“One, two, three, four/ Bradley Cooper is a bore/ Five, six, seven eight/Ryan Gosling's super great.” No, this isn’t my halfhearted attempt at rhyming; these are the words that were chanted outside People Magazine’s headquarters at NYC’s Time-Life building after Bradley Cooper was named "Sexiest Man Alive" over fan-favorite Ryan Gosling. Around 15 individuals gathered together, equipped with Ryan Gosling masks and signs – in the rain – to protest the celebrity magazine’s lapse in judgment.
Hot off the heels of his incredible, heartbreaking performance in “Blue Valentine,” Gosling took 2011 by storm with three critically acclaimed movies (“Crazy, Stupid, Love,” “Drive,” and “The Ides of March”), and scored Golden Globe nominations for two of them – he was the only actor nominated for best actor in both the comedy (“Crazy, Stupid, Love”) and drama (“The Ides of March”) categories. That’s not enough, you say? He was named Time Magazine’s "Coolest Person of the Year," has conquered the world of Tumblr memes (Feminist Ryan Gosling, F**k Yeah Ryan Gosling), and a video of him breaking up a street fight in New York City went viral (how heroic!).
So what is it about this guy that has suddenly captured everyone’s attention? Before this year, he was often referred to as “the guy from ‘The Notebook’” and was rarely mentioned at all. Still, ask any girl who her dream guy is, and I wouldn’t be surprised if his name comes up. He’s handsome, charming, polite, sensitive, and has that sort of bashful smile that gives off the vibe that he’s slightly embarrassed at all the attention he’s getting. So of course he’s a desirable choice to play the romantic lead.
Interestingly, Gosling has said in interviews that director of “The Notebook,” Nick Cassavetes, told Gosling he wanted him for the role for an entirely different reason, stating: “You're not handsome, you're not cool, you're just a regular guy who looks a bit nuts." Come again, Cassavetes?! While Gosling protestors (and every woman in America, for that matter), will vehemently disagree with Cassavete’s first two points, the third certainly has some truth; Gosling has the ability to communicate so much with just one intense look that words are often deemed superfluous.
This is especially true when he’s playing a character that’s not completely in his right mind. It is this attribute that most sets him apart from all the other leading men in Hollywood today. Gosling barely spoke in “Drive,” yet his ability to jump from sensitive and caring to a guy who could stomp someone’s brain in -- and his ability to make the transition to such violence not seem out of place -- is a great deal of what made the film work so well in the first place.
By the looks of it, this year isn’t going to be much different for Gosling. He has three films slated for 2012, including “Gangster Squad,” which he’ll star alongside “Crazy, Stupid, Love” co-star Emma Stone, as well as “The Place Beyond the Pines,” starring current girlfriend Eva Mendes and "Sexiest Man Alive" rival Bradley Cooper.
No matter the film, there are a few things we can always count on: His ability to make silence into an art form, that adorable Brooklynish accent (did you know he’s from Canada?!), and a overall aura of cool that makes him the closest thing our generation has to a James Dean figure.
If there was any doubt that director David Fincher would take The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and make it entirely his own, those inklings were quickly crushed within the first two minutes of the film. In typical Fincher fashion, Dragon Tattoo starts out with an opening title sequence set to Trent Reznor and Karen O’s cover of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” paired with wicked, psychedelic images drenched in oozing black liquid, making it loud and clear: this is not a remake of the 2009 Swedish film. And get ready for one hell of a ride.
Labeling itself the "feel-bad movie of Christmas" (which has to be the best tagline of the year), Dragon Tattoo really is a story devoid of any happiness, and jam-packed with the most detestable topics this cruel world has to offer – a series of brutal murders being at the forefront. By circumstance, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a skilled computer hacker, and Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a disgraced journalist, come together to investigate these heinous crimes in this stylish, intense, and razor-sharp adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s international bestseller.
If there is one thing that takes this from a good film to a fantastic film, it’s Rooney Mara’s fearless performance as Lisbeth. She captures Lisbeth’s mix of quiet intensity and subtle compassion flawlessly; so quietly badass she makes “badass” a technical term. It would be a harsh injustice if she doesn’t get nominated for an Academy Award amongst all the Oscar-bait performances there were this year. Craig's Blomkvist comes off somewhat flat and uninteresting in comparison, though this is more a testament to Mara’s tremendous performance rather than much fault on his part.
More than anything, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a work of extreme intensity. The atmosphere and tone is quiet and tense, not unlike Salander...but any moment can and often does go from disquieting to full on shocking and disturbing – most notably a graphic and utterly unnerving rape scene early on in the film.
The mystery investigation was treated as a secondary character, and the end revelation was missing that little punch that’ll make you audibly gasp (which isn’t at all helped by a silly change that was made to the original ending), but with a character as fascinating as Lisbeth and an actress as dynamic and mesmerizing as Mara playing her…can you blame Fincher for prioritizing?
Rating: A-
What kind of warped world do we live in where we can see movies like The Human Centipede easily, but films that portray graphic nudity and raw, realistic sex scenes get slapped with NC-17 ratings? Having known little about Shame outside all the praise, I can’t say that I wasn’t intrigued by the prospect of it being one of the first NC-17 films to be seriously packing theaters and getting major awards buzz since The Last Tango In Paris in 1972. I mean, I can’t even remember the last time I’ve seen a movie with an NC-17 rating in a major theater chain. Most either fight it (like last year’s Blue Valentine), or grudgingly re-edit until it’s given an R-rating.
This, however, this isn't a film that’s been cursed by the movie god’s with the dreaded rating…but one that views that rating as, in the words of Fox Searchlight co-president Steve Gilula, “a badge of honor, not a scarlet letter”. And that’s exactly how it’s treated in Steve McQueen’s new festival darling, Shame. When the film begins, one of the first things we see is a full-frontal nude shot of star Michael Fassbender. His character, Brandon, is a sex addict. He goes to the bathroom to masturbate during work, has endless amounts of porn on his computers, regularly hires hookers, and trolls bars looking for one-night stands. Then Brandon’s life is interrupted when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) unexpectedly arrives to stay with him for an indefinite amount of time, sending him into a dangerous downward spiral.
Filled with shots that linger far longer than is customary (especially during a scene where Sissy sings a slow version of “New York, New York”), this is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. Because of the way it’s shot, Shame is slow paced – not boring, by any means – by certainly not action-packed. I’ve heard some complain that not enough actually happenes, but to me this isn’t a criticism at all. Shame is purely about Brandon and Sissy. Fassbender, who has just recently taken the film world by storm, gives the best male performance of the year. When he’s staring down a potential hook-up on the subway, his face morphs from interested and handsome, to brazen and maybe even a little frightening. There is very little warmth to his character; he pushes his sister away and can’t deal with emotional intimacy. But when we finally see him break down, it feels far more revealing than any of the number of crotch shots before it. Sissy is in some ways Brandon’s total opposite; she’s needy, emotional and extroverted. But there’s one thing that irrevocably links them: the inner pain they both share. There’s something about Mulligan’s face that communicates sadness so beautifully and clearly, an attribute that makes her the perfect person to play a character as lost and vulnerable as Sissy.
