Lauren Loves Movies

2012-02-10T06:45:00.000-08:00

Have you ever read an amazing book, and upon finishing, wished you could experience it again for the first time? I know I feel this way all the time. So when Leo (Channing Tatum) compared that situation to his current situation with wife Paige (Rachel McAdams) midway through "The Vow," I breathed an inward sigh of relief; perhaps there's still hope for this movie after all!

The situation they find themselves in is indeed a tricky one. After going through a car crash which lands Paige in a coma, Paige wakes up with no recollection of the past five years -- meaning she has no memory of her current life, and worst of all, no memory of her husband, Leo. Conveniently for the film's melodramatic purposes, Paige wakes up an entirely different person, a person she's long grown out of; the "new" Paige doesn't remember her life as a vegetarian sculptor who dropped out of law school and estranged herself from her family; she remembers herself as the preppy, Stepford wife-esque law student who's engaged to her now ex, Jeremy (Scott Speedman).

So, upon realizing that there's a chance that Paige will never regain her memory, Leo proposes that they start dating, and points out the one positive in a truly sucky situation: that she can experience them falling in love all over again, as if for the first time.

Despite the contrived plot, the romantic in me found myself somewhat swept away by such a grand notion; who wouldn't want to relive the honeymoon period of a relationship all over again? I could have forgiven the film all its trashy chick-flick cliche's (the voice-overs, the slow motion shots, flashbacks, cheap wigs to show the passage of time) if it had gotten this one aspect right.

To my dismay, the majority of the movie is instead littered with extraneous subplots that do nothing but take away from the film's overall message. The most eye-roll inducing comes in the form of Paige's despicable parents (Jessica Lange and Sam Neill), who embrace and encourage her memory loss as a way to force Paige back on the "respectable" and "secure" life-track they've mapped out for her.

McAdams' Paige, who often looks doe-eyed and confused, is just as much of an anomaly of a character as her parents. Instead of trying to piece together her current life, she acts standoffish and uninterested toward Leo -- no mind to the fact that he loves her unconditionally, looks like Channing Tatum, and is her husband.

By merging into soap opera territory, "The Vow" loses a lot of the romantic earnestness it should have had. I relished the date scene, as well as some of the more lighthearted scenes, such as Paige gasping and shielding her eyes after Leo walks into the room naked, which has him respond with, "Come on, it's not like you haven't seen it before."

Those words could apply to the film just as well.

Rating: C

Movie Review: 'The Woman in Black'

2012-02-04T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Woman in Black starts out with three little girls having a tea party; they have bows in their hair and are wearing frilly dresses. (Which, for whatever reason, makes us think, “Well, this is creepy!”) They all look towards the attic window in unison. They slowly walk towards it…and then jump out, killing themselves. Fantastic, we’re off to a thoroughly chilling start! Then the rest of the movie happens.

Daniel Radcliffe, in his first post-Potter role, has the difficult and unfair task of having to carry the entire film on his shoulders…which wouldn’t be nearly as strenuous if there were any real storyline for him to work with. Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, whose job as a solicitor leads him to Eel Marsh house. We quickly learn that all is not well with this house, which is home to a vengeful ghost who targets the young children of the village.

Radcliffe, with a wardrobe and complexion that look stolen from Professor Snape, spends the first half of the film tediously walking around the dusty, cobwebbed house with a candle. And while we’re on the subject, this house is cluttered with every cliché in the book – creaky floorboards, a rocking chair that moves seemingly on its own, and of course, the old porcelain dolls with eyes so wide they look as if they’ve been taped open a-la A Clockwork Orange.

In fact, I found the spooky scenery to be the most effective aspect of the movie; no one can say that the film isn’t successfully coated with a veil of gloom and foreboding.

The problem is that this whole set up feels as if it’s going somewhere, setting us up for some sort of shocking revelation – but has nothing to offer past its flimsy set-up. Radcliffe is startlingly dead in the eyes for most of the film; Arthur is a character who is still grieving the death of his wife; I get that. But no human with a pulse can react to the horrors happening in front of him so…unresponsively. Make a noise, run, scream, SOMETHING!

It’s okay, Dan -- the movie wasn’t scary enough to elicit said responses from the audience, either.

The Woman in Black has all the elements for what could have been a throwback to those eerie, gothic haunted house films we all know and love, but it relies too heavily on constant jump scares -- so much so that any slightly seasoned horror fan can see each coming from a mile away.

Note to the filmmakers: jump scares don’t work if you know exactly when to anticipate them…no matter how loud you make the sudden sound effects.

Rating: C-

Movie Review: 'The Grey'

2012-01-25T13:48:00.000-08:00

It’s official: Liam Neeson has cemented himself as the world’s favorite new action star. Ever since his ultra-macho turn in Taken, people just love to see this guy kick ass. So when I heard of a film about Liam Neeson fighting wolves in the wild, my first thought was: “Well, that’s ridiculous” -- and my second thought was: “But I’ve got to see it!”

Thankfully, The Grey is more than just that. At its core, it’s a survival story. When a plane carrying a group of oil drillers crashes and leaves only seven alive, they must find a way to survive in the Alaskan wilderness amidst freezing weather and a bloodthirsty pack of wolves. This is absolutely not a movie for the faint of heart. It’s a somber film that’ll put your nerves into overdrive, keeping you constantly on edge; scenes of contemplative quiet quickly revert back to turbulence, and then back again.

The plane crash in the beginning of the film is one of the most intensely overwhelming scenes I’ve seen in a damn long time. True terror personified. When it finally ended and we were treated to a moment of silence, there was a scattering of “whoa’s” heard around the theater. It’s that kind of movie, one that’ll have you verbally reacting to what you’re feeling.

And then there’s the wolves. When we’re first introduced to a pair of glowing white eyes in the darkness of night – which then turns into a LOT of glowing white eyes – we feel the danger just as sharply as the men do. As the human numbers slowly start to diminish, the already potent tension increases, constantly keeping us in the story even when nothing is going on but a bunch of guys marching through the snow.

Liam Neeson gives a riveting, tormented performance as Ottway, the “Alpha” of the group. And bonus! He gets to say things like “I’m gonna beat the shit out of you in the next five seconds and you’ll swallow blood!” Seriously? Only he could pull off saying such a thing.

While the cinematography is a visual treat (just thinking about that snowy vast whiteness makes me feel cold!), it is actually the sound editing and mixing that makes The Grey stand out. With ear-shattering sound effects (once again, the plane crash!), I can’t remember the last time I felt so present during a film. Director Joe Carnahan exhibits a thoroughly impressive ability to create a distinct and memorable atmosphere and tone. We’ve seen movies that take place in similar settings before, but Carnahan gives the entire film its own edge, with music that bends and molds itself into its grim setting.

There are a surprising amount of laughs – some intentional through cheeky dialogue, and some that’ll inevitably stem from the constant presence of the wolves. It can’t help but feel just a bit too campy at times – something I have no reason to believe the filmmakers were going for. Regardless, by the end of the film I was pretty firm on my belief that there is no sound more frightening (and simultaneously humorous) than the howl of a wolf.

Rating: B

2012-01-20T11:57:00.000-08:00

Some people think that if a movie makes them cry, then it automatically makes it a good movie. They don’t think of it in such black and white terms--it’s something that happens subconsciously. They sit through the film, they cry their eyes out, and then once the film is over and they’re emotionally drained, all they’re able to focus on afterwards is what a wonderfully emotional experience they just went through. If I were to judge ‘Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close’ by such a shallow, vapid rubric, then it would be a phenomenal film. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of film that is overflowing with emotional manipulation to such an extent that I felt extreme resentment towards the filmmakers, and anyone remotely involved for that matter, for using such a heavy subject for easy tears.

‘Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close’ tells the story of Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), an eleven-year old whose father (Tom Hanks) died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. A year after what he calls “the worst day”, Oskar finds a mysterious key in his father’s room, and sets out on a journey to find the lock the key opens. Based off Jonathan Safran Foer’s acclaimed novel by the same name, it’s evident right from the get-go that this story is one that translates much better on paper than it does on screen. Oskar is certainly an interesting character and worthy narrator (though I’m sure his mannerisms will drive some people crazy), but his trips all around New York City are mostly uneventful and are often accompanied by voice-overs to constantly bring us into Oskar’s psyche, making everything feel all the more forced. Thomas Horn, with his velvety-smooth voice, plays the precocious, oddball Oskar with delicacy and heart, making him the best part of the film. In fact, all of the performances in the film are applaudable, including Sandra Bullock as Oskar’s grieving mother and Max von Sydow as the mute who becomes Oskar’s companion on his quest.

But despite the cast giving it their all, it doesn’t change the fact that ‘Extremely Loud’ is a film that does nothing but upset. Why, why, would anyone want to see people jumping out of the Twin Towers? Why would anyone want to hear Oskar replay the messages his father left while trapped in the second tower, the messages that Oskar ignored? I found myself pressing my fingers against my ears to block out the noise of Tom Hanks’ panicked voice. No, it’s not because the film is effective; it’s because it’s simply something that I have no reason to want to experience. It has been over a decade since the September 11th attacks, yet the question of “is it too soon?” is undeniably still a relevant one. To make matters worse, the end is so syrupy sweet and artificially hopeful that not only did it make any genuinely touching moment that came before it ring false, but it made me angry that the filmmakers tried to shove a beam of light down my throat after one of the most morose movie-going experiences in recent memory.

Rating: C-

My Top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2012

2012-01-12T12:27:00.000-08:00

Every year has its share of good movies, but when looking back on 2011, I found myself feeling very – mehhh – about the year that just came to an end. Maybe it’s just that 2010 was such a spectacular year, but while 2011 left me with a handful of movies I loved, very few stuck out as movies I’ll remember 10 years from now. Maybe 2012 is here to make up for the lackluster year, because not only is it filled with promising Oscar-worthies, but a ton of huge blockbusters that actually look like quality stuff. So here it is, my list of my top 10 most anticipated movie of 2012:

10. Django Unchained - Leonardo DiCaprio. Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Christoph Waltz. Samuel L. Jackson. Sacha Baron Cohen. All starring together in the same Quentin Tarantino film. While I love Tarantino, I can’t say that I’m the biggest fan of western movies (with the exception of a few, of course)…but with this much talent behind a film, I don’t know how to not be pumped for what is sure to be a badass movie!

9. American Reunion - American Pie will always hold the title as one of the favorite sex comedies, and while I enjoyed American Pie 2 and American Wedding, I did find that they, like most sequels, decreased in quality. But American Reunion seems to have waited long enough since the release of ‘Wedding’ that it has the potential to reboot this franchise and be as funny as the original. Plus who doesn’t want to be reunited with Stifler, Jim, and Jim’s dad?

8. The Woman in Black - I’m always down for a good horror movie, but in the past couple years it seems that movies with actual scares have mostly been replaced with torture porn and extreme gore…and I’m not into it. So when I first saw the trailer for The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe’s first movie since the end of the Harry Potter films, I was hooked. Watch the trailer and tell me you don’t get goosebumps!

7. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 – I admit it, I’m a Twihard. While I’m not a big fan of the final Twilight book (it’s silly beyond words), I cant help but be excited to see the second half of the immensely enjoyable Breaking Dawn – Part 1. AND we get to see Bella as a vampire!

6. The Avengers – I don’t know much about comic books, but I do know that Thor, Captain America and Iron Man were all crazy awesome movies…so add them all together into the same movie, and you have what is sure to be one of the biggest movies of 2012.

5. Snow White and the Huntsman – There are two live action Snow White movies coming out this year, which is absolutely ridiculous. Especially since I find Snow White to be one of the least interesting Disney films. But with a dark new spin on the classic children’s tale, and what looks like an electrifying performance from the perfectly-cast Charlize Theron as the evil queen, Snow White and the Huntsman looks like it could be one of the best films of the year.

4. The Great Gatsby- Baz Luhrmann, the wonderfully over-the-top director of Moulin Rouge and the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet, takes on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel The Great Gatsby. Throw in Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, and 3D (what?!), and one thing’s for certain: The Great Gatsby will be an absolute visual treat.

3. Les Miserables- As a huge fan of the musical, I can’t express my excitement over seeing this Broadway show hit the big screen. With some incredibly powerful songs (I Dreamed a Dream, On My Own) and a cast of big-name actors more than capable of singing them (Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried), if done right, Les Miserables can be a truly fantastic, magical experience.

2. The Dark Knight Rises – I’m not going to lie, I’ve been amongst the people that don’t see how Christopher Nolan’s third and final Batman film can possibly top The Dark Knight. How can the next villain even compare to the Joker? And to take it further: how can anyone top the late Heath Ledgers iconic performance? But if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that Nolan is a visionary who not only knows what he’s doing, but refuses to make a film unless it can top the one that preceded it. So say it with me: In Nolan we trust.

1. The Hunger Games- First off: if you haven’t read The Hunger Games trilogy yet…GO DO IT NOW! This film adaptation of the first book in the series it set for ‘Twilight’ status fame – the main difference between the two though? Anyone who has watched the Hunger Games trailer can attest to the fact that not only does it pack an emotional punch, but has the production value to actually make a quality movie. Not to mention an Academy Award nominee as heroine Katniss. (Take that Kristen Stewart!)

Honorable mentions:

Taken 2, Lincoln, Prometheus, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Gravity, The Five-Year Engagement, The Cabin in the Woods, World War Z, 21 Jump Street, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, The Amazing Spider-Man, Wanderlust

Thoughts? Movies i'm missing? I want to know what movies you guys are most looking forward to!

The Year of Ryan Gosling

2011-12-30T16:09:00.000-08:00

Now that we’ve reached the end of the year, it’s time to look back on all the big happenings in the entertainment industry in 2011: Charlie Sheen went crazy. Bieber went through some baby mama drama. Kim Kardashian got married and divorced. But surprisingly, none of these show biz shockers define the past year. No, the year of 2011 is to be marked not by something scandalous, but by a “discovery” that to those of us that consider ourselves movie buffs, isn’t a new discovery at all; the year of 2011 is to be henceforth labeled: The Year of Ryan Gosling.

Hot off the heels of his incredible, heartbreaking performance in last years Blue Valentine, Gosling took 2011 by storm with three critically acclaimed movies (Crazy, Stupid, Love, Drive, and The Ides of March), and has scored multiple nominations for all of them – he’s the only actor to be nominated for best actor Golden Globes in both the comedy and drama 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!). Oh, and how can we forget the protest that went on outside the Time-Life building after Bradley Cooper was named People’s Sexiest Man Alive over fan-favorite Gosling?

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. But what has catapulted him to utter stardom in the past year is that woman aren’t the only ones fascinated by him anymore. This year, Ryan Gosling proved to the world (aka everyone that didn’t see Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, and Blue Valentine…which I guess is most people) what a diverse actor he really is. From playing the ultimate suave ladies man Jacob in Crazy, Stupid, Love, to the silent brooding lead in Drive, a few things are always there: 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. So what do you think? Is Ryan your pick for man of the year? Or is this just a major case of misdirected hype?

Movie Review: 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'

2011-12-27T18:48:00.000-08:00

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-

Movie Review: 'Shame'

2011-12-27T18:39:00.000-08:00

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.

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

Movie Review: 'Young Adult'

2011-12-21T13:16:00.000-08:00

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

Movie Review: 'Like Crazy'

2011-11-25T08:30:00.000-08:00

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-

Movie Review: 'Footloose'

2011-10-23T15:45:00.000-07:00

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

Movie Review: 'The Ides of March'

2011-10-08T15:50:00.000-07:00

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

Movie Review: '50/50'

2011-09-30T14:37:00.001-07:00

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

Movie Review: 'Moneyball'

2011-09-26T08:25:00.000-07:00

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-

Movie Review: 'Contagion'

2011-09-09T13:37:00.000-07:00

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

Movie Review: 'Crazy, Stupid, Love'

2011-07-30T12:32:00.000-07:00

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-

Movie Review: 'Captain America: The First Avenger'

2011-07-26T14:16:00.000-07:00

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+

Movie Review: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2'

2011-07-14T17:14:00.000-07:00

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

Movie Review: 'Horrible Bosses'

2011-07-09T12:13:00.000-07:00

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+

Movie Review: 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'

2011-07-06T15:33:00.000-07:00

Michael Bay may get a lot of crap for his high-budgeted, nonsensical, explosion-riddled films -- but it's hard to deny that this guy can make one hell of an entertaining popcorn flick. His newest addition to his arsenal of films, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, is as over-the-top and entertaining as ever.

Once again we're reunited with Sam Witwicky, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee and the other Autobots as they fight the Decepticons to save mankind. The zestful reactions from the audience made it clear how much fans of this franchise have missed their favorite ass-kicking robots; when Bumblebee came to Sam's aid for the first time, his entrance was greeted with a roar of cheers and applause from viewers...and who am I kidding, I was right there clapping my hands off with everyone else.

We're also introduced to a handful of new characters and villains to keep things interesting and the plot twisting. Among them is Sam's new girlfriend Carly, with Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley taking over the female lead role vacated by Megan Fox. She has no previous acting experience, but then again, she's breathtakingly gorgeous and has legs for days, and that and that alone qualifies her for the role. The guys won't be complaining. Always a pleasure to watch, Shia LaBeouf brings his manic charm and spunk to the role of Sam, and is always there to bring the laughs while the action is taking a rest. And trust me, the laughs are plentiful.

A constant visual spectacle, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is at the top of its game. Bay, never one to pass up the opportunity to do an epic sweeping overhead shot of the destruction he's brought to screen, has ample time to show off just how extravagant his film is with the hour long end battle sequence in Chicago -- something that is even further enhanced by the eye-popping (yet surprisingly not garish) 3D, which is definitely worth the few extra bucks to give you the best possible viewing experience. The non-stop action felt a little superfluous at times, especially towards the end, but with so many explosions and the constant sound of clanking metal surrounding you, it's hard to get distracted, even while you're starting to get a bit anxious for things to wrap up already.

