A bawdy summer comedy for adults and mature teens, this movie features rapid-fire dialogue and sincere affection between best-friend leads and strong chemistry between the actors who portray them, thereby elevating what could have been a brainless ode to never growing up into a very funny, genuinely warm-hearted, but uneven and morally ambiguous movie.

John (Owen Wilson) is an optimistic womanizer with a romantic side as big and confused as his monologues about love, while Jeremy (Vince Vaughn) cloaks his insecurities in a brash, party-boy exterior. At work, the two are mediators for couples heading for divorce, but their real passion is crashing weddings. They tell themselves they do it to pick up vulnerable women who are drunk on the promise of true love and the longing for a wedding of their own. They never acknowledge to themselves or each other that a large part of appeal is the way weddings give them a sense of being part of something — of their own connection (they seem to be all the family each other has) and at least pretending to be a part of the families whose happiest moments they are sharing.

We first see John and Jeremey mediating a divorce settlement between snarling soon-to-be exes Dwight Yoakam and Rebecca De Mornay. The duo soothe a dispute over the division of the frequent flier miles by explaining that “the real enemy here is the institution of marriage.” Then we hear a rapid-fire monologue by Jeremy about the horrors of dating, and we speed right into the weddings. A brilliantly edited montage shows John and Jeremy as the ultimate guests, with a name and a backstory for every situation and ethnic group. They know wedding cliches better than a clergyman, placing bets with each other on whether the Bible reading will be Corinthians or Galatians and whether the bride will be a crier.

They take advantage of the fact that no one knows everyone at a big wedding. And they don’t hide out in corners; they are the life of the party. The crashers dance with flower-girls and grandmothers, they propose meaningful toasts about soul-mates and guide the new couple through the cake-cutting, they entertain children with magic tricks and balloon animals, and they make everyone around them feel good about themselves.

That these steps serve to get bridesmaids and other available women in bed with them at the end of the night is treated as a footnote to their antics, since the two are clearly as high on the nuptial endorphins as their female counterparts.

John and Jeremy meet their match, however, when they encounter the Cleary sisters at the “Kentucky Derby of weddings”, a high-society affair with well-connected and wealthy society doyens watching their impeccably groomed off-spring sipping champagne and chatting about sailing and summer homes as they stroll on impeccably groomed lawns.

Jeremy goes after Gloria Cleary (Isla Fisher), a perky bridesmaid turned “stage 5 clinger” who turns out to have a vibe somewhere on the brink between scary stalker and intriguingly kinky. This leaves Jeremy on the brink between terrified and mesmerized.

John is drawn to Claire Cleary (Rachel McAdams), who has a dazzling smile and an ambivalence similar to his own when it comes to weddings, love, and family. They connect, she reveals she has a fiancé (an arrogant preppy destined for a downfall). John chases her, he is revealed, he pines, he makes a last attempt to demonstrate his love.

Cleary parents (Christopher Walken and Jane Seymour) are caricatures, both humorous but with few surprises, except perhaps Treasury Secretary Cleary’s inexplicable switch from upper-class snob to loving father. Certainly Mrs. Cleary’s substance abuse and Mrs. Robinson-style come-on are neither surprising or amusing.

And the laughs seem harsher and the movie’s tone more sour in scenes featuring Cleary brother, Todd (Keir O’Donnell), who is a rejected artist desperate for his father’s approval and portrayed for laughs as a predatory homosexual. Mean-mouthed Grandma Mary (Ellen Albertini Dow) spouts invective including derogatory terms to the embarrassment of family. The attempts at mining comedy from homophobia and outrageous comments made by the elderly are the film’s weakest moments.

Immature “innovator” Chazz (Will Ferrell -– who else? -— in a spot-on cameo), Jeremy’s guru for the wedding-crasher ethos, serves as the terrifying ghost-of-the-future for John as he introduces him to “funeral crashing”, a morbid twist on using those events’ heightened emotions for his own interests.

It comes as no surprise that everyone turns out just fine although they all have scenes of humor and humiliation along the way. Vaughn is the movie’s comic center and his wild, improvisational, always off-center riffs are bracingly funny. The repartee between John and Jeremy is zingy and quick, and some scenes were completely inaudible due to audience laughter. McAdams is spirited and lovely and Fisher makes borderline stalkerism funny and appealing. And director David Dobkin (who also directed Wilson in Shanghai Knights and Vaughn in the under-appreciated Clay Pidgeons) has a sure sense of pacing and an expert sense of what is funny.

While the cast are clearly enjoying themselves and the banter is funny, this party is not for all audiences and many will find that the movie’s answers -– that the ends can justify the means, that no wingman can go too far, and that lying and manipulation can be fun for the whole family — are a regrettable hang-over.