The bravest thing about Shame is that it feels no need to give us answers. Of course it’s irritating, and of course we want to know the details behind Brandon and Sissy’s painful past. But McQueen doesn’t bother much with exposition and lets us find things out whenever it would naturally come up, giving this character study far more realism than it would have otherwise. If you’re prepared to put your thinking cap on, there’s a lot to mull over. When Brandon first sees his sister, he accidentally walks in on her in the shower, where she makes no attempt to cover herself up as they talk. A similar thing happens later on in the film where Brandon gets on top of Sissy during a yelling match with his towel barely still clinging to him. To the audience it’s clear: this is definitely not a normal brother/sister relationship. Was there some sort of forced incest between the two? Abusive parents? Like I said, no concrete answers. Perhaps the biggest indicator of how effective the film really is: I’ve spent the entire day trying to come up with answers to questions that can never really be answered in the first place.
Rating: A
All you have to do to establish that a character is dead-beat, no-life, loser: begin the film with a series of cuts of the lead lounging around in a ratty Hello Kitty shirt and sweats, smeared makeup under her eyes, with Kendra and Keeping up With the Kardashians playing in the background. Yup, Mavis Gary has fallen a long way since the glory days of high school. She’s the ghostwriter for a once-popular young adult book series that has just been cancelled, may very well be an alcoholic, and is single after a failed marriage. What could possibly push someone that’s hovering over the edge of insanity overboard? Getting a baby announcement email from her former high-school sweetheart Buddy (Patrick Wilson), that’s what. In the similarly mean-spirited vein as another film that came out this year, Bad Teacher, Mavis has less-than-honorable intentions at the heart of the plot of Young Adult; after receiving that baby announcement, Mavis decides to pack up and head to her small hometown of Mercury, Minnesota to try and end Buddy’s marriage and win him back.
Charlize Theron throws herself into the role, playing the prom queen bitch perfectly. She has this squinty-eyed, sour scowl on her face for so much of the film, that I genuinely forgot how damn pretty she is when she smiles – which we see for the first time when she reunites with Buddy at a bar with the intention of getting this family-man good and wasted. And it’s unsurprising that when we first see her smile, it’s not even a real smile at all; when she see’s Buddy for the first time in years, her face and voice contort into an image of false cheer. She’s putting on an act. When she’s not around Buddy, Mavis speaks in this sort of chill, almost stoned way – she’s like the ridiculously unkind, adult version of Juno. Which is actually fitting, seeing as Diablo Cody, the acclaimed writer of Juno, wrote the screenplay. (And while we’re on the subject -- what is with this this writer and branding her characters with horrendously unreal and weird names? Juno? Mavis? But I digress.)
Filled with dark humor, Young Adult isn’t the movie to run out and see if you’re looking to laugh out loud. You’ll chuckle at an inappropriate crack a character will make occasionally, and you may even feel slightly unfulfilled by the end. Where Young Adult succeeds is in the same place where Bad Teacher ultimately failed: showing the human side of this beautiful, bitter, bitch of a woman. Mavis is anything but likeable, but in this case, it doesn’t really matter. I didn’t have to like Mavis, but getting into her mindset definitely let me feel pity for her. Yes, I felt pity for someone that looks like Charlize Theron…that’s how I know she did one a hell of a job.
Rating: B
As a self-confessed lover of all things romance, I can admit the flaws that often plague the genre. The cheesiness. the artificiality. The melodrama. But above all, the lack of realism. That's not to say that true love doesn't exist, but unfortunately, love in the real world is not a live re-enactment of "The Notebook". As satisfying as those 'give the audience the fluff they want' romance movies are, they don't capture what it really feels like to fall in love. They display acts of romantic heroism and grand gestures, but often forget about the small, seemingly insignificant ones that lead us to fall in love with another person. That's what single-handedly sets Like Crazy apart from the vast majority of films in its genre. It chooses to put plot (and even character development, to some degree) in the backseat to focus almost entirely on emotion and chemistry. It's like a collection of snapshots that feel way too intimate, too personal for us to be viewing...which of course just makes it all the more alluring.
Felicity Jones gives a star-making performance as Anna, a British foreign exchange student who falls in love with American classmate Jacob (Anton Yelchin). With one hasty, foolish decision, Anna decides to overstay her visa to spend the entire summer with Jacob in L.A. Upon trying to re-enter the U.S. after a small trip back home, that visa trouble comes back to haunt her, and thus Jacob and Anna and thrown into a long-distance relationship.
This is a film with very little dialogue overall, one that never denies itself the chance to breathe with ample moments of silence. The welcoming of quiet, contemplative moments probably has something to do with the fact that the actors had no set script to work with and improvised most of the dialogue themselves; and surprisingly, it works like a charm. Anyone who has ever been in a long distance relationship will be able to relate to those small, creeping doubts that get through the cracks of a loving relationship and just fester there. An ignored text. The crushing loneliness. Should we see other people when we're not together? What sacrifices are we willing to make to finally be together? It's all here, and it's utterly heart-wrenching to watch.
Jones' power lies in her ability to get one heartbreaking look to communicate a million times more than any words possibly could. While I never felt like I got to know much more about Anna and Jacob beyond the fact that she's an aspiring writer and he's a furniture maker, it was the decisions these characters made, and the way they separately dealt with their emotions, that really defined these characters for me. Director Drake Doremus has crafted a film that transcends words and the typical story structure; he wants you to emotional bind yourself to every word, every look, every smile. Remember your first love. The honeymoon period you desperately clung to. The naivety. The heartache. The emotional roller coaster ride of it all. And for an hour and a half, Like Crazy allowed me to re-experience that on some level. What more can you ask of a film about love?
Rating: A-
Let’s be real now – nobody, and I mean nobody, can resist the urge to start dancing when they hear the song Footloose come on. First off: I was so ready to hate the new Footloose movie. All I could think to myself was: another remake, really? And that scene from the trailer with all the teens gyrating on top of each other, Step Up-style? No thank you. And then the first few notes of the Kenny Loggins classic came on, and I, like the rest of the theater (filled with many who were, I kid you not, clapping and dancing around in their seats), instantly found myself giving in to this high energy, surprisingly fun remake.
Newcomer Kenny Wormald stars as rebellious city boy Ren McCormack, who has just moved to the small town of Beaumont, where dancing is illegal. In the first shot that introduces Wormald, he gets off that bus and into Beaumont in full teen heartthrob mode. He pulls it off well, but he is no Kevin Bacon. Not by a long shot. He’s got the accent, the swagger, the looks. But something is missing from him, that same thing that Bacon had which is the reason he was catapulted into stardom after the release of the original Footloose. It’s probably just the ability to show more than just one facial expression throughout the entire film. Still, the teens will love him.