The plot may be thin, but sometimes you go to the movies just craving a fun, turn-your-brain-off adrenaline rush -- and you'll be hard-pressed to find another summer blockbuster that delivers this quite as satisfyingly as Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

Rating: B+

Movie Review: 'Bad Teacher'

2011-06-27T12:59:00.001-07:00

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

Movie Review: 'Super 8'

2011-06-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

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+

Movie Review: 'Bridesmaids'

2011-06-09T12:23:00.000-07:00

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-

Movie Review: 'Prom'

2011-05-04T08:34:00.000-07:00

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+

Movie Review: 'Water for Elephants'

2011-04-25T09:01:00.001-07:00

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-

Movie Review: 'Scream 4'

2011-04-15T10:09:00.000-07:00

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+

Movie Review: 'No Strings Attached'

2011-01-21T16:31:00.000-08:00

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

Movie Review: 'Blue Valentine'

2011-01-13T16:36:00.000-08:00

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

Movie Review: 'The Dilemma'

2011-01-12T08:45:00.000-08:00

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

Movie Review: 'Country Strong'

2011-01-07T08:52:00.000-08:00

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-

Movie Review: 'The King's Speech'

2010-12-24T08:56:00.000-08:00

It’s hard work to convincingly fake a stutter. Seriously, give it a try. No easy task. This alone makes Colin Firth’s performance something special. Add in all the depth and emotion he brings to his character, and you got yourself a performance made of gold. Firth plays Prince Albert (the man who would later become King George VI), who’s plagued with a debilitating nervous stammer. Knowing that he may soon take the throne, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) hires unorthodox speech therapist Lionel (Geoffrey Rush) to help him. We already know this is going to be one of those stories: the story of how these two people forever make an impact on each others lives and become unlikely friends in the process. Formula inspirational Oscar stuff. But if a film adeptly applies this formula, and manages to do it well, this formula will almost always work without fail. And in the case of THE KING’S SPEECH, it gets the royal treatment it deserves.

Is it the best picture of the year? No. Best ensemble cast? Quite possibly. Helena Bonham Carter, who most have come to identify with the strange roles she’s played in FIGHT CLUB, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, SWEENEY TODD, and the HARRY POTTER series, shines as the King’s loving and supportive wife. What surprised me most with her ability to portray someone sensitive, delicate, determined and, well… normal. And of course she does so while maintaining that ghost white pallor her face always seems to have. But like I said before, this is Firth’s movie, through and through. He engages the audience more so than any other actor this year. He’s very easy to sympathize with, and combined with Lionel’s quirky persona (a fantastic performance from Rush), watching them interact with each other is intriguing, especially in the scenes where Lionel pushes and provokes Albert (hearing Colin Firth curse incessantly–which you will luckily get to experience–is like hilarious music to my ears).

Have you ever had something you wanted to achieve so badly, but the more you failed the more you gave up? Most of the time insisting that it’s impossible is easier than enduring more failed attempts. Albert (or “Bertie” as Lionel likes to call him) has gotten used to using this defense mechanism. In one of the first scenes, it shows him attempting to make a public speech. Watching him stammer like that, the pain and embarrassment so evidently etched into his face, made my heart hurt. The frustration he suffers through afterwards was palpable. During his first grudging visit to Lionel, Lionel does something rather interesting: he has Albert put on headphones with loud music playing (preventing him from being able to hear his own voice) and has him read something aloud. Lionel, who had been recording Albert’s reading, gives him the record for him to listen to on his own convenience. In perhaps my favorite scene, Albert listens to the recording…and hears his voice, the voice he is so used to loathing and hearing crack in the middle of his choppy sentences, speaking clearly. And so Albert and Lionel’s journey begins.

When the inevitable speech came at the end of the movie, I was holding my breath. I knew he was going to prevail. But nevertheless, I wanted it so badly, and Lionel, Albert and Elizabeth wanted it so badly, that we were like one joint unit. The end shot is exactly like you would expect–when Albert walks outside after his speech, surrounded by people congratulating him, he makes eye contact with Lionel and they smile at each other in solidarity, Karate-Kid-style. And who am I kidding, I was right there with them, a proud smile plastered on my face.

Rating: A-

Movie Review: 'Gulliver's Travels'

2010-12-24T08:54:00.000-08:00

Jack Black only knows how to play one person: Jack Black. This is pivotal information, because whether or not you like Jack Black is a key factor in deciphering whether or not you will be able to enjoy GULLIVER’S TRAVELS in the slightest. How much you love the childhood story is irrelevant. Jack Black is key.

Like I was saying, Jack Black plays Jack Black, only in the film he goes by a different name, Gulliver. When we first see him he’s playing with two Star Wars action figures, employing voices and all. He plays Guitar Hero in between breaks at work. We have a hardcore nerd (in the worst sense) on our hands here. Gulliver works in the mail room at a travel magazine, his place of work for the past 11 years. Probably the only thing keeping him content there is his insane crush on Darcy (Amanda Peet), a travel editor at the magazine. He knows he’s just drifting through life, letting it pass him by. He’s even referred to (more than once, I might add) by himself and others as “the little guy in the mail room” (pun much?). But big things (see, I can do it ,too) are soon to happen to Gulliver. When Darcy asks him to take on an assignment at sea to report on the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, the fun begins. While at sea, Gulliver gets caught in a terrible storm (but I suspect the special effects were worse to endure than the storm), and he wakes up to find himself tied down, and surrounded by an army of little people… lots and lots of little, thumb-sized people, in a strange land called Liliput.

A world where Jack Black is a giant. Oh the possibilities. A house is on fire and all the people inside are going to burn to death! So, of course, Gulliver pees on it. To be honest, I was just relieved that they didn’t show us a giant version of Jack Black’s member in 3-D. We are subjected to his ass in 3-D, but hey, you win some, you lose some. You’d be surprised how good the cast is though, especially for a silly movie like this that has only had bad buzz surrounding it since the debut of its first trailer. Our main Liliputians are played by Emily Blunt, Jason Segel, and Billy Connolly. Blunt plays the beautiful Princess Mary, and Segel the lowly commoner who fancies her, Horatio. Their charm was the saving grace of the film, and I have to admit that I enjoyed watching Gulliver coach Horatio in the real way to court a woman. Most of the humor was flat though, and more often than not we’re overwhelmed with pop culture reference after pop culture reference – TITANIC, Kiss, Marky Mark, you name it – and while amusing, referencing to things of much more value than the film you’re starring in does not a good movie make.

Rating: C

Movie Review: 'Little Fockers'

2010-12-22T09:02:00.000-08:00

MEET THE PARENTS is a modern classic. Who can forget seeing Robert De Niro hook Ben Stiller up to a lie detector machine, or Stiller trying to describe how to milk a cat? Then came MEET THE FOCKERS, which thanks to the fresh new presence of Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman as Greg’s eccentric parents, was amusing enough. Now the excuse (and trust me, it is nothing more than a poor excuse) for the 3rd one: it’s time to meet the baby Fockers! Greg and Pam have been happily married for 10 years, and now have two adorable twins. When the whole family gets together to celebrate the twins’ birthday, havoc ensues (surprise!).

Lately it seems like there is a distinct downside to creating something good: it will almost always lead to something bad. The humor that made MEET THE PARENTS the great movie that it was–there are no traces of that wit or relevance here. Relying almost entirely on mistaken situations (ones that could very easily be cleared up if God forbid any of the characters had the foresight to actually communicate with each other), tired movie references (Godfocker, really??), and physical humor, LITTLE FOCKERS is nothing more than the product of a studio that wants more money, and actors that clearly didn’t have any better options…not to mention a god-awful script. I mean really, the director of the first two peaced out on this one for a damn good reason. Although significantly downgraded in quality, we do get some of the same old, same old, “I’m watching you”, De Niro-style material…which I would have been fine with, perfectly content with even–if it were not for the fact that any time the film deviated from the same old, it found itself in comedy-for-retards territory. Kids projectile vomiting is NOT funny, no matter what anyone says. One of the horrendous additions to the film was Jessica Alba playing a peppy drug company rep. Yeah she’s gorgeous, I don’t think anyone needs to be convinced of that. But no amount of hotness could detract anyone from how annoying and mind-numbingly ditsy her character is. If I were a doctor (or a nurse, in Greg’s case), I would stay as far as humanly possible away from any drug she’s associated with. Anyone who raises their fist and says “knuckles” to try and gain my good graces will not succeed.

A friend of mine referred to LITTLE FOCKERS as “as good as you can expect from the 3rd of the franchise”. To me, that’s not good enough. Why make a third if you already know its going to be mediocre? Because the filmmakers are guaranteed to make loads of money, that’s why. So the more pressing question must be asked: Why see the 3rd if even the trailer looks mediocre? I know why people will see it. It’s the same reason why I had a shred of hope that it might actually exceed my expectations. I just love these characters. Unfortunately, when the third in the franchise plays out like the pointless, not just mediocre, but bad, movie it is, I have to warn all those tempted to waste their money: re-watch the first two again instead. You still have the chance to keep your love of the characters and the first film in tact. It’s too late for me.

Rating: C-

Movie Review: 'True Grit'

2010-12-22T08:58:00.000-08:00

I’ve never been a western kinda gal. Most westerns I’ve tried to watch carry that slow-like-molasses pace, employing those same ingredients time and time again. I’ve come to believe that if I’ve seen one good western, I’ve seen them all. The Coen brothers seem to be the only filmmakers that can make me not only tolerate a western, but actually enjoy it. Due in no small part to all around excellent performances from the cast and a sharp and witty script, TRUE GRIT will be a western lover’s new favorite movie…and worthy journey even for those who are indifferent to the genre. A remake of the 1969 John Wayne film, TRUE GRIT follows Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) a 14-year old girl who hires U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help track down her father’s murderer (Josh Brolin).

The film’s best quality is how well defined the characters are, Mattie especially. She’s a headstrong girl; she’s not afraid to haggle with someone if she feels they’re trying to take advantage of her financially, and she never passes up the opportunity to threaten people with legal action. In short, she’s quite a pistol. I wish I had some of her spunk when I was her age. Paired with the eye-patch-wearing, words-slurring Cogburn, they make quite an interesting duo. Bridges takes on his role as Cogburn with full force. It may not be remembered years to come like his iconic role as “The Dude” in the Coen brothers’ THE BIG LEBOWSKI, but he does a hell of a job as this rough around the edges drunk…maybe even worthy of an Oscar nomination. Matt Damon rounds out the main cast as LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger helping Mattie and Cogburn who’s keen on bringing down the same man. This is Damon like you’ve never seen him. He’s not using his pretty boy looks here, especially in one shocking scene when he spanks the crap out of Mattie because she pisses him off. Damon, is that really you? He could have fooled me.

What kept me going, even during the “slow” parts when not much was going on, was the unexpected humor. Filled with some great one-liners, TRUE GRIT found a steady balance of laughs, shoot-outs, and suspense. The best way to keep a viewer interested? Don’t give them what they crave until the last possible moment. While watching I felt so bad for Mattie; she wants to avenge her fathers death, wants to bring his killer to justice, and people are giving her a hard time because of her age. But I felt for her cause, and I wanted that bastard dead. When you have an actor as famous and capable as Brolin in the role of the killer, you’d expect the film to use him as much as possible. Instead, the Coen brothers wisely don’t even show him until the very end, when Mattie comes face to face with him. They make the most out of his super short screen time though, with an end that kicks the crap out of the one in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (sorry, but I’ll never understand that abrupt ending)… an end that is both satisfying and fitting. Delicious retribution delivered!

Rating: B+

Movie Review: 'Yogi Bear'

2010-12-17T19:11:00.000-08:00

I usually react in one of two possible ways after seeing a truly awful movie. Most often, I want to find a gun and shoot all those involved dead…but sometimes (albeit rarely), the second reaction occurs: I leave the theater not angry, but baffled. Instead of wanting the filmmakers to die a painful death, I instead, ironic as it may seem, want to be in their company; I want nothing more than to amiably sit down with those involved, and have a real, honest conversation with them during which I would get to ask them the inevitable question: why, why, did you think making this movie was a good idea? Because really, I want to know. I want to shake hands with those who pitched the idea and got it green lit, because they are clearly Jedi masters of bullshit. This phenomenon occurred as I walked out of the theater in a daze after experiencing YOGI BEAR. To be fair, YOGI BEAR isn’t the suicide bombing I was expecting…just a simple train wreak.

If you’re under the age of seven (and I would be really weirded out if any of you out there reading this were), then maybe you’ll find some fulfillment from the non-stop slapstick of YOGI BEAR. We get bears who walk and talk like humans, steal picnic baskets, hurt themselves (constantly), dance, water ski and steal more picnic baskets…which, believe me, gets very old, very quickly. Why is any of this funny? Because they’re bears! Get it?? No, I don’t either. And all of this is somehow squeezed into a thin plot involving a documentary filmmaker, Erica (Anna Faris), who comes to Jellystone Park to make a movie about Yogi (Dan Aykroyd) and Boo-Boo (Justin Timberlake). When greedy Mayor Brown decides to shut down the park and sell the land (there always needs to be a villain, right?), Yogi, Boo-Boo, Ranger Smith and Erica must find a way to save the park before it’s too late.

I’ll admit, Boo-Boo is so adorable (and very well-voiced by Timberlake) that when I was staring into his big brown eyes, for a few seconds I would forget that I was in a no-laughs movie that will make any parent dragged to it by their child wish they opted for an abortion. I love kids’ movies. Hell, TANGLED, TOY STORY 3, and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON are three of my favorite movies of the year. So I know the difference between a good animated movie, and one that exerts no effort into the script. These writers know that they don’t need to be clever in order to sell movie tickets to preschool kids and their parents (at 3-D prices, no less), and they fully take advantage of that fact. The 3-D was pretty great, but that fact just made me all the angrier that this technology would be used to charge innocent people more money for a movie as unworthy as YOGI BEAR.

Rating: D+

Movie Review: 'The Fighter'

2010-12-17T09:04:00.000-08:00

When I started hearing the non-stop hype surrounding THE FIGHTER, I was honestly a little annoyed. What says “Oscar bait” more than an inspirational boxing movie that’s based on a true story? Do we really need another one of these? The list of acclaimed boxing movies is endless: RAGING BULL, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, ALI, CINDERELLA MAN, ROCKY, and so on and so forth. Nonetheless, despite my prejudices, I must admit that THE FIGHTER is a fantastic addition into the genre. The film is about the early years of real life fighter Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), and his brother and trainer Dicky (Christian Bale), who helped lead him to a title win. While I am getting tired of seeing another one of these movies come out every single year, I’m starting to understand the fascination they bring out in people. To have a dream like this, and to go after it with such fervor, is no easy feat. It’s painful. It’s humiliating. And you need to have your wits about you to be able to knock down someone bigger than you–or as we saw in one of the movie’s best scenes, someone who has 20 pounds on you.

Wahlberg plays Micky sincerely and with the amount of heart necessary for someone with his resilience. What takes the film from good to great though, is Christian Bale’s phenomenal performance. I read somewhere that people who came across Bale while filming mistook him for the real Dicky. Now I don’t know anything about what the real guy was like, but Bale plays the character so specifically, with such a particular way of walking and speaking, that I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true. With his many layers, this is no easy character to play; Dicky wants so badly to have a second shot at glory and to be there for his family, but drugs and crime get in the way, leading to him having a stint in prison. A lot of the film (and at times maybe more than I would have preferred) focuses on the family dynamic, but not just the one between Micky and Dicky; it extends even further, bringing their mother (Melissa Leo) and many sisters into the mix as well. I felt like I totally knew all these people. I understood their jealously (much of it directed towards Micky’s bartender girlfriend Charlene, a wonderfully unexpected performance from Amy Adams) and dependence on Micky’s boxing career, even though they were far from likable. The fighting scenes were spectacular, and at times, I wished there was more fighting than family drama, because those scenes were just that good. And this is coming from someone who actually dislikes boxing.

Rating: B+

Movie Review: 'Black Swan'

2010-12-16T20:31:00.000-08:00

If you’re seeing BLACK SWAN because you want to see a “dance movie,” then you’re seeing it for the wrong reasons. This thriller is as far as you can get from the likes of CENTER STAGE, and it is its intensity, boldness, and blatant sexuality that will seduce any viewer…or at least those who can handle it. When Nina (Natalie Portman) gets cast in the coveted role of the Swan Queen in a new take on the classic ballet Swan Lake, everyone knows she’s perfect to play the role of the naive, innocent white swan… but can she play the evil, seductive black swan as well? This is the question that’s posed numerous times by the artistic director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel). In one scene, Thomas invites Nina back to his place for drinks. While there, he asks if she’s a virgin. I was taken aback by his bluntness towards Nina, but it’s understandable why someone might think she is. With her soft-spoken nature, over-protective mother who she still lives with, and her somewhat reserved, straight-laced manner, she’s like a poster child for purity. It’s not much later that we meet her exact opposite, Lily (Mila Kunis). She’s outspoken, and her every look, every movement is dripping with sensuality. Plus, at least to Nina, she seems to be after her and her role.

Director Darren Aronofsky has crafted a uniquely remarkable film. His combination of the grace and elegance of dance with the horror that Nina is experiencing is one that you would never expect to go well together… but in fact, they run parallel to and compliment each other much like the two roles Nina must master. There are a multitude of cringe-worthy scenes, some which had me covering my eyes long after the shot was over just to ensure to myself that it was, in fact, over. If you’re squeamish about fingernails, then you’ll be doing the same. Don’t be surprised if you hear gasps echo throughout the theater during some scenes (I’d be more surprised if you didn’t). Much of the time, it’s not even what’s on screen that’s causing anxiety in the viewer, but the way the film plays them up. Instead of overwhelming the audience with your standard “things popping out at you” gimmick to get a scare, we’re almost always exposed to the characters’ horrified reactions first… and then the horror that they are seeing/experiencing. There is no shortage of trippy, psychosis-inducing imagery in this movie.

Natalie Portman is, without a doubt, as good as she’s ever been. She not only looks like a ballet dancer (thanks to losing 20 pounds and 8 hours of training a day) but she dances so beautifully that it’s like she’s been doing it all her life. She manages to jump from her natural, white swan demeanor to her paranoid, disturbed self with the snap of a finger. From the very beginning of the film, Nina’s mother often calls her her “sweet girl”…and while she seems as sweet as sugar, you can just tell that underneath the surface she’s a little off-balanced. With a movie like this, it’s really hard to try and talk about it to someone who hasn’t seen it. Anything I say about it will make it seem like the absolute strangest movie (which, granted, it is)… but it’s one that you must experience for yourself to fully understand just why every movie fan can’t stop talking about BLACK SWAN.