Parents should know that this movie is very raunchy. While starring cast members and humor similar to Dodgeball, Old School, and Anchorman, the whole premise of this film puts it in another category. The primary goal of the two main characters is to have as much meaningless sex as possible and to achieve this through lies and manipulation. It is hardly redeemed by an ending that half-heartedly comes down on the side of love, telling the truth (sometimes), and (sort of) monogamous relationships. Scenes include a series of women flopping topless onto bed, women initiating American Pie styled attack sex, public sex-acts, and references to cheating, phone-sex, lap dances, and ménage-a-trois, and a non-sexual same-sex kiss. The language in this movie is very strong and explicit and includes harsh terms for gays, Italians and other groups. A character slips a rival a nausea-inducing drug (supposedly comic), a parent drinks heavily and refers to prescription medication, a character drinks to feel better, people drink to celebrate and to forget. A child makes a joke about marijuana. Fist fights are unfair and painful and a character is shot in the rump, which is played for laughs. Some of the humor borders on homophobia and the gay character is very creepy.

Parents might want to talk with teenagers who see this film about how sex is portrayed as a casual amusement, while love is still held out as the ultimate goal. As the sexiest scene in the movie is actually a fairly chaste kiss, families might want to talk about how the relationships portrayed are often deeper for not having sex involved. While they love and support one another, John and Jeremy fight when one becomes more seriously involved in a relationship. Why is this breaking the rules? Why is the other so emotionally hurt? Finally, the depiction of the Cleary family portrays a fractured but supportive group. How do they show love and support and how do they hurt one another?

Families that enjoy this movie might wish to see Dodgeball, American Pie 3: An American Wedding, Old School, or the previous generation of mature-content comedies such as Animal House or Caddyshack.

Thanks to guest critic AME.

Like a bowl of peanut butter-pretzel, chocolate ice-cream with a marshmallow swirl, this “Charlie” is a delicious confection that is gluttony for the senses and has novel twists placed in a familiar favorite. True to form, director Tim Burton has scooped a rich treat that is a feast for the eye but might be too much for some sensitive viewers.

Young Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore, who co-starred with Johnny Depp in Finding Neverland) is as poor as a church mouse and gentle as a lamb, a stark contrast to the other children in the movie who are beasts of very different natures. He lives with his parents (Noah Taylor and Helena Bonham Carter, stretching credibility with her upper-crust accent) and four bed-ridden grandparents eating cabbage soup in a crooked little house, where he can watch the snow fall through a hole in the roof. He loves his annual birthday chocolate bar and hearing Grandpa Joe (David Kelly, the scene-stealing co-star of Waking Ned Devine) tell stories about working for reclusive chocolate maker, Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp), in by-gone days.

When a special lottery is announced and Willy Wonka proclaims that five lucky children will be allowed into his factory, Charlie longs to find one of the five golden tickets. What results is pure fairy tale and closer to Roald Dahl’s original book, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” then to the 1971 movie version, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, that starred Gene Wilder. The factory is everything a child -– and most adults — would wonder to see, with fabulous confections, curious people, and imaginative rooms behind every door. While Charlie and Grandpa Joe see delights of all kinds, they do not fall prey to their own weaknesses the way the four other children do with such memorable results. Johnny Depp plays Willy with a quirky, almost prissy tone, a lonely child in an adult’s body, who reveals in flash-back his own uneasy youth and his estrangement from his dentist father.

With Danny Elfman’s music, Roald Dahl’s text, and Tim Burton’s eye for scenery, this visual and musical feast will appeal to viewers who enjoy odd and, at times, biting humor. The movie’s stylish tone, relevant message, fabulous sets and imaginative story make it worth a bite.

Parents should know that, as in the original book, this movie has an atmosphere that might unnerve sensitive audiences, indeed a five-year-old child at this screening left crying after the candy boat ride down the chocolate rapids. There are some brief disturbing images, including burning, melting dolls, an attack by and nut-sorting squirrels, comic but sometimes grisly injuries, and a grotesque dental appliance. Depp’s portrayal teeters into creepiness. But the really creepy people in this movie are the children in who fall to their weaknesses (loosely speaking: gluttony, avarice, pride, and sloth) and are punished for not heeding warnings. The punishments appear dangerous, even fatal, but are not –- in all cases, the punishments are leveled as much at the parents who allow these characteristics as much as at the children. Characters are on a rough boat ride, on a magical elevator, play violent video games. They disobey parents, and name-call in a quirky but honest way. Characters who behave well are rewarded.