Julianne Hough, who plays Ariel, the preacher’s daughter/Ren’s love interest, is just as annoying and needlessly reckless as Lori Singer’s Ariel, the key difference between them being that Hough wiggles her hips so much when she walks in her skin-tight jeans that I’d be surprised if she wasn’t in a constant state of soreness. Interestingly, the only member of the cast to make a real impression was Miles Teller in the role of Ren’s sidekick, Willard. He’s funny, dorkishly charming, and has some of the best scenes – including the Ren teaching Willard to dance montage to “Let’s Hear It For The Boy” pulled straight from the 1984 version.
Where the remake most succeeds is with the improvements it made upon some of the shortcomings of the original. I love the original as much as the next person, but it can’t help but feel a little outdated when watched by modern audiences. The 2011 version kicks up the energy, and plays with tension well enough that the audience was audibly responsive, especially in one scene involving a fight between the town preacher (Dennis Quaid) and Ariel…trust me, you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it.
Fans of the original will be delighted to see some of their favorite iconic scenes in the remake, including Ren’s angry gymnastics dance, as well as the end school dance scene equipped with confetti galore and Ren screaming “Lets Dance!” just how you remembered it from all those years ago. And trust me, when you hear that final line, you’ll be more than happy to put on your dancing shoes and cut footloose.
Rating: B
There’s a reason politics is such a common subject in film: everybody loves a good, juicy scandal. 'The Ides of March' is the George Clooney-directed, star-driven tale of backstabbing, the loss of innocence, and of course, the dirty world of politics. Ryan Gosling follows his much-praised performances in this years 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' and 'Drive' with the role of Stephen Myers, the optimistic campaign press secretary for the charismatic Governor Mike Morris (Clooney), who is running for the the Democratic presidential nomination.
Once again, Gosling proves that he’s one of the best, most versatile young actors working today. You can constantly see the wheels turning in Stephen’s mind thanks to Gosling's surprising ability to communicate so much with just one, intense look. While Clooney is great as always as the too-good-to-be-true presidential hopeful, it's his direction that most stands out; as a director, Clooney is well paced and controlled. He knows that there’s no reason to rush things and lets the tension slowly sizzle before turning up the heat. There were moments where I feared he would overstep and slip into melodrama (there are more intense face close-ups than a Spanish soap opera), but he manages to pull through.
There’s something very rousing about this film; it doesn’t shed any new light on the subject and stays in pretty familiar territory as far as the “twists” and story progression goes. Even so, each frame is stamped with a dim, sharp look, along with a strong sense of foreboding, making it impossible for you to tear your eyes away. And it’s because of that that 'The Ides of March' gains my vote.
Rating: B
50/50, the new cancer comedy based on screenwriter Will Reiser’s experience, isn’t trying to be funny. It isn’t trying to be sad. Decidedly non-manipulative, it deftly sidesteps the opportunity to give into melodrama, and doesn’t create crazy situations in order to squeeze out a laugh from the audience. It’s just a simple story that is extremely well told. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, a 27-year old whose life is turned upside down when he is unexpectedly diagnosed with cancer in the form of malignant tumors up and down his spine. I know, there’s nothing even the slightest bit funny about this premise – in fact, I’m sure a lot of people will steer clear of this film because of the depressing subject matter. But what most people don’t realize is what an uplifting, real, honest, tough, and yes, hilarious movie 50/50 really is.
50/50 proves that humor can be found in a subject completely devoid of any glee. As Adam's best friend Kyle, Seth Rogen (who is Reiser’s real life best friend) doesn’t much change the character he usually plays just because of the delicate topic; he’s sex-crazed and foul-mouthed, but he also cares deeply about his friend and refuses to act differently around him because he’s sick. However it’s Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance that makes the film the emotional rollercoaster that it is. Not once does he overact, and not a single moment feels forced or untrue. He’s so personable, relatable and likable, yet he’s not afraid to show the bitter side of the character; here's a man who lives his life with an extreme focus on safety (he doesn’t even have his driver’s license because of the amount of car-related deaths) only to still be stricken with a disease in which he has a 50/50 chance of survival. This is his most heartfelt, career-defining performance, one that I sincerely hope won’t be overlooked come award season. 
With a subject as sensitive and un-funny as cancer, to create a film that’ll genuinely have you laughing one minute and then wiping tears away the next seems like a near impossible task. Thankfully, this dramady beats the odds and emerges as one of the best movies of the year so far.
Rating: A
I’ve never sat in a packed baseball stadium while singing “Take Me Out To The Ball Game” and snacking on peanuts, nor have I ever had the urge to. But it says so much about screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) that my intense lack of enthusiasm for baseball and statistics didn’t hinder my enjoyment of Moneyball. Not one bit. Moneyball tells the true story of the Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), and his successful attempt at putting together a winning team with a decreased budget by using statistical data to draft the best (and cheapest) players. Sorkin has immense talent when it comes to taking a subject that lacks luster and making it seem like no story could ever be more compelling, which he more than succeeds in doing with Moneyball. His token laugh-out-loud one-liners are there, and Jonah Hill (who gives an understated, surprisingly real performance) nails each and every one of them, never letting a possible laugh go by unnoticed.
At its core, Moneyball is an underdog story and in-depth character study. Incorporating flashbacks to Beane’s feeble baseball career after high school, we get a solid feel for why Beane is so determined to change the game of baseball forever and for good. Pitt doesn’t need any bells and whistles to catapult his performance; you can see the nostalgia glistening in his eyes as he watches his team play, his somewhat rough around the edges exterior start to recede as he spends time with his daughter. This is one of the best performances of his career.
At 133 minutes, Moneyball isn’t a short film. Delving deeper and further along the lifespan of the story than was perhaps necessary, Moneyball adds an extra 20 minutes to what could have been the inspirational climactic ending most moviegoers will crave -- but then again, who am I to dictate what the real ending to a true story should be? Nevertheless, one thing is for certain: Moneyball can’t help but inspire love of the game.
Rating: A-
The film opens with a black screen and the sound of coughing – not just any cough, though; that really phlegmy, wet kind of cough that may just be one of the worst sounds in the world. As that very first sound should have hinted me in, the cacophony of coughing is one of the sounds that most makes up the audio in Steven Soderbergh’s new disease-outbreak film Contagion. That is, when we’re not “treated” to one of the films excessive montage sequences with its edgy, electronic score complementing the sight of sick people contaminating those everyday objects we can’t help but come into contact with. It should come as no surprise that right from the get go, you know Contagion isn’t going to be a pleasant experience. What is remarkably surprising, though, is the fact that a film with one of the most absolutely stellar cast in years (Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, and Marion Cotillard and Jennifer Ehle) manages to make such little use of the immense talent at its disposal.