Rating: A

Movie Review: 'How Do You Know'

2010-12-16T20:27:00.000-08:00

How do you know a movie sucks? When you constantly look over at The Kidd with eyes pleading to promptly leave the theater, that’s how. I consider myself to be somewhat of a “chick flick connoisseur”…but I’m now embarrassed to admit that I found myself endlessly hopeful that HOW DO YOU KNOW would be the movie to reinstate the impression that chick flicks can actually be great movies. Let’s look at the facts: it’s written and directed by James L. Brooks, the mind behind AS GOOD AS IT GETS. This alone was enough to spark my interest. Then add in a stellar cast made up of Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson, and well…how can you blame me for expecting something worthwhile? With 90% of the funny moments coming straight from the trailer, HOW DO YOU KNOW leaves us with a movie that’s 100% unnecessary.

Once upon a time there existed a thing called a “plot”. However, HOW DO YOU KNOW seems to have sidestepped this useless device (insert sarcasm here), choosing instead to center the movie around four unlikable characters. No, really. Nothing happens in this movie. Zip. Zero. Zilch. And instead of just putting us out of our misery after an hour and a half, someone somewhere allowed for this movie (with, let me say it again) NOTHING going on, to run to two full hours. Two full hours of four unlikable characters biting each other’s heads off and arguing… sometimes with no real reason other than because they want to argue. The main character is Lisa (Witherspoon), a 31-year-old athlete who just found out that her softball career is at an end. Witherspoon, who I view at the epitome of “girly” (she’ll always be Elle Woods to me), surprisingly plays the jock gal well. But nevertheless, at times I found it supremely hard to like her. She keeps jumping from a horrendous relationship with Matty (Wilson, playing the big-time athlete/womanizer) to entertaining the idea of starting one with George (Rudd, totally in his element as an awkward but sweet guy in a financial crisis), who she has absolutely no chemistry with.

The main problem with this is that no one likes watching someone who’s indecisive… especially when there’s no reason for her to be with either guy in the first place. She changes her mind so many times within the last hour of the film that it was headache-inducing (can you say whiplash?). If I was able to get on board with at least one character, or if I even cared in the slightest when that obligatory end kiss came with the “lucky” (psh) man she choose, then maybe I would have been able to enjoy a light movie with some laughs. But unfortunately, once a romantic comedy loses its romance, then its condemned to rom-com hell, and, in the case of HOW DO YOU KNOW, it’s not finding redemption any time soon.

Rating: D

Movie Review: 'The Tourist'

2010-12-10T20:35:00.000-08:00

Never before has such blatant lovemaking between a cinematographer and actress taken place right before the audience’s eyes. Verging on obnoxious and exploitive, THE TOURIST is an hour and forty minutes of showcasing Angelina Jolie’s breathtaking beauty… yet unfortunately, not her acting ability, which I can only assume is hidden somewhere underneath all that expertly applied makeup on her face. I’m not even sure if this is her fault for taking the role, the screenwriters’ fault for writing such boring characters, or the director’s fault for directing them as such…but nevertheless, I can almost hear the director in the background shouting for Angelina to lift her face so that her cheekbones perfectly catch the light, while keeping that same private smile on her face for the entire film… even while she’s being shot at. That’s one of the major downfalls THE TOURIST suffers from; the constant calmness of the characters (Depp in particular) makes the already lackluster action that much less interesting. I don’t know about you, but if I’m being constantly shot at, I feel like that would be a good time to become the least bit panicked… especially if you’re just a poor innocent “tourist” (and yes, you will hear that word used an obscene number of times throughout the film).

The role of this innocent American tourist is filled by Johnny Depp, who plays Frank, a man who meets the mysterious Elise while on a train to Venice. What he thinks is a chance encounter soon turns into a situation of mistaken identities, leading Frank and Elise on a run for their lives. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t amused by THE TOURIST. The more the movie progressed, the more ridiculous it became. It was such an experiment in bad filmmaking at times that it was fun to watch, if for no other reason than to laugh at it. Accompanied by an embarrassingly over-melodramatic score that would randomly come on out of nowhere, it seemed like a student filmmaker’s idea of how to rev-up a movie while requiring the actors to do as little acting as possible.

All in All, THE TOURIST is a mediocre addition to the Angelina-Jolie-spy-movie genre, one that somehow manages to take two of the hottest stars out there today, and one of the most beautiful cities in the world, only to produce one of the silliest movies now in theaters.

Rating: C-

Movie Review: 'Tamara Drewe'

2010-12-08T11:57:00.000-08:00

Quirkiness and charm need to come naturally. If a movie tries too hard to emanate these qualities, severe backlash occurs – instead of coming off as off-beat and original, they end up feeling unnecessary and annoying. Well, welcome to TAMARA DREWE: a soap opera-like, British sex romp (minus the sex appeal) with too many characters to keep straight, or to even care to try. When Tamara Drewe, a once ugly duckling turned sex kitten (thanks to a nose job) returns to her old family farm where she grew up to settle her late mothers estate, she turns the whole village upside down, including an old flame, has-been rock star Ben (Dominic Cooper), 15-year-old Jody who’s in love with Ben, and the writers at a farmhouse retreat. With snippets of clever British humor, TAMARA DREWE seesaws back and forth from having a good direction to trying too hard to be quirky and different…making it feel like a girl who seems attractive at first glance, but when you get closer, see that she has pounds of makeup caked onto her face. And unfortunately, TAMARA DREWE wasn’t even particularly attractive from far away.

The performances were good enough, I suppose; despite her particularly boring character, Gemma Arterton plays Tamara with the teasing nature that would drive any guy of any age insane. But the real star, I must say, is her daisy-duked ass—which is given far more screen time than the actresses face…or any other actors’ for that matter. Even so, the film is so flat at times, and I had such indifference towards all of the characters and their relationships, that no number of shots of her ass half hanging out of her shorts brings the sizzle the movie needed to actually get cooking.

Rating: C-

Movie Review: '127 Hours'

2010-11-25T12:02:00.000-08:00

I usually tend to avoid movies that feature the severing of limbs. 127 HOURS is an extreme exception, though. Not only was I dying to see it, but one can’t deny that part of the curiosity is because of the scene when Franco must cut off his own arm in order to survive. Unless you’ve been living under a rock (ha ha, get it?), you should know what I’m talking about. Starring James Franco, 127 HOURS is the remarkable true story of Aron Ralston, a mountain climber who, after an 800-pound boulder falls on him, finds himself trapped, with his arm pinned against the wall in an isolated canyon in Utah. The movie spans the course of five days…until he resorts to drastic measures to survive.

I know it sounds like just yet another movie that confines the protagonist to one location during the entire film… but 127 HOURS is a true original. Instead of focusing on the trauma and panic that would accompany such an instance for an hour and a half, the film brilliantly focuses on something different: what’s going on in Ralston’s head. And because of this, 127 HOURS is filled with more humor and laughs than you could possibly imagine in a film of this nature. In my favorite scene, Ralston is playing with his video camera and creates a sort of makeshift talk show, where he switches between being the guest and the host, even adding on a fake laugh track after the jokes. Later on when he’s thirsty, he sees an energy drink commercial playing in his head. Directed by Academy Award-winning director Danny Boyle, there is no lack of style when it comes to 127 HOURS. Filled with color, gorgeous scenery and heaps of energy, there were moments while watching the film that I felt like I was having an adrenaline rush.

And after all that, the film still manages to bring out the emotion and regrets of Ralston: will he never see his family again? Why didn’t he tell anyone where he was going? Franco is my frontrunner for Best Actor this year. He demonstrates such a range of emotions in the films short running time, going from making us laugh to making your heart ache as you yearn for nothing more than for him to find a way to free himself… but of course, you’re simultaneously dreading that scene as well. Each second that goes by brings you closer and closer to the horror you know is coming, and waiting for it is quite a ride… one that is so thrilling and memorable, that it makes 127 HOURS one of the best films of the year so far.

Rating: A

Movie Review: 'Burlesque'

2010-11-24T20:39:00.000-08:00

I like crappy movies. There, I said it. I don’t care what other critics are saying about a movie. If it looks like I’ll enjoy myself, then I’m on board, which is exactly the way BURLESQUE played out for me. I saw the trailer and instantly thought to myself: “That looks so good!” In actuality, that mental statement would be translated into words a little more like: “That looks like such an entertaining movie!” Good or bad, who gives a damn? Unless you’re on the hunt for the next Best Picture contender, most of us go to the movies to escape for a little while and enjoy ourselves. And let me tell you, BURLESQUE hits the spot. The movie follows Ali (Christina Aguilera), a small town girl with big city dreams, who moves to L.A. and finds herself swept up by a Burlesque club run by a former performer, Tess (Cher). Sound familiar? Well of course it does! That’s because it pulls from all the great dance movies…and even the not so great. We get some MOULIN ROUGE, COYOTE UGLY, CHICAGO and FLASHDANCE. So already you know a movie isn’t aiming its standards too high if its pulling inspiration from COYOTE UGLY (which, admittedly, I adore).

We get the obligatory montage overload (think Julia Stiles dancing while walking in SAVE THE LAST DANCE), and the real reason to see it in the first place: some truly dazzling numbers. I’ll give Christina credit…. no one can sing quite like her, and she’s an excellent performer. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about her acting ability. There were moments when her delivery of lines sounded more like nails on a chalkboard in its insincerity than human vocal cords. While this irked me to no end, she looks so inhumanly beautiful most of the time, that you can almost (almost) put it in the back of your mind. The real surprise for me though, was Cam Gigandet. Known as either “the guy from The O.C.” or “the guy from TWILIGHT”, he’s finally gotten a leading man role, and he’s terrific. Exceedingly charming and funny, he carried the acting scenes when Christina couldn’t quite keep up. So here’s to hoping that BURLESQUE we’ll be his ticket to finally being known simply as “Cam Gigandet”.

BURLESQUE is a glitzy, glamorous, campy foray into the world of dance movies. While the sets, costumes and performances weren’t up to par with say CHICAGO or MOULIN ROUGE, they were an achievement in their own right. Combined with some soundtrack-buying-worthy songs, BURLESQUE was an incredibly entertaining flick that is exactly what you would expect (and want) from a movie starring Christina Aguilera and Cher.

Rating: B

Movie Review: 'Tangled'

2010-11-23T12:03:00.000-08:00

Oh the power of impossibly long hair and the frying pan! I’m telling you, the next time I find myself in a sketchy dark alley, those will be my weapons of choice. Then again, anything I can do to make me more like Disney’s new princess in TANGLED is a go for me. Feisty, gorgeous, and with 70 feet of magical, golden locks, Rapunzel fits in like a glass slipper right alongside Jasmine, Ariel, Belle and Cinderalla, making her the Disney princess to finally bring us back to the glory days of the Disney heroine movies that the formers enchanted us in. In this take of the classic Brothers Grimm tale, the film opens with a narrator recounting a tale from years ago about a princess named Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), who was kidnapped when she was a baby by the evil Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy) who keeps her in a tower and uses her hair to restore her youth. We then cut to years later: Now Rapunzel is 18, and she longs more than anything to explore the world outside of the confines of her tower. When the cocky (yet charming) thief Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) climbs up into her tower to seek refuge, she takes him hostage and negotiates a deal with him, leading to him being her guide out in the real world, and a movie so filled with adventure that it will delight girls and boys of all ages.

Though you wouldn’t know it from the trailer, TANGLED is a musical. Not only it is a musical—Oscar-winning composer Alan Menken, who is responsible for the music from ALADDIN, POCAHONTAS, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and most recently ENCHANTED, is the one behind the films songs. It doesn’t hurt that Mandy Moore has the voice of an angel and was born to be a Disney princess, either. Combining the catchy, wonderful music the classic hand-drawn animated Disney movies always had, with a gorgeous Pixar look, TANGLED is like the best of both worlds. We finally get a movie that doesn’t abuse the whole 3D mania going on nowadays, and uses it only to enhance the already stunning movie (turning it into a visually breathtaking movie), along with a few songs that will be instant classics. There isn’t a shortage of laughs either–thanks to a heavy dose of well-used slapstick, two adorable (and mute) animal sidekicks, and a colorful array of characters, I found myself constantly dealing with a fit of giggles, as was the rest of the theater. Spellbinding and heartwarming to the max, there’s nothing not to love, and no moment not to enjoy, in this new notch on Disney’s already illustrious belt of movie magic.

Rating: A

Movie Review: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1'

2010-11-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD

I’m going to come right out and say it: I am a die-hard Potter-head. I’m on my school’s Quidditch team, I have a list of spells ingrained in my brain, and I wore black the day after I read Sirius’ death scene in Order of the Phoenix. So while I could try and review HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 1 impartially…I’m not going to do that. Lets face it, this movie is going to be most important to those who are fans of the books. Of course let’s not forget those who have followed the movies religiously…they’re bouncing off the walls over Part 1′s quickly approaching release, too. But their reaction to it will probably be quite different. Despite the way movie 6 ended, some people will still be surprised to see that there is no Hogwarts, no Quidditch and none of your favorite professors present. That’s because DEATHLY HALLOWS takes us into completely new territory: the wizarding war is in full-blown action, and J.K Rowling and the filmmakers wisely don’t sugarcoat it. The deaths start coming quicker than you can say Avada Kedavra…and they don’t stop there. I consider myself a know-it-all when it comes to Harry Potter (think Hermione), so before watching the movie, I made sure I re-read the first half of Deathly Hallows, because I didn’t think I could stand sitting in that theater and not remembering if things were or were not in the book. I do actually have a point here… since I had literally just re-read the first half, the book could not have been fresher in my mind than it was when I sat down to view the new movie with all those hundreds of screaming Potter fans. So take my word for it here and now when I tell you: they did not leave anything out! I’ve heard some people criticizing Warner Bros. for doing this whole “two part” release, saying that it’s just a ploy to make double the money. Well screw the naysayers, because a wiser decision has never been made. The book is a little under 800 pages. We all want each and every second of the battle of Hogwarts in the movie. There’s no way that would have been possible with just one movie. Think of it this way: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS -PART 1 is 2½ hours…of ½ a book. So when it comes to even the most minute scenes that normally would not have even been considered for the sake of saving time, we get it in this movie. With the exception of Kreacher’s transformation from bad to good (he’s not a big character in the movie), I can think of nothing I wanted included that wasn’t there. When George loses his ear in the beginning of the movie while The Order is trying to fly Harry to safety, we even get his silly ear jokes. That’s one of things I’ve always loved best about the Potter films; even when they’re at their darkest, they still manage to slip in some of those funny one-liners and scenes to lighten the mood, which DEATHLY HALLOWS did better than any of its predecessors (look out for a scene of Harry in a bra–hysterical!). We also get plenty more of that sexual tension everyone loves between Ron and Hermione (including a part I loved from the book where they fall asleep practically holding hands), which only makes me, and I’m sure everyone else, all the more excited for “that scene” in the next movie. I just have to keep taking deep breaths and thinking to myself: “8 months…you can do this…just 8 more months”. See that’s the thing…PART 1 is just so good that it’s a feeling not unlike pain watching the movie end incomplete.

Now is that point when I would usually start pointing out the faults of the movie. Well, the most negative thing I can say about HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS is that the movie has flaws that actually aren’t even “flaws” at all. Let me explain… the movie did have its somewhat slower parts. However, those “slower” parts are those same exact parts that were slower in the book. The scenes were necessary, and it’s lack of action only makes everything that comes after it all the more mind-blowing. The scenes involving Harry, Ron and Hermione camping out in the forest trying to protect themselves from all the Death Eaters tailing them have a quiet power, even if not much is going on. It’s when we best get to see the group dynamic, and it’s then that our three leads are given their opportunity to show us just how much they’ve grown as actors in the past 10 years.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 1 is the Harry Potter movie I’ve been waiting for. It stays as true as possible to the book, and only makes those changes that make sense for the medium. It packed in the emotion that Dobby’s death deserved, the emotion that the other movies glossed over (I’m looking at you you Sirius and Dumbledore’s death’s!), and it was the first time in a Potter film that I found myself straight up sobbing. I predict that PART 1 won’t be my favorite Harry Potter movie of the bunch; because if PART 1 is any indication, the groundwork it laid has made it an almost sure bet that HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 2 will be everything we’ve dreamed of and more. Now take a deep breath and say it with me: just 8 more months, just 8 more months…

Rating: A

Movie Review: 'The Next Three Days'

2010-11-16T12:08:00.000-08:00

Paul Haggis’ name carries a lot of weight among the Oscar-movie-loving-crowd. Being responsible for great movies such as CRASH and MILLION DOLLAR BABY, he had my full allegiance and support when it came to his new movie, THE NEXT THREE DAYS. Starring Russel Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, it’s about a married couple who’s life is thrown into chaos when the wife, Laura (Banks), is accused of murder and sentenced to life in prison…and the lengths her husband John (Crowe) will go to make sure she is set free. Like Haggis’ other films, THE NEXT THREE DAYS poses some tough moral dilemmas to wrap our heads around. Unlike his other films though, don’t except a best picture nomination. And certainly not a best screenplay one. Within the first 10 minutes of the film Laura is arrested…and then the film jumps three years later, showing John and their son visiting Laura in prison. But don’t worry, we still get to hear the details of the case because John and their lawyer are conveniently going over it out loud as they wait to see if Laura’s appeal will be approved. When it isn’t, Laura attempts to commit suicide, a wake up call for John who decides the only shred of hope they have left is him breaking her out of prison. Maybe all of this would be effective if the filmmakers lingered on any one scene or situation for more than 10 seconds–let us get as riled up as John so that we too feel like the only solution is to risk absolutely everything. Everything is done so hastily…that is, until John meticulously starts planning the prison break (pretty much the whole first half of the movie). Then, everything goes slow, and most of it feels unnecessary. Crowe is fantastic as the devoted husband, and every second he was on screen I believed that he believed that his wife was innocent…I just wasn’t so sure how confident I was on the matter. The movie opens with a scene of Laura and John out to dinner with another couple in which Laura shows her protectiveness over her man when the other woman at the table sends a sexual innuendo his way. A few minutes after this it cuts to the next morning, where Laura takes a picture of the family at breakfast, a tradition she wants to keep in place until her young son is 18. Painting her out as the picture-perfect image of a good mother and loving wife would have been ideal if more than 6 minutes was devoted to the two. See I didn’t need to know right away if she was innocent or not…I just needed more than what was given to have any reason to feel one way or the other.

