Answer: 2001’s Ali. Question: what was the last Will Smith movie that failed to make at least $100 million?

Until 2008’s Seven Pounds, that is. Although this flick reunited Smith with director Gabriele Muccino, his collaborator on 2006’s hit The Pursuit of Happyness, Pounds failed to find much of an audience. It stalled at $69 million, a rather tepid take for a Smith movie.

In Pounds, Smith plays Ben Thomas, an IRS agent. In the wake of tragedy, Ben tries to reward good in the world, a quest that leads him to intersect with a mix of strangers who require various forms of help.

Yes, that may be the shortest story summary I’ve ever committed to a review. The nature of Pounds means that less is more in this circumstance; if I provide greater detail, I risk spoiling different elements and I also may dumb down the tale too much.

Often when I wrote plot synopses, I just transcribe events as they happen during the movie. Sometimes it becomes more complex than that, and Pounds clearly turns into one of those cases. It takes the viewer a good half an hour to get any grasp of where the story will go, though the alert audience member will figure out probable plot paths not long after that. Like I said, I don’t want to spill too many beans, but once the film sets up its groundwork, it becomes pretty clear where some elements will go.

This means the movie loses some appeal once it lands on firmer ground. The first act works well largely because it keeps us off-guard. We want to figure out what’s happening, so we’re intrigued by the tidbits Pounds reveals to us. The tale doesn’t tank once we become more secure in our understanding of where it will go, but it does lose a little steam.

But just a little. There’s more than enough character drama generated as the flick progresses to ensure that we remain with it. Do some of these bits get predictable? Sure, but the movie still throws us some real curveballs.

Smith provides a typically excellent turn as Ben. For reasons I don’t understand, a lot of moviegoers like to stereotype Smith as nothing more than a cocky action hero. True, Smith plays those parts well, but he possesses much greater range than that, and we see this via his multidimensional work in Pounds. The film forces Ben into a variety of moods and situations, all of which Smith pulls off with aplomb.

He benefits from a strong supporting cast. Rosario Dawson does especially well as Emily, one of the folks Ben attempts to assist. Among the non-leads, Dawson gets the majority of the screen time, and she takes advantage of this. She and Smith demonstrate good chemistry, and she gives her role as a young woman in need of a heart transplant the appropriate sense of lethargy. (Even half-dead, though, Dawson still looks pretty hot.)

Now that I’ve seen Pounds, I think I know why it didn’t find a bigger audience at the multiplex. The ad campaign offered almost no clue what the movie was about, but one shouldn’t blame the marketing folks for that; it’s an exceptionally difficult film to sum up in two minutes or less. Smith’s name was enough to get it to $69 million, and that should be seen as a sign of his audience appeal. If a flick without no clear sales hook can get to that figure, I guess a film in which Smith scratches himself for two hours would make about $69 million.

Pounds is significantly more interesting than Will Scratches an Itch, though. The movie unfolds in a slow manner that may seem maddening to some, but I think it allows the flick to keep us involved. Add to that strong acting and this becomes a pretty solid effort.

Following the 2002 release of Die Another Day, the Bond franchise took its second-longest hiatus, as we went four years between Die and 2006’s Casino Royale. The latter “rebooted” the series to great success. Not only did Casino earn good box office, but also it proved thrilling and became a fine way to kick-start matters.

That reinvention continues with 2008’s Quantum of Solace. Touted as the first-ever Bond sequel, Quantum picks up soon after the end of Casino. Bond (Daniel Craig) pursues those responsible for the death of his beloved Vesper Lynd with a vicious efficiency.

This leads him on the trail of a mysterious criminal organization that’s infiltrated even the secure corridors of MI6. Bond learns this when her personal assistant attempts to off “M” (Judi Dench). His travels lead him to Bolivia, where an environmental entrepreneur named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric) plans to help stage a coup to return deposed strongman General Medrano (Fernando Guillen Cuervo) to power. Bond attempts to dig into Greene’s ulterior motives and he also deals with Camille (Olga Kirylenko), a scarred babe with a grudge against Medrano.

After the terrific reinvention of Casino Royale, I went into Quantum with high expectations. To refer to Quantum as a major disappointment may be a severe understatement. This must be the most anonymous Bond film of all 22 official entries, as it's almost completely lacking in all the things that make Bond Bond. I fully understand the producers' desire to back away from the campiness that mars many of the series’ flicks, but c'mon - throw us a few Bond bones!

They give us nothing. We get an anomymous villain, a one-dimensional "Bond Girl", and many interchangeable action scenes. Bond movies rarely boast great plots, but this one was weaker than usual. The flick alludes to some super-duper organization that spreads its evil all around and can infiltrate even the tightest security.

And what does the movie do with this? Nothing. Instead, it concentrates on some tool's attempts to make lots of money from overpriced water in third world countries. Yawn!