Families who see this movie might wish to discuss the differences between the five children who win the golden tickets and how the “lessons” -– sung by the Oompa Loompas (all played with panache by Deep Roy) —- have stayed relevant over the years since Roald Dahl first penned them in 1964. They might wish to discuss how the lessons highlight not just the child’s behavior but that of the parent. Which characters do you admire? What traits to you see you in yourself?

Families that like this movie should read some of Roald Dahl’s books, including “Mathilda”, “The Witches”, “James and the Giant Peach” and, of course, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”.

All of the aforementioned have been made into enjoyable movies, including Tim Burton’s animated version of James and the Giant Peach. Parents might want to share the original Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) with their children.

Thanks to guest critic AME for this review.

No matter how many times they film it, the “something creepy is going on in my house” story has a lot of potential. We’ve all heard creaks and wondered, on dark and stormy nights, if anyone — or anything — was out there. And most of us have enjoyed watching people on screen wonder the same thing…especially if it turns out to be true.

Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind) is Dahlia, a vulnerable young mother recently separated from her husband. We’re not sure whether to believe her or not. Her husband tells the mediators that she “lives in a world of her own.” He even says she is crazy. We know she is haunted by her memories of feeling abandoned by her mother. But she seems to have a very loving and healthy relationship with her daughter, Ceci. They look at an apartment in a run-down building on Roosevelt Island. At first Ceci says she does not want to live there, but after she disappears and Dahlia finds her on the roof holding a brand-new Hello Kitty backpack, she tells her mother she wants to stay. It’s near a good school and they don’t have much time, so she takes the apartment.

And of course immediately things start to go wrong. There is an oooky drippy leak in the corner of the ceiling, and the building manager and the off-the-books handyman give her the runaround about getting it fixed. Ceci’s nice new teacher (a sympathetic Camryn Manheim) tells Dahlia that Ceci is paying a lot of attention to an imaginary friend named Natasha that Dahlia doesn’t know anything about. Or is she real? Dahlia’s been taking pills and sleeping a lot. She discovered the apartment above hers was flooded with water the color of Coca-Cola. Or was it a drug-induced dream?

There are some good “boo” moments and director Walter Salles shows a flair for creepy images and an atmosphere of dread. Tim Roth and John C. Reilly add strong support as Dahlia’s lawyer and the building manager, two more people who are not entirely truthful. But like one of the images that flickers eerily in an elevator shaft, the scares are fleeting. It asks a lot of nicely disturbing questions but then tries to tie it up too quickly.

Parents should know that this is a creepy horror film with very intense scenes of peril and some violence. There are some graphic images, including a dead child. Characters drink and use pharmaceutical drugs. There is brief strong language. Some viewers may be disturbed by the tense secens between an estranged couple or by the supernatural themes.

Families who see this film should talk about times they have felt creeped out and how they responded. Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy The Others, Bunny Lake is Missing, and Panic Room. They may also want to compare this to the original 2002 Japanese version.

A groaning buffet table of cannibalistic carnage and cheesy dialogue, “Land of the Dead” unevenly masks its stale plot elements with campy winks and a dash of humor. The extreme carnivore’s ultimate popcorn genre, the zombie flick, is back in the trustworthy hands of legendary cult-movie director, George Romero, although some might not recognize his touch, cloaked as it is in a big fat budget. This movie is not for sensitive audiences of any age: as a litmus test, if you ever felt queasy hearing a friend describe a medical procedure, this movie is not for you.

Inured to the now-predictable threat of zombies, a city has walled itself off, protected on three sides by water and the fourth by electric fences. Hired scavengers led by Riley (Simon Baker) and Cholo (John Leguizamo) foray into surrounding towns in armored trucks to scavenge food and medical supplies while distracting the zombies with fireworks. Back in the city, all-powerful Mr. Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) runs the city as a three-class system with the “haves” shopping and amusing themselves in a central tower named “Fiddler’s Green” (wink), the “have-nots” providing services (wink-wink) and amusements to the “haves” and the security teams who protect the perimeter.

Riley and slow-talking burn-victim, Charlie (Robert Joy), observe a handful of zombies in one town who demonstrate some basic intelligence and communication, lead by “Big Daddy” (Eugene Clark). A confrontation between Cholo and Mr. Kaufman results in Fiddler’s Green being held hostage as these new, “thinking” zombies advance on the city. The last twenty minutes brings an explosion of gore, violence and frantic races by the living to escape an array of gruesome deaths. The penultimate scene is so hokey that getting eaten alive by the undead suddenly might not seem so bad, however, for the most part the movie feels exactly like a summer screamer should feel – mindless, gross and perversely fun.