Since the story is kind of flimsy and all the time devoted to his planning feels like a place holder, more time should have been devoted to the mental anguish John and his son experience due to having the woman in their life behind bars. Instead, we’re given scene after scene of John trying to get fake documents or making notes on a giant map on his wall or meeting with an expert on prison breaks (a wonderful cameo from Liam Neeson), but the emotion which is driving him to such drastic measures seems to just evaporate into thin air. The second half, however, provides us with an action-packed, heart-pounding climax and a very satisfying ending. If the second half of the film was what represented the whole, then we’d be talking about a very skillfully crafted film here. If that were the case though, then we’d be also be dealing with just another people-on-the-run film with no story to lean back on. I enjoyed the 2nd half immensely and I felt for John and Laura’s cause, but throughout 50 percent of the movie I couldn’t stop wishing that they would, quite literally, cut to the chase already.

Rating: C+

Movie Review: 'Due Date'

2010-11-04T12:13:00.000-07:00

The road trip comedy has been done before. Maybe even too many times. And I’m not going to lie, it’s been done a lot better than DUE DATE. What DUE DATE does manage to offer up though is a handful of some pretty great laughs, especially if you’re a fan of Zach Galifianakis’ strange, signature humor. After an incident occurs causing father-to-be Peter (Robert Downey Jr) and aspiring actor Ethan (Galifianakis) to be removed from the plane (and onto the “No Fly” list), Peter, desperate to get home to his pregnant wife whose due date is quickly approaching, gives in to his only option to make it home on time: to hitch a ride with Ethan.

DUE DATE carries on the same comedy trend that we saw over the summer (and a million times before that) in DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS–the trend being that whole “everything’s going wrong” kind of humor that makes you laugh and want to pull your hair out at the same time. Both have characters that are such train wreaks and so lost in their own worlds that you find it hard to believe anyone would be able to put up with them. What DUE DATE did succeed in, which Shmucks did not, was that the film made it pretty clear both Peters loathing towards Ethan and gave him a pretty air-tight reason for putting up with all of Ethan’s bullshit. What it didn’t succeed in, however, was making Peter likable. He’s a serious, terse asshole—but in his defense, it’s pretty easy to be an asshole when you’re dealing with someone so off his hinges that he repeatedly says “bomb” on a plane that’s getting ready for take off. Ethan of course has no idea what a weirdo he really is; He walks with an air of obnoxious self-assurance, chin raised up and scarf flipped femininely over his shoulder. I would have preferred some more realism to be injected into the plot, instead of those scenes that filmmakers often seem to find funny (but really aren’t) involving a paraplegic man violently beating the crap out of Peter for no reason, and a car crash so incredibly severe that there’s no way either guy would have ever, ever survived. While DUE DATE has nothing on OLD SCHOOL or THE HANGOVER (both also directed by Todd Phillips), when the movie found its groove, it was exactly what the person in me craving another HANGOVER was looking for–a masturbating dog being the highlight of the entire film.

I do have to give it credit though, because there’s something to be said about a movie that ditches the cliched “our meeting each other irrevocably changed our lives” route for a more subtle (and believable) “YES! We survived each other!” one, while having the characters find both a mutual respect for one another and a small friendship in the process. But keep in mind, if you’ve seen the trailers, then you should know what you’re getting yourself into. If crude comedy/Galifianakis humor is your thing, you’ll get some (if not as much as you hoped for) out of the film for sure. And if it’s not your kind of humor, then all I can say is: you better check your movie choice before you wreak your movie choice.

Rating: B-

Movie Review: 'Megamind'

2010-11-04T12:09:00.000-07:00

After seeing HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON for the first time last week, my faith in DreamWorks skyrocketed. Maybe I should have waited until after MEGAMIND to make up my mind… because now, my opinion has retreated back to square one. MEGAMIND centers around a supervillian of the same name, who is in a constant battle with superhero and protector of Metro City, Metro Man. When he finally succeds in killing Metro Man after years of failure, Megamind realizes that a villian with no one to spar with just isn’t any fun. So he decides to create a new nemisis for himself, which he finds in Hal (Jonah Hill), a geeky cameraman who, like Megamind, is hopelessly in love with reporter Roxanne Richie (Tina Fey).

For me, MEGAMIND was a miss. But this is a special circumstance–every once in a while I come across a movie that for some reason, I know my reaction to it will most likely be one to go along with the minority of the viewers. To the majority, MEGAMIND will probably be a hit. Little kids will giggle at Megamind’s silliness, and adults can laugh at some humor that’s in there specifically for their benefit, such as some great jokes relating to The Godfather and the Obama campaign. When I heard about an animated film with Will Ferrell, Brad Pitt, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill as the voice actors, it immediately caught my attention. Plus the trailer just cracked me up. But when I went to go see the movie, and realized the plot was completely different than what the first and only trailer I saw depicted the movie as being about, I was taken for a long, tiring loop. Not only were the actual good jokes too few and far between, but despite the constant action and twisting of the plot, towards the end I found myself just…bored.

As the movie progressed, it started to remind me of another movie I saw fairly recently. I’ll give you three hints: 1) Another animated movie. 2) Main character is also a “super villain” and 3) The super villain has minions as well (although much cuter than the one in MEGAMIND). Yup, you guessed it: DESPICABLE ME. Both involve villains who, in one way or another, are transformed by the power of love and change their evil ways. There is a key difference between the two films though: heart. I never really got on board with the whole Megamind/Roxanne relationship…it came practically out of nowhere and had no backbone. In DESPICABLE ME though, we were actually given the opportunity to fall head over heels for those three adorable little kids, and saw Gru do the same. Trust me, I’m not by any means saying that I need every children’s movie to have a FULL HOUSE twist to it. I don’t need it to be cheesy or sentimental, or even have a clear-cut moral to it in the first place. But the best way to get an adult audience to connect with a film meant for children is to have both clever humor infused with the kiddy jokes, along with the warmth and glee that these kind of movies (or at least the good ones) are usually preprogrammed with (ex: TOY STORY 3). MEGAMIND succeeds at some points with the humor for adults (which little kids will not understand in the least), but when it came to connecting with any of the characters, it was a bust. Will Ferrell is fantastic as Megamind—he’s like a mix of Doctor Evil and, well, himself (with the addition of a slightly British accent). Metro Man (who is pretty much a “cameo”, to my surprise and disappointment) is the classic, square-jawed, muscular, man you’d expect to play a superman-like character. The characters are satirical on the whole “super hero” genre…but that’s all they are: one-dimensional even in 3D. The laughs were there occasionally, the animation wonderful and the soundtrack bangin’…but in the end, I just wish more emphasis had been put into bringing out the stories heart, rather than the size of Megamind’s giant blue head.

Rating: C+

Movie Review: 'Paranormal Activity 2'

2010-10-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

If you saw PARANORMAL ACTIVITY in theaters last year, then you know the drill. It’s like any other run-of-the-mill theater going experience…that is, until we see things from the cameras point of view. Once we see that night-vision, grainy footage fill up the screen and the seconds start ticking by on the bottom right side of the frame, all hell breaks lose. You immediately hear a chorus of yells saying “Oh shit oh shit!”, people sush-ing each other, and of course that one guy in the theater who just has to make wise-cracks. It’s like a collective conscious takes hold of the theater, controlling what we do (theater demon, maybe?). With PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2, it’s the same…except since we all know the way in which the movie is going to operate, the filmmakers take things slowly and decide to screw with us much more. They know exactly how our minds work; The second the camera footage comes on and lingers on a certain shot, you immediately will start frantically scanning the frame for any hint of subtle movement. This is an attempt to catch the scare before it catches you, so to speak. I’ll let you in on a little secret though: you will fail.

In an attempt to give as little away about the story as possible, I’ll just say this: The story deals with a family who, after experiencing what they think is a break-in (even though nothing was stolen), decide to install cameras all over the inside and outside of the house for security measures. But of course, all the cameras will do is show them the stuff we hope is never happening in our residences while we’re asleep. While the first movie had just its two central characters, Paranormal 2 adds some more elements into the mix: we get a husband and wife, a baby (you know that can’t be good if you saw the trailer), a dog, and a teenage daughter from the husbands first marriage. If doors slamming shut by themselves (which we know the naysayer must insist it was the “wind” that did it) isn’t enough, lets add a creepy baby that can sense the demon! The interactions between the family actually took up a good portion of the first half (perhaps even a little too much), and so little actually happened scare-wise, that when the slightest thing happened, everyone jumped. This surprisingly assists the movie overall. Because things are so uneventful in the first half, we expect things to happen very gradually, like in the first one. Wrong! When things got bad, they got catastrophic. It all starts happening so fast that you won’t even know what hit you…you’ll just start cursing yourself for seeing this movie instead of that new happy Disney movie that’s out.

The Paranormal movies fall into that somewhat-new genre that became all the rage when THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT came out; The movie opens with words on the screen saying: “Paramount Pictures would like to thank the families of the deceased and the San Francisco Police Department…”; our cue that this is another “found footage” film. The magic of these movies is that because so little money is put into them, and because it looks like footage that anyone with a cheap video camera could film, it scares us on a much more real, more personal level. The actors talk directly to the camera, make funny faces at it…all the stuff we do when someone is filming us just for fun. Plus there’s no crazy setting. It’s just a regular house. So if the film doesn’t scare you out of your mind while your watching (which believe me, it will), it sure as hell will mess with your mind when you get home, guaranteed. Like it had to to be successful, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 brought on horror to such a degree that I found myself shaking by the end. My friend turned to me and said “You’re sleeping over tonight”. It wasn’t a question, it was a given. And we turned every single light in the house on, including the one in the bedroom, before going to “sleep”.

Rating: A-

Move Review: 'Buried'

2010-10-08T12:16:00.000-07:00

Fellow claustrophobes, beware! For I have discovered your second biggest fear (after being buried alive, of course): this movie. If you could apply the word “tense” to just one movie this year, I think you would be hard pressed to find one more tense, or more cringe-worthy, than BURIED. Ryan Reynolds stars as Paul Conroy, an American contractor working in Iraq who after his convoy is attacked, wakes up in a wooden coffin with just a cell phone and a lighter; But surprisingly, these two elements are enough to craft a whole movie around…and a damn good one at that. The film opens with a pitch black screen. For a good 10 seconds you hear no noise at all, and at first I thought there was something wrong with the projector. But then we start to hear breathing, which escalates to a muffled panic combined with thrashing, to straight up screaming. Brilliantly, we are made to feel exactly how Reynolds feels: If he cant see, we cant see. Its not until he finds the lighter (yes, it’s quite convenient that he has that, but do you want to view a black screen for 90 minutes? Thought so) that we are visually brought into his situation. Not only are we visually brought into his situation…10 minutes in and I started to literally feel claustrophobic. I found myself stretching my legs on top the seat in front of me, just as a way of reminding myself that I could. My friend turned over to me and said “I feel like I can’t breathe”. Getting jittery yet?

To answer the question I know everyone’s thinking: Yes, the ENTIRE movie takes place in the coffin. No, there are no flashbacks. No, there are no cutaways. If the filmmakers wanted to, they easily could have incorporated that. They could have done it so that when Paul desperately calls someone on his cell phone, that it cuts to the person speaking to him…whether it be his wife, the FBI, or the terrorists that did this to him. We could have had flashbacks showing us how he ended up in the coffin or why he decided to take the job in Iraq, despite his wife’s protests. But director Rodrigo Cortes and screenwriter Chris Sparling had a film experiment in mind, one that they successfully pull off against all odds. Cortes takes on the ultimate challenge, beating all the other films that decide to confine themselves to one location (such as PHONE BOOTH and OPEN WATER)…while managing to demonstrate amazing camerawork and incredible, heart-pounding intensity at the same time.

I don’t care if this isn’t the type of movie that the Academy recognizes…I want Reynolds to receive a Best Actor nomination this year. He manages to carry the entire movie by himself, while never overacting in a situation where it would have been extremely easy to. This is exactly how I think someone would react if they woke up trapped in a coffin, and I believed every moment of it. Admittedly there were times when the film started to feel repetitive and I got the smallest bit annoyed…but I forgave it this, because, well…who wouldn’t be screaming and banging senselessly against the box if they found themselves buried underground?

Rating: B+

Movie Review: 'Never Let Me Go'

2010-10-07T12:17:00.000-07:00

NEVER LET ME GO is not a movie for everyone…perhaps it’s not even a movie for most. It’s the kind of movie that you can tell is already gearing up to launch its “For Your Consideration” Oscar campaign before the movie is even released and, subsequently, the kind of movie the majority of non-avid film watchers have never heard the likes of. It’s slow-paced (by choice), choosing to keep everything at a small sizzle for most of the film until the climax. Already we’ve alienated most moviegoers. But those handfuls of people that do connect with it, will find it to be a unique, upsetting, emotional movie that has the makings of an awards-circuit movie–even if it falls short where it can’t afford to. NEVER LET ME GO is based off Kazuo Ishiguro’s acclaimed novel of the same name. The movie centers around the friendship of three characters, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightly), and Tommy (Andrew Garfield), who grow up in an English boarding school together. If it sounds like I’m deliberately being vague about the plot, that’s because I am. Being a huge fan of the novel, I can’t help but compare the book with the film. In the book, that’s pretty much all the information we’re set up with in the beginning…all we know though, is that there is something more sinister brewing beneath this average plot.

From the first page (and likewise, the first scene of the movie), we hear some strange words being tossed around; words we’re not sure we’re supposed to fully understand the context they’re said in: “Carer”. “Donor.” “Complete.” About 20 minutes into the movie however (as opposed to midway through the novel), the meaning of these words is fully explained. Even though the film is quick throw all of its chips down in one go, I wouldn’t feel right spoiling it. But I will say this about the script: it’s both too straightforward and too abstract at the same time. It’s quick to give everything away right off the bat to make sure we fully understand what’s going on, but then in some other aspects it’s almost as if the movie expects us to automatically fill in the blanks with some of the cryptic language the character’s use. Here’s the thing: none of this affected my movie-going experience. I went in knowing all the “secrets” and how the movie would end…but for someone just being introduced to the story for the very first time, you want the story presented in the most effective way possible…which I don’t think it was. The information should have been fed to the viewer slowly, but surely. Instead, it was more like quickly or not at all.

With a film like this, it’s all about the emotional connection. If you’re lucky enough to get to know these characters, they’ll stay with you forever. The characters I got to know and love on paper we’re beautifully brought to life on screen. But once again, for those just getting to know them, there’s simply not enough time to love them to the extent that you should. With a mere hour and 40 minutes running time, there was just not as much time as I would have liked devoted to the relationship between our main characters…especially the romantic one between Kathy and Tommy. Despite all the shortcomings of the script, the spectacular performances from Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield were enough to take the developed (but not developed enough) characters of Kathy and Tommy and make them characters whose pain at the climax on the movie you were literally able to feel radiating throughout your body. Mulligan proved once again why she is such a rising star (and officially my new favorite actress) in Hollywood. She has such a wonderful face…that might sound weird to say, but if you’ve seen her in action, then you know what I mean. She has the ability to communicate sadness with just one small look like I’ve never seen before. And her character absolutely calls for it. There isn’t much happiness present in NEVER LET ME GO. The characters often don’t seem to realize how happy or unhappy they are until they experience the inevitable lack of hope in their situation. Mulligan and Garfield (just fresh off his fantastic performance in THE SOCIAL NETWORK), play their roles so delicately, with such restraint, that some might not realize how wonderful the performances they’re turning out truly are. But such are the characters of Kathy and Tommy…they are withdrawn, compliant, sad, and full of heart. Even if the characters just sit there quietly and accept their fate, you will have a hard time accepting it…and wont be able to stop thinking about the inhumanity of it all for a while after the credits roll.

Rating: B

Movie Review: 'It's Kind of a Funny Story'

2010-10-06T12:19:00.000-07:00

It’s not often that you get to see someone not only check themselves into a psychiatric ward…but beg to be admitted into one. But then again, I doubt you usually come across such a friendly, sociable group of people in the loony bin either. But so goes the plot of IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY. Keir Gilchrist stars as our main character Craig, a depressed teenage boy on the brink of suicide. He’s like a younger, blander, less attractive version of Justin Long…the Justin Long before he was cool and developed a personality. So it’s hard to really care about him, or his asinine reasons for being so depressed. Once admitted into the facility, he realizes that he probably just needed to get back on his meds and increase his number of therapy sessions. But uh oh, once admitted you have to stay a minimum of 5 days. Now if he were in a real place with the mentally unstable, he would probably be running for his life by the end of day one. But of course, since this is the movies, he finds a mentor in Bobby (Zach Galifianakis) and a love interest in the gorgeous, but equally screwed up, Noelle (Emma Roberts). This is Zach Galifianakis like you’ve never seen him before. Of course he still delivers his funniest lines with that serious, no-emotion-on-his-face way of his that everyone has grown to love, but he also proves that he’s more than just the go-to guy to play the fool (even though he does it so well). He’s the only character that really shows any depth at all. Beneath his confident, funny exterior, there’s a man who’s in pain, and he plays it with conviction.

From the very beginning you can tell that this is an indie movie…and I’m not so sure that’s a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against indie movies. But they do tend to carry out a certain cliched trend; you know that thing movies love to do where a character starts narrating in a voice over while shots of what he or she is talking about flashes across the screen in a choppy way? Sometimes it works. Here, it doesn’t. It felt like the film was trying too hard to be stylistic, when in reality all it did was add on extra time to a movie that wasn’t the fastest paced in the first place. That’s the problem dramadies like this often run into. It doesn’t quite know what it’s striving to be. It’s not dramatic enough to have the “zings” it needs to be memorable, yet not funny enough to really make you laugh out loud more than once or twice. There is one scene that had the theater cracking up, involving a random, totally-unrelated-to-anything-going-on-in-the-movie musical number, where we get to see Galifianakis decked out like a rock-star, with glitter covering his signature beard (which I am now convinced is the source of all his comedic powers), but other than that, IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY really was just kind of a good movie.

Rating: C+

Movie Review: 'Let Me In'

2010-09-29T19:19:00.000-07:00

Lately, it seems that one can’t even utter past the “vam” in “vampires” before people start to roll their eyes at them. If you’re one of those people, don’t let the vampire craze sway your judgement when it comes to LET ME IN. In this remake of the 2008 cult Swedish film LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, vampires do not sparkle, they are not heartthrobs, and they sure as hell aren’t “vegetarians”. So any preconceived notions you have, leave them at the door. This movie makes its own rules.

