crawl that posits a fourth Bush administration, and the film clearly aspires to create some social commentary. These moments seem feeble and fall flat. This isn�t a flick with a lot of brains behind it, and its attempts to offer anything more than silly thrills don�t succeed.

I will admit that Strippers does occasionally provide some fun. It�s hard to hate a movie about naked chicks, and despite its satirical pretensions, the film doesn�t take us self excessively seriously. It still offers a playful take on its ridiculous concept, so it manages to entertain.

Sometimes. Unfortunately, the concept tends to wear a bit thin, as it�s not enough to cover even the brief 94-minute running time. Strippers also sags after its opening. Once the soldiers deal with the lab, we enter an extended look at the strippers and other club denizens. That sequence feels padded and could�ve worked better if it�d moved more quickly.

Strippers also lacks concise construction. It tends to amble and ramble its way around its minimal story in a manner that makes it a bit frustrating. Every once in a while it looks like it�ll become more satisfying, but the absence of consistency hurts it.

I certainly wouldn�t call Zombie Strippers a terrible movie, and it sporadically accomplishes its goals. It just doesn�t become as much goofy fun as I�d expect. The flick keeps us moderately entertained for its hour and a half but nothing better comes from it.