Romero is the Godfather of zombie flicks, having made his name with the horror classic Night of the Living Dead (1968) and its more popular sequel Dawn of the Dead(1978). Clearly someone who appreciates scabs, scars, ingestion of body parts, and things that make others say “ewwwww”, Romero gleefully turns the camera to zombies tearing the flesh off bones or pawing through a corpse’s chest cavity to extract the juiciest organs. Parents should know that there is more butchery here –- of the walking undead and of the ill-used living—then in most abattoirs. Explicit depictions of human flesh being consumed make this inappropriate fare even for many mature viewers.

While the undead zombies are predictable in their behavior, the living exhibit all sorts of reprehensible behavior. Characters kill for financial and political gain. The most dependable and loyal character is mocked and called names, and those who cheat or lie die horrible deaths. There is a brief scene of two women kissing, of a barroom stripper topless, and of a character caged for the amusement of onlookers. Parents should be aware that there is frequent and strong profanity as well as several slurs on ethnicity and intelligence. Some characters drink and smoke.

Families who watch this film might want to discuss the political allusions to revolution as well as to several current events. How are the immoral punished and how are the people who keep their word rewarded? They might want to laugh together at all the nicknames people go by and what they would call themselves if they lived in a b-movie such as this one.

Families who enjoy this genre of movie might consider other Romero zombie flicks, keeping in mind that the special effects now look quite dated, or 28 Days Later, a grittier and more intelligent movie (with zombies who move very quickly). Similarly, they will want to check out Shaun of the Dead or Army of Darkness, both of which have a strong measure of humor caged for the amusement of onlookers. Both, of course, have intense and graphic violence and other mature material.

Many thanks to guest critic AME.

Lindsay Lohan tries for three for three with another remake of a Disney classic, following The Parent Trap and Freaky Friday with an updated version of The Love Bug, but this one doesn’t quite make it across the finish line.

Herbie (the VW bug who thinks he is a race car) is as cute as ever, and gives by far the most endearing and convincing performance in the film. But the rest of the story is formulaic and tired, with retro effects that are dull rather than nostalgic and a soundtrack of oldies as uninspired as a K-Tel “Hits of the 70’s” compilation.

This time, Herbie’s driver is Maggie (Lohan), who has just graduated from college (arriving at the ceremony via skateboard, cap and gown over tiny miniskirt). Before she goes to New York to start a job at ESPN, she goes home to visit her dad (Michael Keaton as Ray, Sr.) and brother (Breckin Meyer as Ray, Jr.), NASCAR racers whose poor performance has lost them sponsors. Maggie picks Herbie out of a junkyard — well, she may think so, but in reality, Herbie picks Maggie. The glove compartment pops open and there is a note inside, explaining that Herbie will help solve her problems. “Great,” she says, “A fortune cookie on wheels.”

And we’re off to the races, literally, as Herbie drives Maggie and her chldhood friend Kevin (Justin Long), who happens to be a mechanic, to an event featuring reigning NASCAR champ Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon). When Herbie beats Trip’s car in an impromptu street race, Maggie and Kevin decide to get him ready for the big time.

This is a special effects slapstick movie, and on that level it works pretty well and will amuse little kids. But whoever decided to give a “story by” credit should be sued for false advertising, as there is no story here whatsoever, just a tired formula sent around a tired track. Lohan and Keaton achieve sincerity, but without any sense of character or conviction. Long and Cheryl Hines (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”) are wasted in parts that are nothing but filler in between races and pratfalls. But that’s better than the clutter from pointless cameos by NASCAR drivers who deliver lines with the stiffness of shirt cardboard. We love Herbie because he has a heart and soul. We don’t love this movie because it has no idea how to find either one.

Parents should know that the movie has some mild cartoon-style peril, including car crashes and a demolition derby, but no one is seriously hurt. There is a reference to a past crash that led to some injuries. There is a very sweet kiss and a mild reference to peeking when someone changes clothes. Characters use very mild (“swear to God”) and briefly crude language.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Ray had different views on letting his son and daughter race. How did Ray feel when he found out that Maggie lied. How did Herbie feel when Maggie talked about driving Trip’s car?

Families who enjoy this movie willl also enjoy the original Herbie movies and they might also enjoy some of the other stories about anthropomorphic automobiles, from Knight Rider to “My Mother the Car” and Stephen King’s very scary Christine.

Families who appreciate the race sequences will enjoy learning more about NASCAR and about women race car drivers like Danica Patrick and Shirley Muldowney, whose life was portrayed in Heart Like a Wheel. Teens and adults may enjoy reading Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles, which shows us how the way cars are designed is in part a reflection of our willingness to see them as having emotions.