Before I get the swarms of fans of the original attacking me for bestowing praise on the remake (if I see “protest this movie” on one more IMDb thread, I might lose it) I am familiar with the original. I’m not going to lie, I did my homework the night before…that homework being that I watched the original on Netflix so I could make an accurate comparison. And I promise you that the remake did it justice. The two are actually crazy similar, and much of the dialogue is pulled straight from the original, word-for-word. That’s not to say that the remake didn’t make its changes, it did. There’s more violence and like most remakes, the filmmakers took some liberties. But this isn’t about the original, this is about LET ME IN. And as a remake and as a stand-alone film, LET ME IN succeeds admirably.

While watching this movie, there was one thought I couldn’t get out of my head: hasn’t it always been some sort of unspoken rule that you don’t fuck with kids in the movies? You know, no murdering or hurting little kids…if something bad is about to happen to them, some heroic force of nature must always swoop in at the last minute and save the precious little ones? Yeah…this movie clearly didn’t get the memo. LET ME IN is about a Owen (Kodi Smith-McPhee), a young outcast who is tormented by bullies at school. When a mysterious girl named Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) moves into his building with her guardian, they start to form an unlikely friendship. It’s no secret to us that this little girl who’s “more or less” 12 years old is a vampire. And a brutal, violent one at that. There’s a good amount of intense, bloody violence that can quality this film to be labeled under the “horror” genre…not to mention a handful of straight-up terrifying scenes. But its about more than just that. For a movie with as much gore and violence as this one, it’s usually out of character to have such a sweet, innocent love story simultaneously at the forefront, but LET ME IN balances the two seamlessly. Kodi Smith-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz (who you’ll recognize as “Hit Girl” from Kick-Ass) take on their roles with the strength of old pros. Any adult character in this film, with the exception of Richard Jenkins as Abby’s guardian, is a vastly secondary character. This is the kids’ film through and through.

Admittedly, this kind of movie usually isn’t my cup of tea. I usually find that people who are die hard fans of movies like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN are those same kinds of people who find softly lit shots of a person lying in the snow covered in blood “beautiful”. I am not one of those people. But with a movie as well-made as this one, that doesn’t really matter. The love story sucked me in, the scary scenes had me watching the film through my fingers, and the acting was a testament to how good kid actors can truly be. If you’re bordering the fence on whether or not to give LET ME IN a shot, just get yourself inside the theater, and let the movie do the rest.

Rating: A-

Movie Review: 'You Again'

2010-09-22T19:18:00.000-07:00

CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD

I went into YOU AGAIN knowing that it could swing one of two ways: It could either be a funny, light movie…or it could be just mind-numbingly stupid. I was, despite my better judgement, banking on the first one. I think it was the girl in me who craved some “no thinking required” fun chick flick that had any hope at all, but after the first 20 minutes, that girl, that part of me that was hoping for a cute movie along the lines of NEVER BEEN KISSED…she realized what a gullible dumb-ass she truly is. It’s not just that YOU AGAIN isn’t funny (though it had its moments)…it’s whole message totally didn’t get across to me, as I suspect it wouldn’t to any other person who is capable of thinking for themselves instead of just buying everything the movie is trying to sell them.

When Marni (Kristen Bell) realizes that her brother is about to marry Joanna (Odette Yustman), the girl who bullied her all throughout high school, her life is turned upside down…as is her mother’s (Jamie Lee Curtis) when she realizes that Joanna’s Aunt Ramona (Sigourney Weaver) is the same girl that she had problems with in high school way back when. The premise was enough to create a funny movie…I get the idea that even after growing out of whatever awkward phase you experienced in high school and even after becoming a successful adult, that old grudges die hard. The problem is that instead of actually incorporating jokes that are related to the premise, the movie decided to just run wild with the whole “everything’s going downhill” thing. Kristen Bell falls into an ant pile so now it looks like she has acne again. Ha ha. Kristen Bell accidentally hurts a cute guy…ha ha ha…you get my drift. But I could have even lived with that, if it were not for the end result. What I had the hardest time wrapping my head around was the theme of forgiveness. Yes, I understand that it’s a PG Disney movie and that it needs to end on a positive, heartwarming note. But here’s reality: No one would forgive a girl who not only made her life hell in high school, but who made her life hell AND THEN pretended not to remember any of it as she pushed her way into her family while continuing on with her bitchy tendencies upon their reunion. No, not okay. I repeat, NOT OKAY. Forgiveness is only worthy of people who actually deserve it. You may argue that in the end, Joanna showed that she was truly sorry for the way she behaved. But in actuality, the only time she showed any remorse was when she was faced with the possibility of not getting what she wanted, which was to marry Marni’s brother. Throughout the film they make a couple of references to the fact that Joanna’s parents died after high school in order to garner sympathy for her character. I’m sorry, but the writers needed to do a helluva lot better than that. As insensitive as it may sound, plenty of people have experienced the same tragedy and are not the spawn of Satan. It also didn’t help that Odette Yustman played the character of Joanna with such an overdone flare that after a while I started to get seriously annoyed with that squinty-eyed “I’m superior” look she had plastered on her face 90% of the movie.

With the exception of some clever lines and funny scenes (most notably one involving Marni’s father who blindfolds himself before every meal as a dieting technique), wonderful performances from Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver, and some of what the movie had to say about the importance of self-confidence, YOU AGAIN is a kid’s movie through and through. I’ve never used that phrase in a derogatory manner before (and why would I? I love kid’s movies), but this movie calls for it. Kids can often find a new favorite movie and gut-splitting laughs in watching people fall over and get kicked in the face constantly…and that’s totally fine. But I’ve gotten to that age where I need just the smallest amount of substance to go with my “watching people get hurt” slapstick. And as much as YOU AGAIN tried to create the illusion that that substance was there, in truth, all there was was a contrived ending that felt both insincere and unsatisfying.

Rating: C-

Movie Review: 'Easy A'

2010-09-16T15:00:00.000-07:00

While watching EASY A, I wanted to be Olive’s (Emma Stone) best friend. I’ll be honest, if you were to tell me that there was a girl at school who’s pretending to screw the entire male student body, I’d probably seriously dislike her. But Stone is the picture of charisma, her quick quips as vivacious and fiery as that signature red hair of hers, making it impossible not to love her. I went into EASY A expecting the next MEAN GIRLS; we have a unique script that appears to have some insight on the inner-workings of high school, the witty protagonist, and (if the trailer was any indication) a bunch of lines we’ll be quoting for a good while. Unfortunately, EASY A doesn’t reach the caliber of MEAN GIRLS (what I consider to be the perfect teen comedy), but its fresh enough to stand out amongst most teen movies which, as much as I love them, generally rehash the same storyline and ingredients time and time again. That’s not the say that EASY A doesn’t fall victim to the use of cliches. Olive's biggest enemies at school, the stereotyped Christian fanatics, comes off as sort of a cop-out, and part of me was disappointed that they decided to go the whole “bible huggers” route, instead of trying to maybe look a little deeper into how “easy” girls are viewed and treated in high school by your everyday student…not specifically those wearing a purity ring.

The whole thing starts out with a little lie Olive tells her best friend about how she lost her virginity to a college guy. When Jesus freak Marianne (Amanda Bynes, back from her very short retirement from acting) overhears this in the bathroom, the rumor spreads like wildfire, quickly deeming Olive the school tramp. She decides to embrace the new image, and after doing a gay friend of hers a favor by pretending to have sex with him at a party with everyone outside listening, a string of guys follow suit, paying Olive in cash or gift certificates to do the same for them. I love the idea, don’t get me wrong…but after a while, it started to seem like if that many guys know that the whole thing’s a scam, then how is this helping their reputation? This nitpick aside, the movie packed a lot of great laughs into its short hour and a half time span. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson stole every scene they were in as Olive’s quirky, hysterical parents, playing off of each other to perfection. Other than them though, most of the wonderful supporting cast was underused, especially Thomas Hayden Church as Olive’s English teacher, and Lisa Kudrow as her guidance counselor. When it comes down to it though, you’ll probably know if this movie is for you or not. It stays pretty true to the tone of its trailer, and while it might not have been as laugh-out-loud funny as I expected it to be, EASY A has an overall cleverness about it that even if I wasn’t actually laughing, I couldn’t help but smile and acknowledge its endless sass and personality.

Rating: B+

Movie Review: 'The Town'

2010-09-15T06:40:00.000-07:00

Lately, not much has pissed me off more than hearing people rag on Ben Affleck. For some reason, he seems like the guy in Hollywood to make fun of. I guess being the star of GIGLI gives people verbal abuse rights for the rest of eternity, but if Affleck’s second directorial effort isn’t enough to stop the haters, then I don’t know what is. It has been my experience that people usually have to prove themselves in threes. So here it is: he co-wrote and starred in GOOD WILL HUNTING, directed the critically acclaimed GONE BABY GONE, and now directed THE TOWN, which I can safely say is one of the best movies of the year so far.

In THE TOWN, Affleck plays the lead role of Doug. In the first scene of the film, Doug and his crew of bank robbers (including Jeremy Renner playing his violent best friend Jem) hold up a bank, take the bank manger Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage, and leave her blindfolded on the beach, unharmed. Scared that she might be able to identify them, Affleck volunteers to take care of the situation, pretending to casually meet her by chance to ensure that she really didn’t see anything. They start going on a few dates, and lo and behold, Doug finds himself falling for her.

So much of my interest during the film was driven by needing to see how each situation would play out: how/when will Claire find out? How will she react? Are they all going to get caught? Will Jem try and take the situation into his own hands? Jeremy Renner played the character of Jem with such a quiet danger, that anytime he was on screen, even when doing the most nonthreatening of things, I couldn’t help but notice that he was the exact kind of guy that were I walking alone and saw him, I would pretend to talk on my cell phone to ensure that we had no reason to come into contact. He keeps you on your toes the whole time, not letting you take any peaceful moment of the movie for granted. Likewise, Affleck (as a director) knew exactly how to mess with your emotions and keep you on the edge. Most notable, to me, is the opening bank robbery scene. Going from the point of view of watching the heist play out on the security camera in absolute silence, to BAM, bringing us right back into the action with crippling loud noise and intensity, once the scene was over and I saw the title slowly fade onto the screen I realized that I had been holding my breath. Then I just thought to myself: That was only the first five minutes. Here we go!

Rating: A

Movie Review: 'The Other Guys'

2010-08-09T13:38:00.000-07:00

The world is divided into two different kinds of people: those that love Will Ferrell, and those that despise him. While I fall under the first category (that's not to say he hasn't had his share of flops), haters of the over-the-top, brazen comic can rejoice in this: there's still a chance that you'll laugh your ass of during The Other Guys, as anti-Ferrell you may be.

Will Ferrell plays Alan Gamble, a straight-laced, bespectacled forensic accountant. Mark Wahlberg is Terry Hoitz, a detective who's been demoted to a desk job after he accidentally shot Derek Jeter before game 7 of the World Series, causing him to be stuck with Gamble as his new partner. The plot is standard of any buddy-cop movie. But what really sets this film apart is this: its making fun of all those movies, and all action movies in general. You've all seen the trailer. Wahlberg and Ferrell are walking towards a building when it suddenly explodes, sending them flying backwards and onto the floor writhing in pain. "How do people always walk away from that in movies?! I call BULLSHIT on that!" screams Ferrell. The satirical elements of the film are golden, as is any part where Gamble and Hoitz get on a roll with their arguments and banter (my favorite scene involves a debate over who would be the winner in a lion vs tuna battle...Ferrell, obviously, being the tuna).

This isn't the Will Ferrell you're entirely used to. He starts out subdued. Stupid? Yes. But not in the over exaggerated manner of say, Ron Burgundy. He slowly builds up to the craziness that's always dying to be unleashed from Will Ferrell, but trust me, he is a huge part of what makes the movie work so well. Wahlberg's wide-eyed, mean glares are just the topping on the cake. The film, much to my dismay, suffers in its second half, dragging out and losing its humor as it scrambles to tie up all the loose ends and bring us to the conclusion. If it weren't for this and its weak ending, I might have been writing a review for an "A" movie here. Nevertheless, the first half of the movie had me laughing so hard that I think it would be a disservice to do anything but recommend The Other Guys.

Rating: B

Movie Review: 'Charlie St.Cloud'

2010-08-02T19:24:00.001-07:00

When I found out that Charlie St.Cloud opened at the 5th spot at the box office this weekend I was unsurprised. I mean lets face it, how many people are rushing to the theater to see a boy play catch with his dead brother? Zac Efron plays Charlie, who after witnessing his little brother Sam die in a car accident (Charlie was driving), is still able to see and interact with him every day for an hour before sundown, keeping the promise he made days before his death to play catch with him every night. Then Tess (Amanda Crew) comes into his life, and Charlie must choose between keeping his promise to Sam and going after the girl he's quickly falling in love with.

Yes, I know that every guy (and probably a good amount of girls) are rolling their eyes while reading this. The plot may seem endlessly cheesy, but really, its not the plot that needed altering, its the way the movie handled it. An adaptation of the Ben Sherwood novel "The Death and Life of Charlie St.Cloud", I can tell you that the novel is a beautiful, life-affirming story, one in which the movie desperately tried to portray. It was a solid effort, but for some reason, whether it was because of the overly dramatic music, the constant use of bursts of light on the screen (yeah we get it, we're dealing with the afterlife here) or the lack of development of Sam's character, the supernatural aspect of the story felt shmaltzy and forced. People like me who cry at sappy commercials will be bawling throughout, but not because of the competency of the film, but more because of the subject matter, and what may be a surprise to some, Zac Efron's wonderful performance. I'm tired of hearing critics rag on him because of his "pretty boy looks"...he's a great looking guy, and destined to be a heartthrob because of those eyes, but he also has the acting chops to back it up. He is no longer just that guy singing and dancing in High School Musical, and we should embrace that.

Charlie St.Cloud has its good points worth mentioning; a very picturesque setting and a small but powerful appearance from Ray Liotta complement Zac Efron. However those that have a sensitive gag reflex and who don't like heavily emotional subject matter will find things to laugh about throughout. Either way, Charlie St.Cloud is no Ghost, though it sincerely tries its very best to reach that caliber.

Rating: C

2nd Mel Gibson Audio Tape Released...Ohh boy...

2010-07-13T21:27:00.000-07:00

Well, the second tape has been released and it's not pretty. If you thought the first one was bad, wait till you hear this one. Not only does he admit to hitting his ex (he's currently under investigation for domestic violence, and here's clear-cut proof), he threatens to kill her...twice! You seriously won't believe your ears.

Movie Review: 'Inception'

2010-07-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

You know that feeling when you go to sleep…and the next thing you remember, you’re waking up? It feels like no time has passed, the hours separating you from the real world and dream world blurring together. That’s what the movie Inception is like. Mimicking the feeling of a dream itself, to me, Inception is a dream. In my own mind, I couldn’t possibly have imagined a more stunning, mind-blowing movie to catapult us out of the movie-rut we’ve been in the majority of this summer. But Inception is more than just the best movie of the summer…so far, it’s the best movie of the year.

Inception introduces us to a world where technology for dream invasion exists, and when it comes to dream invasion, Dom Cobbs (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the best out there. Cobbs is a skilled extractor: it’s his job to enter the dreams and steal the information he needs from the person’s subconscious. His skill has made him one of the go-to guys in the world of corporate espionage, but has also taken away the life he knew and loved. Now, he has a chance to get it all back, with one last job…Cobbs, along with his team of experts, have to achieve the seemingly impossible: Inception. Instead of stealing an idea, they need to plant one in the subject’s mind.

I went into Inception under two levels. I was both buzzing with excitement, but also a little fearful that I wouldn’t understand what was going on. After reading countless reviews saying how amazing…but also how confusing, the film is, I went in ready to concentrate as if I were going to be tested afterwards. I’ll tell you this: believe the hype! Inception is everything you hoped it would be and more…and just as confusing as they say. Anyone who leaves the theater claiming to have understood it is either lying or superhuman. But that’s part of the fun of Nolan’s films. Like The Prestige and Memento, you take in more and more after each subsequent viewing. Even when you think you got everything the film had to offer, you see it again and there are more secrets and intricacies that freshly take hold in your mind.

However Inception is more than a story filled with twist and turns – it displays greatness in its every aspect. Forget 3D. If you want to see real imagery that pops, see Inception. The special effects, sound and cinematography were so phenomenal that that alone is worthy of the ticket price. Leonardo DiCaprio was incredible, proving he really doesn’t know how to give anything other than a perfect performance. Likewise, Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt were fantastic as well playing the two other main members of Cobbs’s team. The person who impressed me the most though (other than Dicaprio) was Marion Cotillard. She blended beauty, cunning, sexy and scary seamlessly…all the ingredients for the perfect femme fatale.

Inception gives new meaning to the phrase “on the edge of your seat.” For the last 45 minutes of the film I was practically hyperventilating, and you could see and hear everyone else in the theater responding the same way. It toyed with your nerves, emotions, and way of thinking. It even had me excited to go to sleep and dream (I’m not even kidding) in the hopes of remembering what my dream was about and what my dreamscape looked like. I know I didn’t take it all in the first time around…and because of that, I can’t wait to see it again.

Rating: A

Movie Review: 'Despicable Me'

2010-07-13T20:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, you just need an increased dose of cuteness in your life. Thankfully, I have the perfect movie to quench your craving: Despicable Me. Steve Carell is the voice of Gru, who, intent on obtaining the title of “world’s greatest villain”, decides to plan the ultimate heist: to steal the moon. Then three little orphaned girls make their way into his life, proving to be his biggest challenge yet.

This animated film more than surpassed my expectations. I went in expecting a cute, funny kids movie and I left having experienced a cuter, funnier, movie than I ever could have imagined. Packed with the likes of Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Jason Segel, Will Arnett and Kristin Wiig contributing their voices alongside Steve Carell, the entire cast was fantastic. To top it off, it was legitimately funny. Not just “funny for little kids” funny…my friend and I were cracking up. It had me laughing a million times more than Grown Ups did.