Contagion follows the rapid spread of an unknown, highly communicable deadly virus, intercutting between different characters who are all directly affected by the epidemic, including a husband who just lost his wife and stepson to the disease, those in charge of the Center for Disease Control and World Heath Organization and an internet blogger. It’s not so much the fact that there are so many different storylines that does the film in, but it starts to become a problem when even the main characters start to feel like secondary characters because we spend such large stretches away from them. Even that might have been okay if we ever actually felt like we got to know most of these characters, thus giving us a real reason to care about their well being in the first place. By most standards, Contagion is a well-made film. But it is its lack of any heart, soul or emotion that dooms it into being one of those overlong, overly ambitious films that doesn’t quite hit the mark.
More of an stylistically grim experiment in fear than anything else, Contagion strives to make even the most rational person hypochondrical (and succeeds in doing so admirably), but left me feeling like I didn’t get anything back in return other than the sour taste the film left in my mouth. You know a movie is screwing with your head when you hear someone cough in the theater and your first thought is “EVACUATE!”. Whether that’s a good thing or not, I’ll let you decide for yourself.
Rating: C
Crazy, Stupid, Love is a romantic comedy that hides behind its acclaimed star-studded cast and elements of marital drama in an attempt to disguise itself as classier fare than your average chick flick. But in the end, it's all just a ruse. Sure, it's sweet enough. Its characters likable enough. Take the films lead, Cal Weaver (Steve Carell), for instance: in the opening scene, his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) unexpectedly lays on the news that she cheated on him and wants a divorce. Cal, who retains that clueless, kind off goofy persona that always follows Carell, is devastated. This is a man who, in the midst of a crumbling relationship, realizes how much he still truly, deeply loves his wife. He tries to drink away his frustration and sadness, frequenting a local upscale pick-up bar where he drunkenly (and constantly) rambles to a crowd of no one about his wife's infidelity with co-worker David (Kevin Bacon) -- and in the process, attracts the attention of playboy Jacob (Ryan Gosling), who decides to take Cal under his wing.
In Gosling lies a real flair for comedy. He's got the swagger. He's got the timing. Not to mention a body that very well looks like it's been expertly photoshopped, as his love interest Hannah (Emma Stone) points out. This, the relationships between our many different pairs, is where the film simultaneously thrives and underwhelms. The high point of the film is the relationship between opposites Cal and Jacob; It's the only one that's ever given any real, solid attention, and is where most of the fun and effective comedy stems from. Since we first meet Cal and Emily when their marriage has hit rock-bottom, we never get much of a sense of what they used to be -- making the idea that these two are soul-mates who belong together something that we take as a given because the film tells us to, but not because we wholeheartedly believe it. 
The real winning ingredient the filmmakers missed out on though was Jacob and Hannah as a couple; they're the pair that had the most potential to win over moviegoers hearts, but for some reason are the most neglected, with around a measly three full scenes together, and only one scene to establish their compatibility and passion for one another. Mind you, it's a fantastic, hilarious, adorable scene, and anyone who has seen Dirty Dancing will be totally and completely charmed...but that one scene was not enough to bring the romance for a two hour long movie that labels itself as a romantic comedy.
Because the film tries to squeeze in so many different interconnecting story lines, some of which are unnecessary and expendable (namely one involving the Weaver's 17-year-old babysitter being smitten with Cal), we're never given enough time and focus to any one couple to truly fall in love with them. This mishmash of story lines exists presumably to get across the films overall message that you should fight with your all for the one you love -- a message that is constantly thrown at us, as if the audience is too dense to pick up on it. With some endearing scenes, and a climax so wonderful and chaotic that it almost tricked me into feeling differently about the film as a whole, the moments of excessive blandness, cheese and cliches leveled out Crazy, Stupid, Love to just a pleasant, easily forgettable movie to pass the time with.
Rating: B-
In a summer filled with wasted potential, remakes and unnecessary sequels galore, the Marvel films have swept in and saved the day. Having been blown away by the spectacular CGI and imagery in Thor, as well as a breakthrough performance by Chris Hemsworth, I thought no other comic book film could rival its reign as one of the summer's ultimate crowd-pleasers. Then came Captain America: The First Avenger.
Set in the 1940s amidst World War II, Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers (who will later transform into Captain America); most would call him a weakling. But what he lacks in physique he makes up for in substance of character. He's determined to enlist in the military and serve his country -- only thing is, no one's looking to take in a "90-pound asthmatic" to fight against the Nazis. Then as fate would have it, he catches the attention of scientist Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), and is given the opportunity to undergo an experiment...one that will turn him into a super-soldier.
Captain America: The First Avenger really thrives in the first half, which chronicles the events that turned Rogers into the iconic superhero. Reminiscent of some of the effects used in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, seeing Evans look tiny, scrawny and emaciated -- only to emerge out of that chamber looking like someone that can beat the crap out of Red Skull (his nemesis, played by Hugo Weaving), is truly a sight to see. Rogers is such a good-hearted, pure, underdog of a character that it's hard not to root for him right from the get-go. Chris Evans is Captain America. Not only does he more than look the part after his transformation, but he really encapsulates the humble, earnest quality and determination of Rogers that makes him such a special, endlessly likeable character.
Post-transformation, the film spends a bit too much time bobbing around with Rogers leading a cheesy War Bonds promotional stage show and his somewhat forced romance with SSR officer Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), leaving the scenes where Rogers is clad from head-to-toe in his Captain America garb and taking on the villains for the last 30 minutes, but with Roger's constant patriotism and do-gooder attitude, the authentic period feel, and an ending that will leave you counting down the seconds until next year's The Avengers, Captain America: The First Avenger proves itself to be a more-than-worthy superhero origin story.
Rating: B+
It's been 10 years since the brilliant mind and imagination of J.K Rowling was first brought to screen with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. 10 years since we first stepped onto Platform 9 3/4. 10 years since we first met Dan, Emma and Rupert. And now, after 10 years, it's all coming to an end. No, I'm not just talking about a film franchise. The release of the 8th and final Potter film marks the end of something much more affecting: the end of a generation's childhood.
I feel sincere gratitude at having had the opportunity to grow up with these books and movies, and having witnessed them mature alongside me. If you watch the first film again, it's hard not to notice how different these final two films are from the one that started it all. Gone are the days of Quidditch, delectable meals at the Grand Hall, and correcting each other on spell pronunciation (it's levi-OH-sa, not leviosaa!). In fact, gone are the days of Hogwarts all together. The wonder, mystic, and magic that delighted readers and movie-goers alike has now been replaced by a darker, more urgent, violent quest for good to triumph over evil once and for all.