Yes, I realize that the movie's really about Bond's attempts to figure out who was behind the demise of Vesper, but the filmmakers do a good job of a) making events confusing and b) never advancing that particular plot. Instead, a grim Bond kills a lot of folks - and that's about it. No charm, no panache, absolutely nothing that signifies "Bond".

So what's the point? What differentiates Quantum from a Bourne movie or any other generic spy flick?

Answer: a hint of the Bond theme, a visual allusion to Goldfinger and that's it. I loved Craig in Casino Royale, but he can't do anything with the part here. Bond is so sullen and dull that he's just a zombie. He wanders through the scenes, shoots and maims, and never does anything more. There's no character depth portrayed; Bond is just a homicidal robot.

Can't the producers find a nice balance between the gritty Bond of Casino Royale and the flashier/more outrageous style that marks so much of the franchise? I think they'll need to do so or the series will flail. I can't imagine many folks are going to enjoy Quantum since it just isn't Bond.

Royale was a nice reinvention and a way to redevelop Bond. Unfortunately, Quantum squanders all the prior flick's goodwill and does nothing to advance the series. Like I mentioned, I understood the choice to start from scratch and go with a darker, less silly tone, and it really worked for Royale.

But at least that flick had some connection to the usual Bond. We got the sense of James as a rough work in progress, so it would've made sense for Quantum to feature his continued development. No, he didn't need to be the fully suave and debonair Bond of most movies, but it would've been good to see him move forward in that department. Give us some clever repartee, a gadget or two - something, anything to signify that this is James Bond.

Nope - the oh-so-serious Quantum lives within an official No Fun Zone. Seriously, there's a reason the Bond franchise has endured for more than 45 years: people like the character and all his trappings. If the movies can't demonstrate at least some of the elements that made Bond so popular, what's the point?

How bad does this refusal to embrace traditional Bond elements get? So bad that the film names a character “Strawberry Fields” – a serious Bond girl name – but never reveals this as part of the narrative. The movie just refers to her as “Miss Fields”; you don’t learn her quirky first name unless you watch the end credits. Why bother to give a character a name like that and not use it? It’s like the filmmakers want to spite the audience.

Maybe I'll like Quantum more someday, but right now I consider it to be a pretty bad flick. I'd rather watch silly crap like Moonraker than this plodding nonsense. Even at their campiest, duds like that bear some Bond traits. Quantum isn't just bad, it's anonymous, and that's about the biggest crime I can imagine from a Bond film

• Penguins Sneak Peek
• DWA Jukebox
• Filmmaker Commentary
• It's a Family Affair: The Cast of ESCAPE 2 AFRICA
• The Making of ESCAPE 2 AFRICA
• Crash Landing
• African Adventure
• Jambo Jambo: Swahili Speak
• Test Flight of Air Penguin Game
• MADAGASCAR: ESCAPE 2 AFRICA Activision Game
• MAD Music Videos:
  • "Move It, Move It"
  • “Big and Chunky”
  • “She Loves Me”
  • “The Travelling Song” Sing Along
• Trailers

• Mad Music Videos:
  • The Penguins of Madagascar: “Popcorn Panic”
  • The Penguins of Madagascar: “Gone in a Flash”
  • The Bronx Zoo: Madagascar
  • Alex’s Dance Off
  • The Heart of a Lion
• Nick Interstitials (easter eggs)
  • Move it, Move it
  • Hock Shop
  • Julien’s Birthday
  • Tug of War
  • Fully Armed
  • No Thanks, I’m Stuffed
• PIP Commentary Track
• Trivia Track

As this evolves, Harvey becomes involved in local politics. This starts slowly with his attempts to revitalize his portion of San Francisco, but Harvey soon runs for city supervisor. After a few misfires, Harvey eventually wins and becomes the nation’s first-ever openly gay elected official. The movie shows his ups and downs as well as his death and legacy.

To say the least, I regard Milk as a massive disappointment. The good: Sean Penn. I've always thought Penn was a good actor, but I don't think he's ever lost himself in a role like this. He really transformed himself into someone else - it was easy to forget I was watching "Sean Penn" and just believe the character.

The bad: pretty much everything else. Milk doesn't attempt to be a biography - it's a hagiography that exists to tell the tale of St. Harvey. Obviously Milk was a pioneering figure and an important one, but the character depicted in this film isn't a real person. He's an idealized one-dimensional representation of a concept: the great crusader. What do we learn about Milk from this movie? Very little beyond basics you'd get from a competent documentary.

At least he makes out better than most of the supporting characters, all of whom aren't even fleshed out enough to qualify as one-dimensional. You need a scorecard to keep track of them, as they rarely show enough personality to register. Scott comes into the picture, stays in the background other than as the “nagging spouse", then goes away. Jack (Diego Luna) enters and exists mostly as a red herring. We know Milk will die, so if you don't know whodunnit, kooky, unstable Jack becomes a leading candidate. He exists as an equivalent to the Glenn Close character from Fatal Attraction and nothing more.