What surprised me the most though, was how infectious its charm was. I know a lot of people (myself included) wanted to see the film based off that one adorable little dark-haired girl in the trailer who screams “IT’S SO FLUFFY!!” when she gleefully receives a stuffed unicorn. The movie was worth seeing for her alone. Then add those super cute little yellow “minions”, Steve Carell’s hilarious accent, wonderful animation, and you have a heartwarming film that is impossible not to love.

Rating: A

Mel Gibson Audio Tapes Released!

2010-07-13T20:40:00.000-07:00

Can Mel Gibson really be anymore unlikable? Its almost like he’s deliberately trying to make it so that his fan base drops even lower than its already at. For the past week now news reports regarding an outbust of profanities Gibson unleashed on Oksana Grigorieva, his ex-girlfriend and mother of their 8-month old daughter, have been circulating around, shocking everyone with his incredibly vulgar and hateful use of language, including “the N word” and saying she looks like “a fucking pig in heat” along with countless other pleasantries…

“You go around sashaying in your tight clothes. I won’t stand for that anymore,” Gibson tells his ex. And believe me, it gets much, much worse. Before now, these comments were heard only from a newscaster or read online. Now, the tape has been released, showing the world just how off his rocker the Braveheart star really is. In a part of the argument that has not yet been released online, he even goes on to say: “I am going to come and burn the f**king house down… but you will blow me first.” In 2006, Gibson was pulled over for speeding, and then arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. While the cop was handcuffing him, Gibson became extremely belligerent and made some anti-semetic comments (to a jewish cop, might I add), marking the beginning of his downfall. Now he’s at it again with the racist remarks. I’ve refused to see a Mel Gibson movie since his anti-semetic rant in 2006, and to me, this tape just further proves that he has no remorse, and is really just a despicable human being. Listen to it for yourselves:

Review: 'Dinner for Schmucks'

2010-07-13T20:30:00.000-07:00

Eager to impress his boss in order to get a promotion that’s right at his fingertips, Tim (Paul Rudd) is on the quest to find the perfect person to bring to his boss’s dinner party. But it’s not just any regular dinner party. It’s a “dinner for idiots” where everyone competes to see who can bring the most ridiculous guest…which Tim finds in Barry (Steve Carell).

If the story seems somewhat contrived, thats because it is. But that aside for a moment, the storyline made for some pretty hysterical moments. Once the words “Ladies and Gentleman, dinner is served” were uttered, I knew I was in for a treat. And like the title might imply, you would like that the majority of this movie would take place at said dinner, right? Wrong. I wish it had. But 90% of the movie dealt with Tim trying to deal with Barry and all the ridiculous shit he was getting him into due to his extreme idiocy (we’re talking a level of idiocy that at some points I found it difficult to like his character). All that was fine, and even very funny…if you are a fan of those comedies where everything just keeps going from bad to worse. I don’t mean that sarcastically…some people truly love these kind of films. I always wish I had, but the thing is, when I watch movies like that, I just get insanely frustrated. Like I felt physical pain while watching, at some points having to restrain myself from trying to take my pain out on someone, anyone, just to release some frustration. But the theater was in hysterics, so that might be more of a personal flaw than a fault on the movie’s part, I don’t know. More annoying to me than the series of events that unfolded were the main character, Tim’s, reactions to them. He acted in ways that at some points put him on the same stupidity level as Steve Carell’s character, no easy feat. It got the point where I thought to myself: “No promotion is worth this sort of torture” and found it hard to believe that Tim didn’t feel the same way.

Now that I’ve finally released that frustration thats been laying dormant in me since seeing the film…I actually liked the movie, and recommend it. There are a lot of good laughs and Steve Carell and Paul Rudd are at the top of their game. Zach Galifianakis is great too, but isn’t in the film as much as I would have liked and only really has the same one running joke the whole movie. I thought the movie had more potential than the end result yielded, this is true. But seeing Steve Carell with his “mousterpieces,” Zach Galifinakis with his “mind control” and the hilarious group of other “schmucks” at the end dinner scene is really too good to pass up, frustration or not.

Rating: B-

Review: 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse'

2010-07-02T15:12:00.000-07:00

When I sat down to write this review, I made a vow to myself that I would be objective and not let my Twi-hard status influence anything. I need to be straight up: I was one of those girls…you know the one, the girl updating her Facebook status something “Eclipse” related seemingly every other minute and dressed in a “Team Jacob” t-shirt to show where her alliance stands. I went in already knowing that this wasn’t a movie I could hate; that no matter what, I would find some redeeming qualities once the credits stopped rolling. The real question is: is this a movie that everyone else will hate, the way some despise Twilight and New Moon? If you just hate the franchise in general, then the answer is obvious “yes.” But, if you’re a fan of the first two movies, and especially if you’re a fan of the books, I would find it hard to believe if you left the theater anything but blown away.
In this third installment, Bella once again faces danger in the form of Victoria, a vampire who is out for revenge against her. Victoria, who we saw in the first two films, has taken it a step further this time: she has put together an army of newborn vampires to attack Bella and the Cullen clan. All the while, Bella is faced with the decision that has split fans for as long as these books have been around: whether to choose her vampire boyfriend Edward Cullen or werewolf best friend Jacob Black.

Don’t bother comparing the three films; The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is far and away the best of the series in pretty much every aspect. Visually, Eclipse ran circles around the other two faster than a vampire and werewolf combined. We were treated to some sweeping cinematography and just overall superior production value. So if you hated the cheap, blue-tinted look of the first film…don’t worry, you wouldn’t find any of that here. The acting has gotten better all around; Kristen Stewart played with her hair less and stopped awkwardly biting her lip every other second, which was a welcome change. I still don’t think she can act to save her life, but what can you do? Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner have grown as well, getting better with each movie. I do however think the direction for the character of Jacob was misguided much of the time; he was portrayed as angry more times than not, rarely giving us a chance to see how much warmth the character truly possesses.

Now let’s get to the important stuff: the screenplay. It started off a little slow, the first 15 minutes dragged a bit. However, once the movie found its pace, it flowed seamlessly, combining the action and romance effortlessly and very effectively. Having finished re-reading the book a few days before seeing the film, I went into the film with the events of the book very fresh in my head, so all fans can rest assured when I say: your favorite scene is in the movie, as are most likely all the other scenes you’ve been hoping to see on the big screen.

This one doesn’t take itself as seriously as the others, acknowledging things such as Taylor Lautner’s constant shirtlessness (yes girls, its just as impressive as it was in New Moon) and the overall soap opera/drama-y nature of the story. Eclipse is a great summer blockbuster that I think most people will enjoy…from the crazy fans who have read the books countless times, to those who are just fans of the movies, to even the boyfriends that will inevitably be dragged to the film…there’s something in it for everyone!

Rating: B+

Review: 'Grown Ups'

2010-07-02T15:08:00.000-07:00

An ensemble cast like Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Rob Schneider, David Spade and Kevin James is hard to resist. And if I’m viewing the glass as half-full, I can say that I left their film enlightened; this new release, Grown Ups, taught us a very valuable lesson: no matter how many hilarious stars you pack into one film, if you don’t have a plot…it can only do so much to stay afloat.

The “plot”: after their beloved middle school basketball coach passes away, a group of 5 once-best-friends reunite after many years for the funeral and a weekend getaway at a lake house. So what exactly happens in the film? What’s the objective? Goal? Conflict? I don’t really have those answers for you. What I can tell you though, is that despite this absolute oversight in the film, when it was funny…it was laugh-out-loud funny. The trailer had me cracking up at every moment, and, as usual, hosts most of the funniest parts of the film. The film still has some additional fun moments (my favorite involving a game called “Arrow Roulette”), and of course, more gross-out humor than was necessary. The key with a movie like this is to have realistic expectations going in, which unfortunately, I didn’t have. The laughs in the trailer combined with the cast had me ready for one of the funniest comedies of the summer…when, in reality, I got a funny movie that was just another of this summers many disappointments.

All in all, it’s not Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore by any stretch of the imagination. Chris Rock was vastly underused, and after a while of just watching the friends make fun of each other it started to drag. Thanks to some great cameos and the expected chemistry between the “grown ups”, it wasn’t a bust. Therefore my overall consensus is one of indifference: if you think you’ll like it and this is your type of comedy, you can give it a try. If you weren’t crazy about the trailer, definitely don’t see it. Either way, your life will not change much.

Rating: C+

Review: 'The Karate Kid'

2010-06-21T12:27:00.000-07:00

Just the other day I was wishing I could go back to the movie mentality I had when I was little; any time I saw a movie, I came out of it entranced, not knowing how not to enjoy a movie. After the incredibly disappointing slew of movies so far this summer, and after giving more C-ratings than ever before, I was starting to fear that maybe I had lost the ability to leave a movie with that rush of happiness and satisfaction that you can only get after seeing a really, really good movie. Then on Friday night, I went into The Karate Kid with somewhat low expectations, and left the theater…with more endorphins than a champion marathon runner.

When I first heard that they were remaking The Karate Kid, I was repulsed. When I found out they were switching the location to Bejing and casting the much younger Jackie Chan in the role of the old, wise, and incredibly bad-ass Mr.Miyagi, I was furious. However, I can admit when I’m wrong, and in this case, I definitely was. The filmmakers did everything right when it comes to remaking a beloved film. They made enough changes so that it wasnt a carbon copy of the original, brought a fresh new swing on the story…all the while preserving almost everything that made the original so great, from some of the classic lines and memorable scenes to keeping alive the very spirit of the story.

Now, the acting: I can’t call Chan Mr.Miyagi…and luckily, I don’t have to. Wisely changing the name of the character from Mr.Miyagi to Mr.Han, this remake did not in any way try and recreate the characters from the original. Chan drew from the original character, embodying his wisdom and adding a more somber veil over the character. I never realized what a good actor Jackie Chan was until now. He’s always been the go-to guy for the role of funny foreigner who knows how to kick-ass, and in The Karate Kid, we definitely get to see a lot of ass-kicking (top notch, incredible ass kicking to be exact) but also a performance with depth, something I didn’t at all expect. Jayden Smith (son of Will Smith) is a little superstar in the making. I don’t care if he got the role because of his parents…the boy can act, and very well. He was funny, charismatic, and was without a doubt able to hold his own throughout the entire film. I can’t wait to see where his career goes from here.

The Karate Kid reminded me why I love to go to the movies- not rent dvds, or watch movies online…but what is so special about the movie-going experience. I could literally feel the energy of the audience. I heard gasps and “oooohs” all around me during the training sequences. People stood up and cheered during the end fight. Clapped wildly during the end credits. THIS is why people go to the movies in the first place. Don’t miss out on the opportunity of seeing one of the first truly great movies of the summer and go see The Karate Kid ASAP!

Rating: A-

Review: 'Jonah Hex'

2010-06-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

You know a movie really sucks when its only an hour and 20 minutes long...but feels like three. This is exactly what I experienced when I made the unfortunate decision to make use of some free sneak preview passes to go see Jonah Hex. The movie had a good trailer, Josh Brolin, and overall just seemed like a fun time. How wrong I was.

After watching his family being murdered before his eyes, and having the right side of his face mutilated with a branding iron, Jonah Hex becomes a ruthless and cynical bounty hunter. Then the U.S. military comes to him with an offer he can't refuse: they'll let him go a free man, exonerated of all the warrents for him, in exchange for him stopping the evil terrorist Quentin Turnbull...the man who took everything from him all those years ago. Its your run-of-the-mill revenge story, we don't get anything new here...that is, unless you count the absurd and incredibly out-of-place supernatural element that comes into the story out of nowhere, where hey! Jonah Hex can magically bring dead people back to life temporarily by touching them! ::rolls eyes::

We get the slow motion double gun draws to loud music, quippy one-liners (none of them actually clever, of course) and explosions galore. What we don't get is any characters worth caring about. Megan Fox had one purpose, and one purpose alone: to stand there in a tight corset with her chest hanging out while speaking with an accent. And even watching her do that is painful. Josh Brolin's talent is completely wasted as well. His job: to run around with an ugly scar on his face while speaking in the same gruff voice with the same sour expression on his face the entire movie. All of this might have even been tolerable if the movie ever found its rhythm and pace, which unfortunately, it never did. It didn't flow, and after a while, I stopped waiting to get into the story and started waiting impatiently to get out of the theater.

Rating: D

Les Grossman movie!!!

2010-06-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

For those of you that have seen Tropic Thunder, I think it’s safe to say that one of the funniest, most memorable aspects of the movie was Tom Cruise’s hilarious (and surprising) performance as the foul mouthed, balding, hip-hop dancing producer Les Grossman. Much to my glee, on Sunday night at the MTV Movie Awards we were graced with a couple hilarious appearances of his Tropic Thunder character once again, the best part being when Cruise and Jennifer Lopez joined the stage together with a show-stealing dance off. After seeing that, I was desperately craving more Les Grossman. And luckily, today I found out that this craving is to be soon satisfied. Les Grossman fans, I am happy to report, that a spin-off movie centering around the popular character is currently in the works! Backstage at the MTV Movie Awards Cruise confirmed this, telling E! ““We’re working on it. Yup, we’re working on it.” Hopefully more details will come soon. What do you think about the new project? Is the world ready for more Les Grossman?

Review: 'Get Him to the Greek'

2010-06-08T09:40:00.001-07:00

Aaron Green has just been given the most important task of his career: He has three days to go to London and pick up British rock star Aldous Snow, bring him to New York to make an appearance on The Today Show, and then finally get him to L.A's Greek Theater where he has to perform a 10-year anniversary concert. Sounds simple right? Maybe with your average celebrity, but Snow is a whole new breed of partyier. We were first introduced to the character of Aldous Snow in 2008's Forgetting Sarah Marshall, where he was sober and recovering. In Get Him to the Greek, Aldous is back to his Absinthe-drinking, narcotics-doing, sex-obsessed self....times 1,000.

Get Him to the Greek was produced by comedy-god Judd Apatow (Knocked Up, Superbad, 40 Year-Old Virgin, etc), and just as you would expect, his newest film carries on the same type of raunchy, obscene humor we've all grown to love. Filled with more gross-out humor than I appreciate (vomiting scenes galore), I felt that Get Him to the Greek was one of the least funny of Apatow's movies, on an overall scale. However, some moments of sheer comedy brilliance and hysterical performances from Brand, Hill, and surprisingly, P. Diddy, greatly helped elevated the film.

When I left the theater I was somewhat split on my opinion of the film. It felt like I watched two separate movies: the first half, of which I've described in this review thus far...and then the second half, which for reasons unbeknownst to me, felt the need to focus almost entirely on giving depth to Snow's character, showing his reunion with his estranged father and highlighting his loneliness and longing for his ex-girlfriend. With a running time of only an hour and 40 minutes, Get Him to the Greek should feel anything but long...but towards the last act I found myself checking my phone for the time. Far from perfect, Get Him to the Greek was nevertheless at times very funny, amusing, and a good "bromance" film...for the most part.

Rating: B-

Review: 'Sex and the City 2'

2010-05-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

For the hardcore fans, the night Sex and the City 2 comes out is no joking matter. You know how Harry Potter fans come to the theater decked out in capes and wizard costumes? Similarly, SATC fans dress up too: they get all made up, pick out a killer outfit (high heels are a given) and for accessories: bring all of their best girlfriends along for the ride. In the much anticipated sequel, we get a gay wedding, great cameos from Liza Minnelli, Miley Cyrus and Penelope Cruz, a trip to Abu Dhabi, and of course, clothes that are to die for. Costume designer Patricia Field didn't disappoint: the outfits in the film are so lavish that the film works, if on no other level, then as a very long, over-the-top fashion show.

I do, unfortunately, have one not so little complaint: the movie just wasn't very good. A longtime fan of the TV series, i've come to know Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda very well. The sequel, even more so than the 1st Sex and the City movie, continued to neglect the other three girls, and focus only on Carrie. To make matters worse, Carrie is as self-absorbed and bitchy as ever. This would be only a minor complaint...if only the movie weren't a bloated 2 and 1/2 hours long.

Here's the thing: we've gotten to that point in the story where things are very different than they were in season 1 of the show. This is no longer the story of four single middle-aged girls. Three are married, two of which have kids. Sex and the City 2 was an excuse to push the story further, and give us more time with the gals. But in those 2 and 1/2 hours, unlike the first film, nothing...seriously nothing, happened. Thankfully there were those moments where we got a taste of that SATC humor we all know and cherish. And we even got a very touching scene between Miranda and Charlotte to remind us why we love these women's friendship so much. But more often than not, it felt like the film was just making a fool of our four characters. Charlotte spends the majority of the film on her cell phone, paranoid that her husband's cheating on her; Samantha spends more time talking about menopause than sex (but don't worry...you will get your dose of crude Samantha humor and it pays off); Carrie spends the entire time worrying about her marriage with Big, and Miranda kind of just sits there and spouts out facts about the Middle East. However, the setting of Abu Dhabi (which was actually filmed in Morocco) was a treat, and some of the great humor of the movie played off the culturally differences when it comes to women and sex in the Middle East vs the U.S. We even get reunited with the beloved character of Aidan...even if he only has about 5 minutes of screen time.

All in all, fans will still be entertained, and will most likely enjoy the experience of being in the Middle East with their fav girls. But even so, in the words of Carrie Bradshaw: 'I couldn't help but wonder'...was the sequel really all that necessary?

Rating: C

Review: 'Shrek Forever After'

2010-05-23T08:07:00.000-07:00

You know how lately it feels like Hollywood keeps squeezing out one pointless sequel after another, sequels that do nothing to further the story and, for all intents and purposes, have no reason to exist? Shrek Forever After is unfortunately no exception.

In the 4th and final installment, we are reunited with Shrek, Fiona, Donkey, Puss in Boots, and all the other characters we've come to know and love. Shrek is happily married to his true love, Fiona, and they have 3 children together. But Shrek is starting to feel the unchanging routine of family and marriage life setting in, and longs for the days when he was "a real ogre" and was feared by everyone and left alone. So, in the same vein as 'Its a Wonderful Life", Shrek makes a deal with the evil Rumpelstiltskin. The deal is that Shrek must give up one day from his past for one day where things could go back to how they used to be. However Shrek is tricked and thrown into a world where he never met Fiona or Donkey, and Ogres are being hunted and captured. Its up to him to find a way out of the contract and save himself and those he loves before its too late.