Splitting the final Potter book into two different films was a stroke of genius; Part 1, as accurate and effective as it was, couldn't help but feel like a prelude to something bigger and better..and that's because it is. Deathly Hallows- Part 1 succeeded in relaying all the loads of information that was necessary to understand Part 2, while managing to deliver a surprisingly entertaining and poignant movie at the same time. Part 2 is the movie everyone's been waiting for though. This is where the action is, where most of the great scenes lie, and where we get to experience one of the most epic battle sequences in years.
It's not possible to talk about this film without talking about its tremendous emotional impact. Every scene is dripping with the knowledge of what's to come, the knowledge that with war comes death and sacrifice, but also bravery, courage and perseverance. True fans won't be able to help but an feel irresistible swelling of pride when they see the Order show up at Hogwarts, when Professor McGonagall defends Harry against Snape, Neville's moment of glory, and when Mrs.Weasley says the famous line: "Not my daughter, you bitch!"...all moments that make you realize the immense power these characters have over you. Chills will overtake you as you watch Voldemort and his army of thousands of Death Eaters rush towards the castle that once represented everything that is warm and safe in the world -- only now to be the ground in which many beloved characters will meet their tragic and heroic end. The speedy 2 hours and 10 minutes running time mimics the non-stop commotion of war, giving the characters (and the audience) little to no time to grieve the deaths happening before them. With characters as cherished as these, I wish their deaths were rewarded with more honor and focus.
Bursting with technical wizardry, everything that is done in Deathly Hallow's Part 2 is done to make each and every scene as cinematic as possible. A few things are left out, as was to be expected (Kreacher leading the house elves in battle, to my dismay, was one of them) and small changes are made. In emotion and intensity, however, which is where it really counts, Deathly Hallows- Part 2 is as close to a carbon copy of its source material as possible. Composer Alexandre Desplat is an emotional puppeteer, his score constantly switching from foreboding to heart-wrenching, and then during the epilogue when we need it most, overwhelming nostalgic. Tear's (and lots of them) are an almost guarantee in these precious last few minutes. And as I heard the iconic "Leaving Hogwarts" score complimenting the sight of our trio (now seasoned, mature actors) saying goodbye to their children on Platform 9 3/4, It was with deep passion, sadness and unwavering fondness that I said my final goodbye to The Boy Who Lived.
Rating: A
Lots of people hate their bosses. I'm sure many even fantasize about how much better their lives would be if their bosses were out of the picture. But normal people just leave it at that...right? Enter Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). They plan to take it a step further: they decide they're actually going to kill each others bosses. And as the viewer, you'll be rooting for them from beginning to end. It's not just that the three leads are so likable (they are), but their respective bosses are so incredibly, well, horrible that it doesn't take too much to persuade us that the world would be a much better, brighter, more employee-friendly place without them in it.
Consistently amusing, the film owes much of its success to lively character interaction; our main trio, aka the most harmless men in the world, are undeniably funny on their own --- but put them together, and jokes that would have gotten little more than smile garner full on laughs. The real standout of the film is Day. Whether he's playing hitman with his two BFF's, being sexually harassed by his boss, or just rocking out to Fergie on the radio by himself, he's never anything short of hysterical. There's something about that incredibly high-pitched voice of his that makes every single word he says sound like comedic music to the ears -- and things only get better when he's on screen with his main target: his boss, Julia (Jennifer Aniston). 
Aniston throws her deeply-rooted typecast to the other end of the Earth with her role as Dale's nymphomaniac, black-mailing, kinky-to-the-max boss. They may say that blondes have more fun, but Aniston, sporting her new dark locks, looks like she's having the most fun of her career since Friends ended. Who knew such wrongfully-funny vulgarity could come out of her mouth?
Rounding out the all-star cast are Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jamie Foxx, each further spicing up the not-too-original story with pizazz only they could bring to the table. The end feels a little rushed, like a quick conclusion to a movie that ran out of jokes to tell, but even so, I wasn't much fazed; the end, like much of the movie, made me feel like I was on the "in" with these characters, a part of a running, inside joke that helps brings a satisfying close to this fun summer comedy.
Rating: B+
When dealing with an anti-hero in movies, we're usually presented with some form of a despicable individual who goes through a character arc and eventually comes out a changed person...a fact that Bad Teacher sorely should have taken note of.
Vulgarity is at an all time high with the character of Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz); she's a gold-digging, self-centered, conniving excuse for a human being (and trust me, I can add way more less-than-pleasant adjectives to that description). She steals, does drugs while still on campus, and even tells a bright-faced little girl that the cookies she baked for her "taste like shit". She definitely has no business teaching -- and she makes it clear she has no interest in it either. Her one reason for sticking around: to make the $10,000 she needs to get the boob job she needs in order to snag a wealthy man who will take care of her. I know, feminism has taken a real hit with that synopsis.
Part of me enjoyed how blatantly bad this bad teacher was...while the other part of me kind of just really, really didn't like her. She's so hard to like, in fact, that one may find it hard to fully immerse themselves in the film. After all, she's the protagonist, the person we're supposed to be rooting for...and frankly, I was completely indifferent towards her quest. Perhaps it sounds like I'm getting a little too deep for a movie of this kind -- it exists simply to make the audience laugh, nothing more, nothing less. However, a good handful of laugh-out-loud jokes (the best, unfortunately, you've probably already heard in the trailers) can only take you so far when you start to feel like you're heading towards a dead end. I could deal with the practically non-existent character arc, but the film really takes a blow from its complete lack of plot progression. With a short hour and a half running time, the time should fly by, but around midway through I couldn't help but get a bit tired of seeing a bad person do increasingly bad things, which, a funny as it was at times, left no room for variety.
Cameron Diaz is surprisingly raunchy and downright entertaining as Elizabeth. This is her best comedic performance since There's Something About Mary, and while her performance alone can't bring Bad Teacher into in the same league as the Farrelly Brothers smash hit, she earns a hard "A". A few scenes left me gasping for air (most notably a dry hump scene between Diaz and Timberlake), and it was moments like that that leave me split. My final consensus? Bad Teacher isn't at the top of the class, but provides enough smutty laughs to give it a passing grade.
Rating: C
Super 8's marketing campaign was the kind that varied from person to person as either a hit or a miss -- for me, it was a super hit. From that magnificent train crash we see in the trailer (which is all the more magnificent and grand on the big screen) to the overall mystery that was surrounding the plot, I yearned to find out what the heck this movie was about already. Then when I heard comparisons to ET, I was sold. But don't be fooled: ET it ain't. Not by a long shot. However, Super 8 does bring something special and coveted to the table: It temporarily lets you re-experience the wonder and innocence of childhood. It takes you back to a time that was pure, and uncomplicated...a time where you were more than content to just spend the entire summer hanging out with your friends and making zombie movies - which is exactly what the gang in Super 8 was up to before their plans were completely derailed when they witnessed a massive train crash while filming a movie -- something they absolutely weren't supposed to see.