The others like Cleve (Emile Hirsch) and his brethren get even less exposition; I learned more about them from the little text blurbs at the end than I did during the movie's two hours. One could argue that it's not their story, and one would be correct. Nonetheless, they come and go with no attempt to make them real; they're there to support Harvey, so they turn into props.

Ironically, the one exception comes from Milk’s fellow councilman Dan White (Josh Brolin). Harvey’s rival is actually the only character in the movie who plays like a real person. We see positives and negatives, so he feels like a living, breathing human being. That contrast becomes more notable given the simplistic nature of the others.

I get the sense the filmmakers are afraid to offer anything other than a 100 percent glowing portrayal of gays. Perhaps they feel that gays have been maligned long enough so let's get positive role models out there. They'd be right about the long history of negativity toward gays, but I think it's almost as insulting to insist on turning homosexuals - or blacks, or women, or whatever - into saintly stereotypes.

And this factor also makes the movie feel dated. Back when we saw few gays portrayed prominently in films or TV, I could better accept the argument that they needed to be idealized. However, that day is long gone. Gays are common in various media now, so I think the belief that they can't be shown warts and all is irrelevant. Milk's insistence on doing so gives it a feel like it was made in 1993, not 2008.

To be sure, Milk is a well-meaning film, and it tells an important story. Unfortunately, it does so in a problematic manner. The cast all do well in their roles, and Sean Penn turns in possibly the best performance of his life. Too bad it's all in service of a one-dimensional TV movie.

Whether that’s a shame remains to be seen. Lies follows the relationship between Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) and Ed Hoffman (Crowe). As the CIA pursues terrorist mastermind Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul), Ferris acts as the ground operative in the Middle East while Hoffman consults with him via the “eye in the sky”.

After one mission almost kills him, Ferris ends up on assignment in Jordan. As Ferris gets involved, he finds many of complications, some caused by Hoffman’s side endeavors. Ferris tries to do his job and stay alive while he also attempts to figure out who he can trust.

With its use of satellite technology, Lies often comes across like a more serious riff on 1998’s Enemy of the State. Is it a coincidence that Scott’s brother Tony directed that popcorn flick? Perhaps, but the two deliver a certain similar feel; I couldn’t help but flash back to State as I watched Lies.

While State took a more fantastic, Hitchcock-influenced view of technology, Lies tries to exist in the real world. And perhaps it does; I thought the antics of State stretched credulity, whereas Lies comes across as much more believable.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it works as much more interesting. State offered a certain level of simple fun, while Lies takes itself much more seriously. Too seriously, to be honest, as the film’s pretensions threaten to undermine it. Lies wants to be an insightful, revealing take on anti-terrorism, but it lacks the substance to back up its aspirations.

Lies comes with a rather muddled story. I understood the overview but the details became clouded along the way. Perhaps I’m just slow, but I think the filmmakers dropped the ball here. At its hearts, Lies offers a pretty simple tale, but Scott seems to want it to be less intelligible so it’ll appear more complex. There really isn’t anything particularly clever or insightful here; the confused narrative just leads one to think it’s more three-dimensional because it buries us in details.

All of that’s too bad, as a terrorism-based thriller could be pretty interesting. Scott certainly brings the usual high level of production values to Lies, and one can’t fault the film’s star power. Neither Crowd nor DiCaprio provide particularly strong performances, though I’m not sure how much room they have to breathe here. Poor Leo gets stuck in scenes where he’s supposed to pass for an Iraqi; that could look sillier than it does, but it’s hard to imagine.

My main problem with Lies is that it’s a thriller that never becomes thrilling. If it took a more focused approach to its subject, it might’ve become more involving. Unfortunately, it feels scattered and surprisingly dull.

For years, Kevin Smith movies hit a wall in terms of box office gross. They could get to $30 million, but that’s where they died. Even Jersey Girl, Smith’s star-studded attempt to go mainstream, tanked; it sputtered after it hit the $25 million mark and suffers from the humiliating fate as the only Smith movie that failed to gross more than its budget. (It cost $35 million, which is a big budget for Smith.)

After all those years of the “$30 million wall”, Smith broke through with 2008’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno. And what a smash it was: Porno soared past the $30 million mark and ended up with a gross of $31 million!

Well, it’s a start. It comes as a bit of a surprise that Porno didn’t do a bit better, as I thought Flavor of the Month Seth Rogen would be enough to lure in a greater audience. Perhaps viewers are sick of him, or maybe they were turned off by the potentially racy subject matter.