Heres the thing about Shrek Forever After though: it was completely pointless. Having not really remembered the other movies had no effect on my viewing experience, because as I watched I realized it was all just a rehashing of the franchises earlier moments....except usually not as funny. The story wasn't pushed any further, we didn't learn anything new...it was a sequel, with no other purpose, but to be another box-office killer.

While the film definitely had its moments, and the little kids in the theater seemed to be enjoying themselves, I found myself bored in the middle of the movie. 3D always adds an extra element of fun into the movie...yet even with the 3D, it still wasn't able to match the magic of the first. All in all: Shrek Forever After left me forever uninterested in a Shrek 5.

Rating: C

Review: 'Letters to Juliet'

2010-05-18T10:48:00.000-07:00

If you’ve seen the Letters to Juliet trailer, then you know that it “gives everything away”…but that doesn’t change the fact that Letters to Juliet is without a doubt one of the most delightful, heartwarming romance movies I’ve seen in some time.

It has all the makings of a romance that most girls will swoon over: ridiculously good-looking and charming leads, two love stories that are to die for, and what is perhaps the main star of the film: the breathtaking Sienna, Italy.

All of these ingredients mix together seamlessly to form the sweetest, most delicious concoction of a movie possible…with a topping of extra cheese. However I mean this in the most endearing way possible, because it is the finest type of cheese available. The film recognizes, and even pokes fun at, some of its antics every now and then, making it both self-aware and romantic…a tough mix to master. The acting was great all around. Amanda Seyfried was whimsical, very likable and had wonderful chemistry with male lead and newcomer Christopher Egan. And do I even need to mention how good Vanessa Redgrave was? As always, she took her role above and beyond, bringing depth and emotion to the character of Claire, making it impossible not to root for her with all of your heart throughout the film.

If you’re interested in seeing this movie in the first place, I doubt you’re a cynic who minds a little dose of fantasy here and there. And If you are, I don’t think I need to tell you twice to stay away. But If you want to get swept away with a movie for two hours, I can’t think of a more magical way to do so than with Letters to Juliet.

Rating: A-

Review: 'Kick-Ass'

2010-04-19T14:44:00.001-07:00

"Why does everyone want to be Paris Hilton but nobody wants to be Spider-Man?"

This is the question posed by Dave, a "nobody" who decides to give being a real-life superhero a try. After finding outrageous success after a video of him fighting a group of gang members (while also getting his ass kicked) becomes the new youtube phenomenon, he inspires a wave of other regular-people-turned-superheros who decide to help fight crime.

The first half of the movie focuses on Dave/"Kick-Ass" (the superhero name he goes by), and his hilarious attempt at fighting crime without any powers or skill. However, the second half of the movie took a totally new turn. Once the other superhero's showed up, the tone of the movie went from mostly comedy, to comedy/action, to...Kill Bill. I'm talking Quentin Tarantino violence here. The problem was: comedy and gore could and often do work well together...but not usually when the gore is this realistic. After a while though, I was able to brush this aside and dealt with the fact that my brain would just have to start switching gears quicker to deal with the constant change in genre.

That being said, when the movie strutted its sense of humor...it was absolutely, positively hilarious! Aaron Johnson was great as Kick-Ass, and was definitely able to hold his own for most of the movie. The real gem of the film however, was Chloë Grace Moretz as Hit-Girl. The 11-year old, foul-mouthed, purple-haired crime-fighter was not only one of the funniest aspects of the movie, but was without a doubt the most bad-ass as well. This is definitely one newcomer to keep an eye out for. Christopher Mintz-Plasse (most famous for his role as "McLovin" in Superbad) barely gets to stretch his comedic muscles at all. The script hardly uses him, and its a damn shame.

With its mix of some pretty awesome action sequences and a hysterical premise, I was able to overlook the fact that the movie ran a little long and had too much stuff going on at once, because, well...it was just so kick-ass!

Rating: B-

Review: 'Chloe'

2010-04-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

Atom Egoyan's new film, Chloe, is as unexpected as it is a fresh, which is not something I thought I would say about a film that yet again brings back the "psycho scorned lover" a la Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.

The story focuses on Catherine (Julianne Moore), a woman who suspects that her husband, David (Liam Neeson), is cheating on her. in order to find out for certain, she hires a call-girl named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) to try and seduce her husband and report back on what happens. If the plot seems a little unlike the stuff these three huge stars have done in the past, you are spot on. However, with Atom Egoyan's elegant and stylistic direction, instead of coming off as trashy and campy, the story comes off as provocative and captivating. Instead of focusing on "sex", Egoyan chooses to focus on "sexuality", and its those sexual desires and motives of the main characters that keeps the story building and moving forwards.

The acting was fantastic all-around, most notable being Amanda Seyfried (who is previously known for her roles in movies such as Mean Girls and Mamma Mia), who gave a career-defining performance. It's this performance that is going to singlehandedly help her break out of the "wide-eyed, sweet girl" roles and on-to more serious stuff. Julianne Moore was great as usual, and gave a very strong, fearless performance. While the ending left me a little unsatisfied, the movie is so strange (and let me tell you...it is one of the strangest movies i've ever seen...you NEED to know that going in) and interesting that I would even go for round two. Watch the trailer beforehand. You need to be prepared.

Rating: B-

**Watch the trailer here!

New Sex and the City Trailer!!

2010-04-12T16:04:00.000-07:00

With a little over a month until the much-anticipated Sex and the City 2's release, we have finally been graced with a new full-length trailer! And as if fans aren't already excited enough, look out for the return of Aiden in the new trailer! Sex and the City 2 will hit theaters on May 27th, 2010.

Date Night review

2010-04-11T12:25:00.000-07:00

Fans of 30 Rock and The Office take note: go see Date Night! Date Night, starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell, is about Phil and Claire Foster, and married couple with kids whose life has turned into a systematic, monotonous routine. One night they decide to spice things up a bit and go out to dinner in a trendy new restaurant in the city, minus reservations. When they get there and realize theres no way they're going to get a table, they make the seemingly harmless decision to just take someone else's reservations. What follows is crazy ride filled with mistaken identities, corrupt cops, and the Fosters on a run for their lives.

While the plot leaves something to be desired, what really saves Date Night is the hysterical combination of Fey and Carell. They were very believable as a couple, and way they played off each other is just as good as you would suspect. In addition to the duo, the film was packed with a bundle of others stars, including Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, James Franco and Ray Liotta, all who, even with their very minimal screen time, exponentially elevated the enjoyableness of the movie by their collective scenes. The humor mainly stems from the way the stars deliver their lines more than cleverness on the scripts part, but the entire cast is so effective and so likeable that it really didn't matter. All in all, unless you specifically dislike either of the two leads, Date Night is a great choice if you're looking for a good, fun night out at the movies.

Rating: B

The Bounty Hunter review

2010-03-22T08:08:00.000-07:00

Oh how the mighty have fallen! Gerard Butler started out as someone I was a huge fan of. He went from playing the buff, screaming King Leonidas in 300, to the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera. He was even able to make all the girls swoon we saw in P.S- I Love You. However, since the epic fail that was The Ugly Truth, i fear that he is starting to get type-casted in an extremely unlikable, and uninteresting role: The rough growling asshole. In The Bounty Hunter, he takes on this exact same persona. He plays Milo, a bounty hunter (hence the incredibly unique title) who is assigned to take his investigative journalist ex-wife Nicole (Jennifer Aniston) to jail for skipping her court date (she was arrested for assaulting a police officer) in order to investigate a lead. But the story couldn't be more predictable. Before we even get a glimpse of Butler and Aniston on screen together, we already know this is going to be a story of love that turned to hate that (shocker!) turns back to love. And this wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't for the fact that I found it completely unbelievably that these characters ever loved each other! In the movies defense, I very much believed that they hated each other, which is the majority of the movie. But I couldn't even muster enough suspension of disbelief to convince myself that these two were ever in love, mainly due to the fact that the duo had zero chemistry. The storyline, while contrived, seemed like it wanted to be a sexy, fun rom-com. The big problem though, was that even with a few funny scenes and two stars as good-looking and sexy as Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston, the movie was still unable to conjure up any heat, but succeeded in boring me towards the end.

Rating: D+

The Twilight Saga: ECLIPSE trailer!

2010-03-18T12:07:00.001-07:00

It's finally here! I'm like a week late in posting this, but for those of you who haven't seen it (or for those of you who, like myself, who can't stop watching it), here it is!

Remember Me

2010-03-18T12:04:00.001-07:00

This is one of those films that I feel like the trailer either made you really want to see it, or really put you off. Here's the thing about that trailer...the tone, is almost spot on. Do not go see Remember Me if you're simply looking for a sweet romance. This film and its themes are much more emotionally draining than meets the eye, and it is not a happy story. However, if you are looking for a film that will make you feel deeply and get you utterly invested in its characters and story, then it would be a travesty to pass up on Remember Me.

First of all, I need to make a disclaimer: if you have a problem with Robert Pattinson, leave it outside the door of the theater. I know it's easy to go into the movie with a lot of preconceived notions on how poorly he will do, and its hard to think of him as anyone else but Edward Cullen, but for the sake of this movie...give him a chance. I really think he will surprise you. While he has yet to fully ripen as an actor, Remember Me gave me sincere hope that he is well on his way, and he definitely has a few scenes in the film that show off his skills. The rest of the cast, including Emilie de Ravin, Pierce Brosnan, and Chris Cooper were fantastic as well. The quality of the acting and depth of the script both worked together flawlessly to make the audience really know and care about the characters.

I honestly don't want to give anything away about the story or plot...if you want to know what its about, watch the trailer and it will give you a glimpse into the general storyline. But this movie realistically explores love and loss better than i've seen in most recent movies, and going in with little knowledge of the film will indefinitely lead to a much more powerful, affecting movie-going experience. please go see it, and I would love to know what everyone thinks.

Rating: B+

She's Out of My League review

2010-03-16T10:11:00.001-07:00

She's Out of My League completely surpassed my expectations. After seeing the trailer and TV spots like a million times, I had actually made up my mind that I did not want to see it, and that the whole idea that Jay Baruchel's character wasn't good-looking enough to be with Alice Eve was a somewhat mean-spirited idea to base a movie around. Not only was I wrong about the movie being mean-spirited and shallow, but it happened to be one of the best romantic comedies (albeit more raunchy than most) that i've seen in quite some time. I have come to the conclusion that She's out of my League is the perfect date movie. The crude humor will have that guys (and girls) falling out of their seat with laughter, but, unlike most movies with this type of humor, the film had the perfect even amount of sweetness mixed in...enough so, that it actually earned the genre "romantic comedy", and that you found yourself rooting for the two leads the whole time.

I do have one very big problem with the film though. The whole storyline centers around Kirk, an awkward, average looking (and freakishly skinny) guy who works at an airport, and by chance, meets Molly, a gorgeous, successful evert planner, and they end up dating. Here's the problem with this though: its not the fact that kirk isn't really good-looking, or that he doesn't have a lot of money or that he drives a shit-box, all of which are some of the many reasons his friends and family rattle off as to why he and Molly don't fit together. No, the REAL reason it was hard to buy Kirk and Molly as a couple is that the film forgot to do one key thing...to make Kirk charming! All we get out of his character the entire movie is an awkward, stuttering guy with absolutely zero confidence. And while he is indeed very sweet and considerate, I didn't feel it was enough for her to actually be attracted to him. However, if you go into the movie prepared to practice a lot of suspension of disbelief, I know you'll come out of the theater glad that you gave the movie a chance.

Rating: B

New Nightmare on Elm Street remake trailer!

2010-02-26T06:46:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to lie, when I first heard that they were remaking Nightmare on Elm Street I was pretty appalled. First that atrocious looking remake of Halloween, then Friday the 13th, now they were gonna screw with Freddy Kruger?! BUT, after seeing the new trailer that was released today I am genuinely sold on it! Watch it here!

"The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" teaser release date announced!

2010-02-18T19:12:00.000-08:00

Finally! For all you twihards such as myself, I know you have been waiting and waiting (probably as impatiently as me) for the release date of the first Eclipse trailer. Well its finally here! The first trailer will be released on March 12th, connected to the film Remember Me, starring Twilight star Robert Pattinson. However, there is a big possibility that we'll get the trailer online in HD days before the release! Keeping my fingers crossed!

Movies to look forward to in March!

2010-02-18T18:56:00.000-08:00

"Alice in Wonderland" starring Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway and Mia Wasikowska

Release Date: March 5th, 2010 (also being released in IMAX 3D)

"Remember Me" Starring: Robert Pattinson, Chris Cooper, Pierce Brosnan and Emilie de Ravin

Release Date: March 12th, 2010

"Chloe" starring Amanda Seyfried, Julianne Moore, and Liam Neeson

Release Date: March 26th, 2010 (limited release)

"The Runaways" starring Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning

Release Date: March 19th, 2010

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-02-18T16:12:00.001-08:00

Hot Tub Time Machine is most definitely going to succeed in the box office by using the same advertising tactic that Snakes on a Plane first mastered: let the audience know that the movie is SUPPOSED to be stupid. When I first saw Craig Robinson break the 4th wall and look at the camera in the trailer and say: "its like its some sort of....hot tub time machine!" I knew I had to see it. Going in with the right expectations to any movie is key, and Hot Tub Time Machine really lays it all out there for you to see in the preview. As far as stupid comedies go, it wasn't really the funniest, but it had it's moments where you could barely hear the next line since everyone in the theater was clapping and laughing so loudly. It is for those moments, and the hysterical performances from the four leads, that leads me to recommend Hot Tub Time Machine. Anyone who thought the trailer looked funny will enjoy the movie. If you didn't think the trailer was funny, you will probably hate it so stay far away. It's really just as simple as that.

Grade: B

Valentine's Day

2010-02-08T19:37:00.000-08:00

Ahhh Valentine's Day. I don't know one girl that isn't totally pumped for Garry Marshall's star-studded new movie. With a cast like Ashton Kutcher, Jennifer Garner, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx, Julia Roberts, Bradley Cooper and many more...it's hard not to be at least a little curious how on earth all these huge names ended up in the same film. I'll tell you this: the movie game "7 degrees" is gonna get a hell of a lot easier now that this movie has been made. The cast aside though, I think what most people are wondering is this: Is it actually a good movie? Or is it all hype? Valentine's Day is exactly what you would expect it to be: It's another interconnecting story line movie that focuses on a day in the life of multiple characters/couples on Valentine's Day in LA. While it wasn't especially funny and ran a little long for my taste (some moments felt like they were dragging), there were those moments that remind us girls why we love chick flicks so much. It's exactly what you need if you're looking for a simple, formula, adorable movie with a lot of heart. The actors all played off each other very well, and with a cast this enticing, this was to be expected. And I was very pleased to see that the connections between the characters existed to assist the movie and better it rather than just exist to give the actors more screen time. And while there were certain storyline's that I was just cravingggg to get more of (you should know going in that Taylor Squared have very small roles), I understand that there simply wasn't enough time. Is the storyline completely contrived? Of course. Is there anything remotely unique or original about the film? Absolutely not. But it does exactly what it set out to do: It makes you smile.

Rating: B

How do you think "Valentine's Day" will be?

2010-02-08T07:15:00.000-08:00

So tonight, I'm seeing an early screening of Garry Marshall's new star-studded vehicle "Valentine's Day". I couldn't possibly be more excited for it...with the king of Chick Flicks directing and every actor under the sun starring, its hard (for someone with my weakness for romantic comedies, at least) to not be anxiously anticipating this movie. However the more I think about it, this movie can easily go one of two ways: either it can turn out somewhat like Love Actually, and just be absolutely delightful, with all the many stars playing off each other brilliantly and the connections between the characters serving to assist the movie. OR, and I'm really really hoping this isn't the case, it could turn out to be a total and complete mess. With 15+ huge stars all starring in the same movie, it might turn out that there simply is not enough time in the two hour long movie to give enough screen time to each couple. I'm just hoping that the screenplay and direction come together to make this movie as good as it should be. There is too much talent behind it for it to flop. Review coming tonight!

Watch the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0BMk04_ojg&feature=PlayList&p=B9E29A648EB12D74&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=31

Dear John

2010-02-07T11:18:00.000-08:00

Going into Dear John, it's important for any viewer to know one fact: it's a movie based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. If you had a problem with A Walk to Remember or The Notebook, you're probably not the target audience for this movie. That being said, if you go into Dear John with the right expectations: knowing that it is first and foremost a romance movie, that it'll have its cheesy moments, and that you'll need a pack of tissues handy, you are much more likely to come out with a gratifying movie-going experience.

Dear John's plot is simple: John, a soldier who is back home in North Carolina on leave, and Savannah, a college student working for Habitat for Humanity during her school break, fall madly and passionately in love with each other over the course of the two weeks they have together. Of course, like in all movies, its not as simple as 'they fell in love and lived happily ever after', the conflict sets in: John has to go back to war, and Savannah back to college. Yes, we've heard the story before. I know it's not original. But thats one of things I think I like best about a Nicholas Sparks story: he doesn't rely on originality. Its the relationships in his stories that he focuses most of his attention on, and in this he succeeds beyond belief. You feel the chemistry building between the two leads and cant help but keep your fingers crossed during the whole movie, hoping they will finally be together in the end. And the two stars, Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried, do everything they possibly can to support Sparks passion and bring John and Savannah to life. I was especially surprised with Channing Tatum. Having only seen him in movies such as "She's the Man" and "Step Up", I went into the movie with my mind made up that he would screw over all the emotional moments of the movie with his terrible excuse for acting. But i'll say this right now: I was wrong. He really put his all into the role, and while I still feel like he had his moments where he was slacking, he has the building blocks to be a much better actor than he has given himself the opportunity to be. Amanda Seyfried was, as usual, stunningly gorgeous and very sincere in her portrayal of Savannah. I'm starting to think that she can really do no wrong.

Now for the negatives: for the most part, Dear John has been recieving less than positive reviews from most, and the only thing I can contribute this to is the screenplay. Without giving anything away, I will say that there are certain aspects of the story that seem as if they come absolutely out of nowhere and don't make sense to the audience, therefore forcefully dragging the viewer out of the story. In addition to that, the ending is very abrupt and somewhat dissatifying. For people who have read the book: as hard as it is, try and detach the book from your head, otherwise you are destined to hate this movie. The ending was completely butchered and things were changed that brought the story as a whole down instead of up. But sadly this is a risk we always have to be prepared to face when a favorite book is adapted into a movie.