Yes, I know I'm being vague, but it's for your own benefit; the less you know about Super 8 going in, the better your experience will be. The filmmakers are on the same page with this, too; once the strange, unexplainable things start happening (which soon escalate into menacing things), whatever it is, it's kept a secret and for most of the film isn't seen at all, Jaws-style -- though we see plenty of the terrifying things "it's" doing to the citizens of this small town. Keeping things shrouded in mystery did heaps to make the film more compelling, and even a bit frightening at times. Bravo Abrams, bravo!
Those who grew up in the 80's will feel a real kick of nostalgia watching these kids use cassette Walkmans, walkie-talkies, and of course, Super 8 film cameras. The young actors interacted with each other like genuine pals, and each had a distinctly memorable quality about them, that, even if they weren't as developed as I would have liked, still added an overall charm (and occasional chuckle) to the end product.
Super 8 had potential to be compared to some of the great kid-centric movies that we all look at with unwavering fondness: The Goonies, Stand by Me, ET, etc. Unfortunately, a rushed, messy third act and some inadequate explanations left me feeling like I was missing out on something deeply affecting, the kind of emotions that elevate a big summer blockbuster from another entertaining sci-fi hit to something that can in good conscience be compared to the now-classics listed above. Even so, with dynamite visual effects, an intriguing story, and a young heart, Super 8 turned out to be, as character Charles would say, a pretty "mint" movie indeed.
Rating: B+
Producer Judd Apatow, also known as The King of Raunch, brings us his first female-driven gut-buster -- but don't think because it's overflowing with women that that changes anything. Just like Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin, we get a movie with no shortage of deliciously crude humor, gross-out gags and shenanigans...but also a surprisingly warm heart to go with it. Kristen Wigg leads the pack as Annie, a down on her luck, single and disheartened woman who pretty much lets the world walk all over her -- that is, until her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) announces her engagement, appointing Annie as her maid of honor. That's when everything Annie has been keeping inside her slowly starts to bubble to the surface -- with hilarious results.
What makes the film work like a charm is Wigg's pitch-perfect portrayal of Annie. SNL star Wigg bounces between being aloof and dry humored to the spazzy nutcase that's always begging to be unleashed from her...two persona's that surprisingly complement each other perfectly (especially in a scene involving a flight to Vegas). Joining Wigg in the bridal party are a colorful group of characters indeed, most notably Melissa McCarthy as Megan, Lilian's future sister-in-law. If there are any lines you're going to leave the theater quoting non-stop, they most likely come from her (think Allen in The Hangover).
Then there's Lilian's new friend, Helen (Rose Byrne). She's posh, beautiful and a perfectionist; she also seems to be pulling out all the stops in order to undermine Annie and become Lilian's new bachlorette party planner and BFF. Every moment may not have you rolling in the aisles, but it's hard not to laugh when you can totally relate to some of the things Annie is going through: the fear of losing a best friend, the difficulty of being middle-aged and single, and the harsh consequences of giving an entire bridal party food poisoning (I kid). But seriously, while watching you won't be able to stop thinking to yourself: why the heck haven't we seen women let loose in the movies like this until now?
Rating: A-
If Disney's live-action films are good for anything, it's their ability to melt even the harshest cynics cold exterior and make them smile. While make you smile it will, that smile will most likely be accompanied by a constant stream of wise cracks you won't be able to stop yourself from making all throughout. Still, a teeny bopper film like this could do way worse than a smile paired with an eye roll, so color me content.
Prom follows a group of likable (and endlessly pure) high school students as they prepare for prom in the weeks before the big night. As is customary with movies like this, we get stock characters galore; There's Lloyd (Nicholas Braun), the self-pronounced romantic nice guy who is desperately trying to find a date for prom--who looks and acts all too similar to John Cuzack's Lloyd Dobbler from Say Anything for the shared name to be a coincidence. Then there's our main character, Nova (Aimee Teegarden). She's your typical honor role perfectionist; she acts like she has a stick up her bum yet is sweet as a button. When all the decorations are destroyed in a fire just 3 weeks before prom, the task of getting everything ready in time falls on Nova and Jesse Richter (Thomas McDonell), the long-haired, brooding bad boy who rides a motorcycle and is no stranger to skipping class.
They're destined to fall for each other of course, but our two loves doves must first overcome their mutual feelings of dislike before they can see each other for what they truly are. Corny to the max? Absolutely, but it still manages to get the "awww's" rolling. Though it's a shame that the acting is so cringe-worthy at times that it managed to transform some of the sweetest moments into the perfect time to mock the insincerity of the line that was just delivered. Don't pre-teen film goers deserve quality acting too? 
Yet with all there is to criticize, not to mention the dizzying bundle of cliches (yes, we even get a "trying on dresses for the cute boy" montage somehow forced in there), it's hard to completely trash a film that will so satisfy its target audience--and even occasionally charm those far from it, despite their better judgement.
Rating: C+
Pretty infrequently do we get to see Robert Pattinson truly shine on screen (Edward the sparkling vampire aside); even more infrequently do we get to experience true, unadulterated movie magic. Water for Elephants unexpectedly lets us experience both. Based on Sara Gruen's bestselling novel, Water for Elephants tells the story of Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson), a Cornell veterinary student who, after the tragic sudden death of his parents, falls in with a traveling circus. When he becomes in charge of training the 9,000 lb elephant and new star act, Rosie, Jacob and star performer Marlena (Reese Witherspoon)--who just so happens to be the head-honchos wife--fall in love over their shared compassion for the gentle creature.
There's something about this story that tugs at your heartstrings and refuses to let go. Visually breathtaking from beginning to end, cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto deftly captures all the whimsicality and grandeur of the circus life. Combine that with James Newton Howard's magnificent score, and the rest is history. Water for Elephants is a film that brings out all of your compassion and leaves you utterly vulnerable to its effects. Like Marlena and Jacob, the viewers will find it near impossible not to fall in love with Rosie--and it's important to note that animal lovers will find it especially hard to watch some of the graphic scenes of animal cruelty. August (Inglorious Basterds' Christoph Waltz), the circus ringleader and Marlena's jealous, hot-tempered husband, is the perpetrator of said cruelty. Waltz' August is multifaceted and impulsive; He has two sides to him, and whenever he was on screen I couldn't help but try and brace myself for the outburst that could transpire any second. He doesn't just steal the scene, he commands it. 