Or maybe Smith just doesn’t work for a mass audience. In Porno, we meet the title characters: roommates and lifelong platonic friends Zack Brown (Rogen) and Miri Linky (Elizabeth Banks). On the cusp of their 10-year high school reunion, they examine their lives and find their situation to be less than ideal. They struggle in crummy jobs and can’t afford to pay the bills.

When they attend the reunion, Miri throws herself at her longtime crush, hunky Bobby Long (Brandon Routh). He rebuffs her approaches, largely because he’s gay, a fact Zack discovers when he chats with Bobby’s boyfriend Brandon St. Randy (Justin Long).

Zack also finds out that Brandon and Bobby are gay porn stars, and that gives him an idea. He figures that plenty of their classmates would pay to see Zack and Miri have sex, so if they made a porno, they could dig themselves out of their financial hole. Miri eventually agrees, and the project slowly takes on a grander scope. We follow their cinematic misadventures as well as the way the effort affects their relationship; it turns out the friends may have feelings for each other that go beyond the platonic level.

Which doesn’t exactly come as a surprise. In fact, Porno might’ve been more interesting if it avoided the Inevitable Romantic Subplot. Some will argue that this side of things gives the flick more depth, and they also might claim that it allows the film greater appeal for females.

And they’d probably be right on both accounts, but that doesn’t counteract the predictability of it. We smell this theme early in the movie, and it puts something of a damper on the proceedings – for me, at least. It’s not that Smith can’t do sweet romance - Chasing Amy remains probably my favorite Smith flick – but there’s something about the way it comes out here that just feels stale to me.

Perhaps it’s The Rogen Factor. Try as I might, I can’t suspend disbelief enough to accept that a babe like Banks would happily copulate with a slug like Rogen. It doesn’t help that Rogen – average at best – looks absolutely atrocious here. He’s at his pudgy scruffiest, and it ain’t a good look. Some might argue that fat, shaggy Smith landed himself a serious babe as a wife, and they’d be right. But that’s Kevin Smith, Famous Filmmaker, not Zack Brown, Bankrupt Loser.

Looks aside, Rogen really is starting to work against movies at this point. He’s so damned ubiquitous that he’s wearing out his welcome. A couple of years ago, I liked the guy. I remembered him from his Freaks and Geeks days and thought it was cool that such an ordinary-seeming guy could become a movie star.

Two years and 728 movies later, enough is enough. In addition to his over-exposure, it doesn’t help that Rogen plays exactly the same role whenever he’s the lead. Is there anything to differentiate Zack from Rogen’s roles in Pineapple Express or Knocked Up? Nope. Sure, he expands a bit with his supporting parts, but it still always feels like he’s playing “Seth Rogen” and not a character.

It doesn’t help that he fails to provide a terribly convincing performance, especially when matched with the much superior Banks. Through 90 percent of the movie, Rogen scowls, furrows his brow and spits out his lines in an angry way. Occasionally this becomes appropriate, but it remains an oddly aggressive take on the character. On the other hand, Banks seems natural and believable. There’s a radical difference between her convincing acting and his hysterics.

All this griping and whining aside, I think Porno offers a reasonably entertaining experience, though it doesn’t compare with Smith’s best work. At times it feels like an uneasy combination of Smith and Judd Apatow, mostly due to the cast; in addition to Rogen, we get Apatow regulars like Craig Robinson, Gerry Bednob and Justin Long. Apatow had nothing to do with Porno, but the inclusion of these actors might lead one to anticipate his involvement.

Nonetheless, Porno still feels like a Smith flick. It includes some of his own regular actors – we get the ubiquitous Jason Mewes as well as Jeff Anderson of Clerks fame – and it sports other Smith trademarks like comedic crudeness, many Star Wars references and much profanity. You wouldn’t find anything like the “frosting” scene anywhere else.

Through its first third – and maybe even first half - Porno works quite well. Despite Rogen’s odd performance, it musters a lot of funny bits and charm. It’s not a coincidence that the story elements related to making a porn flick dominate the movie’s opening half. If Smith had kept things going in that vein, I think the movie would’ve been more satisfying.

As I mentioned earlier, when Porno turns more dramatic and relationship-oriented, it loses steam. Again, I understand why Smith would want to give us something with greater depth and not just provide 100 minutes of comic shenanigans; I just don’t think that the romantic subplot satisfies.

Except for Rogen, the movie does boast quite a few good performances. I already noted Banks’ talents, and a few others stand out as well. Robinson proves especially funny as Zack’s buddy and the porn flick’s producer. He has a delightfully underplayed but still quirky style that makes ordinary lines amusing. Justin Long also delivers a short but great turn as the one who indirectly inspires Zack and Miri to create their sex tape.

Despite a mix of complaints, I do like much of Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Even ordinary Kevin Smith is usually pretty entertaining, and this one largely works in spite of some missteps. It’ll probably never be one of my Smith faves, but it amuses.

Footnote: be sure to stick around through the end credits – you’ll find a terrific surprise.