While it's unfortunate that the story structure broke down in the second act, there are still a very good amount of extremely satisfying and heartwrenching/heartwarming moments that, in my opinion, the movie was still able to redeem itself as a whole. John and Savannah's connection is so touching and sweet that I can't help but forgive the movie its flaws. Instead of instantly listening to the bad reviews and staying far away, all I can say is to at least give it a try. If you liked the look of the trailer and go in with the right state of mind, I truly feel like you will thoroughly enjoy Dear John.

Rating: B-

When in Rome

2010-02-03T06:58:00.000-08:00

From the trailer, I probably should have been able to deduce that the movie would be stupid and not worth my time, but the appeal of a new cute romantic comedy mixed with the charm of Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel made me (shamefully) excited to see When in Rome. However, within the first half hour, I couldn't help but marvel at my own bad judgement. Not only was When in Rome most definitely stupid and not worth my time, it made me embarrassed for everyone attached to the movie, and even more embarrassed that I was one of the people that saw the movie opening night.

What makes When in Rome so bad isn't the plot, its the execution of what could have been a somewhat original plot alongside one of the worst scripts i've ever encountered. The comedy was slapstick and so completely over the top that it was difficult to even pretend to laugh at. I actually found my self bored during the last half, because it got to the point where I wasn't even rooting for the characters at all. All of the funny lines were in the trailer, and the movie really encompasses everything that gives chick flicks and romantic comedies a bad rep. To top it all off, the leads, who were the main drawing point for me seeing the movie, were flat and had no notable chemistry. The movie didn't even take advantage of the moments filmed in beautiful Rome, so I can't give it props in that aspect either. While writing this review, I'm trying to think of some good qualities the film had, but honestly can think of nothing beyond "the leads are nice to look at"...and even that doesn't make me feel any better about the 10 dollars I will never see again.

Rating: D-

The Lovely Bones

2010-01-16T16:35:00.000-08:00

The Lovely Bones is based on Alice Sebold's bestselling novel, but unfortunately fails in every way that the book triumphs. It's is the story of Susie Salmon, a 14-year old girl who after being brutally raped and murdered, watches over her family (and murderer), seeing how her death has affected them. In the book, we get to deeply experience these characters, their emotions, thoughts, and attempts at coping in the face of tragedy. However, the film decides that character development is not as important as "symbolic" imagery (which will, without a doubt, alienate about 90% of its audience), and a gumdrop-colored CGI heaven. If I could sit down with Peter Jackson, and just really discuss this movie to see what was going through his head when he wrote the screenplay, I would ask him this: why, oh why is your "vision" of heaven a cotton-candy, flower-power CGI explosion? I just find so much humor in the fact that he calls this his "vision"...he obviously read the book, since he adapted it. Well let me tell you something: In the novel there was no snowy mountains or explosions of colors in Susie's heaven. Susie's heaven was high school. Imagine that. A recently murdered 14 year olds inner dreams and desires came together to form her heaven, an experience that most young girls get to experience and grow from: high school. To me, thats a lot more meaningful than what Jackson did. Maybe he forgot what he was directing. This is not Lord of the Rings. The imagery didn't need to be fancy...it just needed to be heartfelt. Instead almost all the heart that the story had was sucked out and thrown away.

Now I know i'm being much harder on the film due to the fact that i'm a big fan of the novel. However, when I saw the movie for a second time, I disconnected the book from my head and tried to view the movie on its own. Even with doing this, the movie is still a failure. The movie ends and you can't help but just sit there afterwards and wonder to yourself: what was the point of that? Yeah it looked cool, yeah it elicited some tears from me. But what was the overall message? What's this story trying to tell me? This is the biggest problem on the movies part. The screenplay was all over the place and Peter Jackson just tried too hard...I know he tried, and I know he's a good director. Thats what makes The Lovely Bones all the more frustrating. With his crazy faux-symbolic imagery, its like he's trying so hard to make the story more "deep" and "meaningful". But what he failed to realize was that all the depth was already there in the novel. If he followed it, it would have all come smoothly and naturally.

Even with its many flaws, there still is some praise to be given to the movie. There are some scenes, such as the one where Lindsay breaks into Mr. Harveys house (not a spoiler, it was in the trailer) that were so perfect, and I wished there were more scenes like this one. But unfortunately, after the first 20 minutes (which were absolutely great), more scenes disappointed than succeeded. In addition to the few wonderful scenes, the acting was great all around. Most notably: Saoirse Ronan as Susie Salmon, Mark Wahlberg as her father, and Stanley Tucci as Mr. Harvey (the murderer). Stanley Tucci is the only thing in this film that is nomination worthy, and I truly hope he wins Best Supporting Actor at the globes tomorrow. He completely transforms himself in the film, and I suspect that if you didn't know it was him beforehand, from the way that he looks and talks in the movie you might not even recognize him. He seriously gave me the creeps and made me super uncomfortable throughout the entire film (ESPECIALLY in the "murder" scene). Its a shame that with all this talent, and with these actors really giving it there all, the movie still fell flat. Jackson had so much to work with. Still, the acting was able to elevate the movie from disaster status to a somewhat enjoyable film. I just wish their characters were more explored so the actors could have put more depth into their performances, but its not their fault.

Overall, The Lovely Bones is a mediocre movie that quite often went for "emotional" but came out as "sappy". The novel is a super intense, emotionally-draining reading experience. The movie however, eliminated most of the emotion and pain that the novel related to its readers. Peter Jackson went for safety instead of getting up-close and personal with all of the really difficult and painful issues the book explores. And for that, I think he's a coward of a director. My final thought? If you can't handle the source material, DON'T try and adapt it into a movie.

Rating: C

Leap Year review

2010-01-09T18:26:00.000-08:00

Leap Year, one of the first romantic comedies of 2010, is a charming (yet expectedly predictable) movie that starts the year off on the right foot. Anna (Amy Adams), has her perfect life planned out, the last piece to her puzzle being a ring on her finger from her handsome, heart-surgeon boyfriend, Jeremy. When once again she is disappointed after expecting a proposal, she spontaneously decides to surprise Jeremy at a conference he's at in Dublin, her plan being to take advantage of a local tradition in Ireland which states that a woman can propose to her boyfriend on leap year. After an emergency landing due to weather turbulence delays her arrival into Dublin, she meets an Innkepper, Declan (Matthew Goode), who offers to give her a ride.

Leap Year pretty much uses every romantic-comedy trick in the book, yet despite all of the cliches, Amy Adams and Matthew Goode are both so likable and have so much charm that they are able to successfully carry the movie, making it impossible for you not to root for them throughout. One of the few complaints I have about the movie is that at some points it felt the need to add more comedy than necessary, sometimes taking some of the truly special moments and cheapening them down with pointless gags. However, the chemistry between Adams and Goode mixed with the breathtaking scenic views of Ireland mesh together to form a delightful date movie that will have you smiling during the whole ride.

Grade: B+

It's Complicated review

2010-01-03T12:47:00.000-08:00

When you see a cast like Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, and Steve Martin all together in the same movie, you have to be at least a little intrigued. I know I was, which is why I chose to go see It's Complicated on its opening day. The premise is about a lonely, divorced woman (Meryl Streep), who finds herself in the unlikely (yet very comical) situation of starting an affair with her now married ex-husband (Alec Baldwin). The film is directed by Nancy Meyers, a director who has given us some of the most delightful romantic comedies of recent times such as 'The Holiday", "Somethings Gotta Give", and "What Woman Want". It's Complicated, unfortunately, doesn't meet the standard of these other films in my opinion. While it is at some points very funny, the humor is much more silly than clever...much of it relying on the age of the three leads to get its laughs: "look, the middle-aged people are smoking pot!" "Look, the middle-aged people are having sex!" I guess seeing the stature of the cast, and the hype surrounding the movie, I expected a little more. Nevertheless, while the script might not be all that I wanted it to be, the three leads elevate it from mediocrity to quite a fun and enjoyable movie-going experience.

Grade: B-

The Young Victoria review

2009-12-26T14:00:00.000-08:00

The Young Victoria is about the early days of Queen Victoria's rule in England and her blossoming relationship with the man she will come to marry, Prince Albert. Queen Victoria is played by Emily Blunt, who most of you will probably recognize from her role in The Devil Wears Prada. She is what makes this movie worth seeing. I'm not going to lie, I have a weakness for British period dramas. So when I first saw the trailer for this movie, I automatically knew it was something I would be seeing. However, when I started hearing all the buzz over Emily Blunts performance, I was intrigued. The girl from The Devil Wears Prada? Her first starring role, and their calling it oscar-worthy? Then she was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Actress, and I knew I absolutely had to see it. She is, in my opinion, better than the hype, and better than I could have ever expected. She plays the role with such spirit that you can't help but be taken with her. She captures so much vivacity in her performance, and is so comfortable in her role as Queen Victoria that it is truly remarkable. And on another note, I can't help but mention how beautiful she looks throughout the entire film. She deserves a nomination, and she deserves to win it.

When it comes to movies like this, you can almost always expect two things: lovely, sweeping cinematography, and breathtaking costumes. This movie has both, but it was the costumes that had me fixated the entire movie. Can you say best costumes oscar? I haven't been this in love with a movies costumes since Marie Antoinette. They were seriously incredible. Even if the story doesn't appeal to you, I would recommend you see it for the visuals alone. The cinematography was so lush that even during a slight period of around 15 minutes when the story felt like it was starting to dull, I had no impulses to zone out.

The Young Victoria is a great film, and definitely has its merits. However, throughout the movie I couldn't help but think that something was missing, yet I couldn't put my finger on it. After the movie ended I was still trying to figure this out when it finally hit me. What this film was lacking, which is usually abundant in other films of its kind, is passion. Still, it is most definitely worth seeing if you are a fan of the genre, Emily Blunt, or even just sweet romances.

Grade: B

Sex and the City 2 Trailer is finally here!

2009-12-23T11:52:00.000-08:00

Brittany Murphy dies at 32

2009-12-20T13:28:00.001-08:00

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20332090,00.html?xid=rss-fullcontent

This is so sad. Why have so many celebrities died this year?! I think the year 2009 is cursed. Thank god its almost over, because I can't handle anymore of this!

Up in the Air review

2009-12-19T19:04:00.000-08:00

Up in the Air is about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who's job is to fire people for a living, who ends up as a mentor of sorts for Natalie (Anna Kendrick), an ambitious girl straight out of college looking to get into the business. When I first heard about the plot I was less than impressed. However, after hearing from multiple friends (and almost every single review I read) about how great it is, I decided I needed to see it. And I'm so glad I did. Up in the Air is one of the best movies of the year, and it's sure to be nominated for "Best Picture" at the Oscars. One of the best elements of the movie is that it's so inherently aware of its tone, which I think is a rarity in movies these days. It was a mix of drama and somewhat dark humor, but the blend was so seemless that it didn't feel forced or misguided (which is how I felt about the movie Funny People, and is one of the main reasons I think it flopped). The script is very witty and had a bunch of great one-liners, some that even had the entire audience in my theater clapping. However, Up in the Air is not a particularly fast-paced movie. That is definitely something you should know going in. It never felt slow or like it was dragging, but it kept the same steady pace from the very beginning to the very end. If this is going to be a problem for you, skip it. But if you don't mind spending two hours getting deeply immersed in these characters and their views on life, I highly recommend it! That's another one of the shinning elements of this film...the incredible character development. By the end of the film, you feel like you really, truly know all three of the main characters. You know their mindset, their strengths and their weaknesses. George Clooney, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga are all perfect in their roles, and play them with great depth. So I'm going to keep this short and sweet, and just end on this note: if you're someone who appreciates a really great script with relatable, well-developed characters, definitely see Up in the Air. You'll be sure to hear much more about this movie come Academy Awards time, I guarantee it!

Grade: A

Top 10 Chick Flicks that men secretly love

2009-12-18T13:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/02/06/top-10-chick-flicks-that-men-secretly-love/

10. Titanic

9. Ghost

8. Mean Girls

7. While You Were Sleeping

6. When Harry Met Sally

5. My Big Fat Greek Wedding

4. Moulin Rouge

3. Pretty Woman

2. Bridget Jones's Diary

1. Love Actually

I totally agree with this list. Every movie on it is one of my favs...they are just too lovable to only be enjoyed by the female population! Plus, what is it that makes men so scared to admit they love these movies too? Is it just a matter of protecting their masculinity? I don't know, I will never understand...

Avatar review!

2009-12-18T00:41:00.000-08:00

Oh man this is going to be a hard review to write. Usually I like to wait until at least the next day after seeing a movie to review it, because I have a tendency to go all "fan-girl like" and freak out and start throwing the "OMG!'s" around everywhere throughout the review. So I literally just got home from seeing the midnight screening of Avatar in IMAX 3D, it's 3:47 AM, and I honestly don't feel like I can wait until the morning to write this, so bear with me. First of all, I just need to get this out there: Avatar was without a doubt one of the most incredible, stunning, film-going experiences of my entire life. The only time I have ever experienced anything even close to this was when I was 7 years old and saw Titanic in theaters for the very first time. James Cameron is a genius. Period. No one can argue any differently. I've heard people say he thinks he's "all that" and that he thinks he's just so much better than the rest. But here's the thing...he IS all that! He is the epitome of what a director should be. He doesn't allow himself to dream unless he's dreaming big. No, all movies aren't meant to be epics (and shouldn't be)...some of the best movies ever made are just regular character dramas. But when it comes to epics, James Cameron is it. His attention to detail is inexplicable...I don't know how to phrase it, its one of those things where you truly need to see it to understand exactly what I mean. As most people already know, he created the revolutionary motion-capture and 3D technology used for this movie. Even Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson came to his movie set to get a look at it. He meant for this film to come out around two years after Titanic, but soon realized that the technology at the time just was not where it needed to be to make the film the way he wanted to. Now, 12 years later, and his first movie since Titanic, and I can sense another Best Picture and Best Director oscar nomination nearby!

Now to get back on track. THE GRAPHICS AND SPECIAL EFFECTS! A lot of people are going into the movie skeptical; "It's all hype", "I doubt it will be as good or groundbreaking as everyones saying". Let me be the first to tell you...THEY ARE! I'll even go as far as to say that they're better than the hype is making them out to be. I seriously could not believe my eyes, it was that breathtaking! I'll be honest, at first, the 3D and photorealistic CGI were getting the best of me...my mind wasn't allowing me to get fully engaged in the story like I wanted to, I just keep thinking: "this is unreal, this is UNREAL!" Because the graphics were really so so so beautiful. Words cannot describe. Once again, it's one of those things where you need to see it to believe it. But somewhere within that first hour mark, the story got so good, and so unique, that even my overactive brain was able to shut up and just be swept away by the story. This is what most people are even more skeptical and unsure about. I've heard more people than not say that they're seeing it only for the special effects, but that the story is unoriginal and stupid. I dare all the people that feel this way to give the movie a shot, because you WILL feel otherwise once the movie gets going. The character development was fantastic, and the creation of Pandora was even more amazing. While watching the movie, Pandora is what felt right. Anytime they cut away from the Na'vi people and avatars and cut back to the humans on the ship, it felt more unnatural to be with the humans than it did to be on Pandora (and believe me, you literally feel like you are actually on Pandora!). That's one of the main things that made me realize just how powerful this movie is.

The Motion Capture: OMG! I had read a lot about Cameron's new system beforehand, but I still wasn't fully prepared for how flawless it was. The way they were able to capture even the tiniest little facial expressions was just out of this world. It got to the point where you were no longer just looking at these 10 ft tall blue aliens....you related to them. They were humanized so perfectly that we were able to connect to them the way we would a regular human character, and thats pretty incredible. This was probably the most important thing that James Cameron achieve: because if we weren't able to feel for the Na'vi people and avatars the love story would have crashed and burned and the movie as a whole simply would not have worked. Also the acting was fantastic all around! Zoe Saldana very much brought Neytiri to life (she was, in my opinion, the best out of everyone), as did Sam Worthington for Jake Sully.

The only complaint I really have it that I wish the relationship/love story between Jake and Neytiri was a little more developed. But that's really the only thing. I can't think of anything else to criticize. Even the length was perfect. Usually I am not too big a fan of long movies, but Avatar, running at around 2 hours and 40 minutes, zoomed by as if it were only an hour and a half.

I highly recommend that everyone go see Avatar as soon as you can! And make sure you see it in 3D...I'm sure it's wonderful in 2D as well, but this is one of those movies where it will without a doubt reinvigorate your love for movies and the movie-going experience.

Grade: A

Must-Watch Trailers!

2009-12-17T14:10:00.000-08:00

The new, full-length Alice in Wonderland trailer just came out today...it looks perfect!

The Lovely Bones trailer:

Read this article!

2009-12-17T13:04:00.001-08:00

This will give you a mini "special effects history lesson" (very interesting, I promise!), and you'll see what the big deal is about Avatar:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Avatar-Happened-Lightcycles-And-Giant-Lizards-On-The-Path-To-Innovation-16162.html

First time blogging...

2009-12-17T12:49:00.001-08:00

This is my first time ever blogging, but my goal is to do this very regularly. Basically, I see a lot of movies. I LOVE movies. So I'm going to come on here and post movie reviews (and movie info) for the movies I see from now on. I guess I'm starting this at a good time...everyone knows that all the best movies come out in December, because they are all hoping for an Academy Award nod. Right now I feel like I'm almost backed up when it comes to movies I need to see. Up in the Air is getting some serious acclaim, as is Precious. I plan on seeing both of them within the next week, hopefully. But more importantly, I'm seeing the midnight screening of a certain movie getting an enormous amount of hype. I'll give you one hint...they're saying it's a film that people will look back on in years to come and say how it completely revolutionized cinema. Yup, you guessed it...I'm seeing the midnight screening of AVATAR tonight! Titanic being one of my all-time favorite movies, every once in a while I would go on the IMDb to see when James Cameron would finally make another movie. Well, it took him 12 years later, but from the looks of Avatar, it seems like he made the right decision in waiting until he could finally do something that wouldn't be overshadowed by his previous films. It's only 4:00 PM right now and I'm already starting to get a little too anxious. Oh, and did I mention that I will be seeing Avatar in IMAX 3D tonight? Yeah, tonight is going to be a night to remember! Review coming soon!