Pattinson impresses with his sincere, tender portrayal of Jacob and more than holds his own next to his Oscar-winning co-stars. Though along with all the endless amounts of praise I have for this film, I couldn't help but wish that Pattinson and Witherspoon had more undeniable chemistry. They're good enough together on screen, and there are quite a few great romantic scenes...but the passion, intensity and urgency of their situation never quite gets through as much as it could have. Maybe it's the age gap? Even so, Water for Elephants has so much going for it that the lack of fire between the two leads is easy to overlook. I don't use the phrase "movie magic" lightly, but what else can you call it when you feel like you're floating on a cloud, completely mesmerized, while watching a film?
Rating: A-
If you're a Scream aficionado such as myself, then not only are you well-versed in the rules to survive a horror movie, but you've been waiting anxiously for the past 10 years to be reunited with Ghostface and the sheer horror that comes from the sound of a phone ringing. After the undeniable train wreak that was Scream 3, it was very easy to have low expectations for Scream 4--after all, once the sequels start to get bad, it's almost always a downhill ride from there. Or to quote one of the new characters: "Sequels just don't know when to stop" (wink wink). But one of the saving elements that revitalized Scream 4 was the introduction of a new generation. Because lets face it, for some reason it's much more fun to see good-looking teens stalked by a masked killer than those already BFF's with botox (I'm looking at you, Courtney Cox). Setting the story into motion is the return of Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). She's come back to Woodsboro to promote her new self-help book "Out of the Darkness". Of course, it's her return that will plunge this poor town back into the darkness all over again (why, oh why, does anyone still live in Woodsboro?!). The new set of targets are Sidney's niece, Jill (Emma Roberts) and her friends, with standout performances from Hayden Panettiere as the sexy best friend and Rory Culkin as one of the new film geeks. In addition to Sidney, we're also reunited with surviving veterans Gale (Courtney Cox) and Dewey (David Arquette)...let the slashing begin! 
One of the things that made the original Scream so great was its blend of horror and comedy. Scream 4 takes on this challenge, and for the most part succeeds--with the exception of a few instances in which the screenwriters lost their footing and combined the two in a "spoofy", (although some may view it as "self-aware"), way. On more than one occasion a character blurts out a "joke" right before dropping to their demise, Scary Movie style. When Ghostface was wielding that butcher knife I don't want jokes, I want to be watching the film through my fingers while my heart is pounding uncontrollably, a la that famous Drew Barrymore opening death in Scream. But don't worry--we still get some hella scary sequences where you'll be biting your nails trying to anticipate when Ghostface is going to jump into the frame. Super fans of the franchise will be delighted by the constant homage that is paid to the original, as well as the fresh twists this new technology-obsessed generation bring to the table (they even have a Ghostface voice app on their cells, how cool is that?!)
At times I found it hard to wrap my head around the fact that this horror-movie-loving group did things even stupider than their predecessors...not to mention that they take the reality that their friends and peers have been slashed to pieces and gutted really (and I mean really) lightly and are still more than down to party and watch horror flicks. Where's their humanity?! But then again, tis a mark of the genre, I guess. With a much appreciated increase in the number of chilling phone calls, more tongue-in-cheek humor, a clever and surprising opening, and the biggest body count yet, Scream 4 brings us the best Scream film since the original...while leaving every element of Scream 3 in the body bag where it belongs.
Rating: B+
There are some actors and actresses whose mere presence in a film will predispose you to hold that film to a higher standard before even seeing it. As much love as I have for Ashton Kutcher, he is most certainly not one of those people. Natalie Portman, on the other hand, very much is. Not to sound like a hater on the genre, but when I first saw the trailer for NO STRINGS ATTACHED I was more than surprised to see Portman in such a, well, chick flick. V FOR VENDETTA, GARDEN STATE, BLACK SWAN…it’s just not usually the way she rolls. But it gave me some hope that NO STRINGS ATTACHED wouldn’t disappoint me… and disappoint it did not, even if it didn’t totally blow me away, Portman-style.
The aspect of NO STRINGS ATTACHED that people will probably appreciate the most is the raunchier humor. Right from the first scene, even I was a little caught off guard, as the younger versions of our main characters, Adam and Emma, are shown at camp together. They share a cute, small, emotional moment together… and then a young Adam very bluntly asks: “Can I finger you?” Yeah…not your typical rom-com dialogue. And, because of this constant, deliciously unexpected stray from the norm, NO STRINGS ATTACHED was that much funnier and far more enjoyable than I had originally hoped - even if it was still more toned down than it could have been.
Constant sex jokes shouldn’t really be too much of a surprise though given the plot (if you can even call if that). The title pretty much says it all. NO STRINGS ATTACHED focuses on two friends, Emma (Portman) and Adam (Kutcher), who decide to start a “friends with benefits” relationship – rules and all. No snuggling, no dates, no staring deeply into each other’s eyes… just straight up sex whenever either wants it at any point in the day. Every guy’s dream, right?
Now if you already caught on to the fact that these two characters are going to fall for each other by the end of the film… don’t fancy yourself clever. I don’t care how formula it is. I don’t even care that we get that same exact scene we’ve literally seen hundreds of times where the girl finally realizes her true feelings and rushes to go find the guy and tell him, only to see him with another girl who she automatically assumes is his new girlfriend. I’m digging this whole set-up, as familiar as it is.
Would it be nice to see some more originality in these kinds of movies? Absolutely. But the lack thereof shouldn’t tarnish anyone’s viewing experience – you KNOW what you’re expecting going in, and the film still manages to deliver on both the romance and the comedy.With some great chemistry between Portman and Kutcher, a sweet love story and some naughty humor, I recommend you see and appreciate NO STRINGS ATTACHED for what it is – just a fun, above-average chick flick… nothing more, nothing less.
Rating: B
BLUE VALENTINE is one of those movies that comes as close as a movie can to actually breaking your heart. If you’re a sap like me, then you know it’s not hard for a movie to make you cry. There are like a trillion of those girl-gets-cancer movies or “dog dying” movies, and no matter how good or bad they are, each one triggers the tear ducts. But for a movie to actually make you feel that dull pain in your chest – to make you identify with a character so strongly that you cry for no reason other than because you see him or her hurting – that is real film catharsis at its most intense and rewarding, and it couldn’t be a more accurate description of BLUE VALENTINE.
What sets BLUE VALENTINE apart from all the other sad movies out there, and what makes its sting so potent, is that the story at its center is one that most people will experience at one point or another in their lifetime. You meet someone and they make you feel so good and euphoric that you experience an emotional high – and then for whatever reason, those feelings you once had start to fade away.
BLUE VALENTINE is the story of just that: the deterioration of a marriage between Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams). Intercutting between moments like when the couple first meet to when Cindy is lying there unconnected during sex, giving Dean her body but not her “self,” it hurts to see scenes that make you smile in their sweetness – scenes that could have been in any romance movie that ends with the couple happy – and reminds us that all relationships that start out well don’t end well.
Ryan Gosling gives my favorite performance of the year, hands down. He doesn’t need to scream or overact; he takes lines that are so genuine and so how people really speak and argue, and because of how he delivers them, brings us more into their situation than most probably want. A single look can convey everything he’s feeling, whether it was the way he would look at Cindy when he first started falling for her, or the pain swimming in his eyes when he realizes that things are truly over. The fact that he is an incredibly likable character just makes any misfortune that comes his way all the harder for the viewer to bear. Even small, almost forgettable things, like watching Dean play with his daughter, are taken from your everyday scene to show what a good father the character is, and is elevated to the next level by Gosling’s emotional performance. It’s a shame that he’ll most likely be overlooked for Best Actor at the Academy Awards. It’s always easier to see the prestige in a performance where one must single-handedly carry the entire movie by themselves (James Franco in 127 HOURS) or a period piece based on a true story (Colin Firth in THE KING’S SPEECH) – both exceptional performances – but so rarely does such authenticity emit from a performance that you momentarily forget that it’s not a real person suffering, just an actor playing a role. Gosling more than pulls it off here.
The priceless asset BLUE VALENTINE has is how raw it gets. Why else do you think it received an NC-17 rating at one point? We’ve seen sex scenes equally graphic in plenty of other movies – only the sex scenes in this particular film aren’t stylized. No romantic music playing in the background, and no constant angle changes to try and hide everything. The same goes for the interaction between Gosling and Williams’ characters. Nothing is sugarcoated for our benefit. While sitting in the theater, you’re never given the feel that this is just another film. You’re not watching a movie – you’re watching a couple fall in and out of love before your eyes… you’re watching how a couple will try desperately to rekindle a flame that is no longer there for the sake of their child… you’re watching how a small, off-hand comment can turn into a blow-up just because someone wants to pick a fight. And as heartbreaking as it is to experience, somehow, it still manages to be so beautiful that you can’t tear your eyes away.
Rating: A
When presented with a title as horrible as THE DILEMMA (all movies have conflict, but do we call those movies “The Conflict”?!), one could only have so much hope for the film. Throw in Kevin James and that hope slowly but surely disintegrates into nothingness. But being the lover of Vince Vaughn that I am, against all odds, some small shred of optimism still lingered. Sure, he delivers his lines the same way in all of his movies – he’s incredibly blunt, and speaks in that impossibly quick, rambling way that most have come to associate with him. But if you find that funny (which, admittedly, I do), then scenes with him in it can only be so bad. And trust me, if it weren’t for him, this would be awful. The dilemma the title poses is indeed a tough one: When Ronny (Vince Vaughn) finds out that his best friend and business partner Nick’s (Kevin James) wife is cheating on him, he doesn’t know what to do. Does he tell him, and not only deal with the “kill the messenger” backlash that will occur, but risk upsetting Nick to the point where they’ll lose a huge deal they’re in the middle of working on? Decisions decisions.
I’m not going to lie… I laughed out loud a few times. If you could get over the humor involving silly things like Ronny rolling around in poisonous plants, there are some moments that were definitely memorable, namely a scene involving a psychotic fight between Ronny and Zip (Channing Tatum), the man Nick’s wife is cheating with. You know how Tatum always plays that tough guy who mumbles a lot? I never would have guessed that he can do comedy, but lo and behold, he can. Then again, it might just be that most of the movie is so drab that when I saw a few precious sparks I started hallucinating comedy fireworks instead.
This is the kind of movie where, if the characters didn’t only (and I do truly mean only) make bad decisions, then the film could have lasted 45 minutes: he finds out that his best friends wife is cheating on him, acts like an adult and deals with it. But apparently there’s nothing funny about acting one’s age. However, there’s also nothing funny about running around in circles for two hours. Watching a dog chase its own tail is only amusing for about 10 seconds, at which point you realize nothing new is going to happen. So while it was not without its moments, after a while I just wanted to see some damn progress in the story already. THE DILEMMA focuses so strongly on the conflict, and so little on the resolution, that when the last 10 minutes of the movie arrived you could practically see the filmmakers and actors frantically scrambling around to tie the film in a nice little bow and send us on our way, and by that point, I was more than content to say goodbye.
Rating: C
The love triangle. It’s been done time and time again. COUNTRY STRONG, however, decides to take it to the next level: a sex square. To even call it a “love square” would be a violation of the word. So any romance the movie’s trying to sell aside, if you’re looking for a heavy dose of melodrama combined with some memorable performances, then you will be hugely entertained by COUNTRY STRONG. I’ve heard COUNTRY STRONG referred to as CRAZY HEART with a chick. I think it’s more like the country singer version of Lindsay Lohan’s life. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Kelly Canter, a once big-time country music singer, who, after an incident in which she fell off-stage (losing the baby she was pregnant with) during a drunken performance she gave in Dallas, finds herself in rehab. The film begins when her husband James (Tim McGraw) pulls her out from rehab a month early to start her on a 3-state trial tour, bringing rising stars Beau Hutton (Garrett Hedlund) and Chiles Stanton (Leighton Meester) along as show openers.
To call this a plot would be giving the premise too much credit. The movie is much more about the interactions between the four characters rather than any inspirational story about a washed up star looking to make a comeback–that’s just the veil the film uses to throw in scenes of infidelity, drunken tantrums, and lots of sexual propositioning – but, hey, sex and drama sells, right?
What really sets COUNTRY STRONG apart from just a country western soap opera are the all-around earnest performances. Leighton Meester, who’s best known from starring on the hit TV show Gossip Girl, shines in the film as the typical “country barbie”. She has that pageant smile permanently plastered on her face, and wears girly, puffy dresses bigger than her perfectly curled hair. In one scene, she’s asked who her role models are. Her answer? “Kelly Canter… and Jesus Christ”. You feel like you know her already, don’t you? Her melodious voice didn’t hurt much either, especially when combined with Hedlund’s. Hedlund has that laid-back, country swagger down to a tee, and his talent and charm are so present that you never once question why Chiles or Kelly are into him.
Paltrow’s performance in particular could have been taken to the next level if her character was flushed out a little more, given more back story and less dramatic moments involving her crying over a smashed bottle of booze. She was undeniably fantastic – when she was flaunting her stuff I not only totally bought her as a country singer, but as a country singer who could easily sell out shows. But while watching COUNTRY STRONG, it was more than unclear what the overall point was. The film ends approximately 3 times. Each time one of the “endings” came, I started to stretch my legs out, getting ready to leave the theater, and then realized the movie was still going. It waits until the last 20 minutes to try and jam a moral down our throats, when I’m sure everyone would have much preferred another musical treat for our ears. If you’re a fan of country music, then you’ll most definitely find yourself downloading the album off ITunes as soon as you get home, which is really, truly great (especially the song “Give In To Me”). And if you’re not a fan of country music, then why torture yourself by seeing a movie called COUNTRY STRONG?
Rating: B-