The Social Network

THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE MOST FAMOUS SOCIAL NETWORK IN THE WORLD. My Rating: ***** - Classic



Facebook has become known to the world. Most people use it. It was another one of those things that revolutionized technology and communication. It took its place beside Microsoft, Twitter, MySpace, and well, the Internet itself. But, have you ever wondered how they came to be? Well, "The Social Network" tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg. The CEO of Facebook and the youngest billionaire in history. After the launch in 2004, a large commotion arose at Harvard University. As friends turned to foes, and jealousy turned to court action, Mark Zuckerberg found himself in the middle of two lawsuits. One from two twins who claim he stole their idea, and one from his best friend, Eduardo Saverin. "The Social Network" does the unique thing of telling the story from all three perspectives. It does the rare thing of causing the audience to not know who the protagonists and antagonists are. It leaves that to the opinion of the audience. I am not the only critic to rave about this film. It has captured the well deserved attention of people worldwide. The script is fantastic. It has sort of modern-day Shakespeare style without the "thous", "thyns", "shalts", and "arts". It also teaches a lesson on money, considering the millions of dollars that were fought over in the film and in the real-life lawsuits. Despite how deep the film is, it also has good entertainment. For some reason, the main character is such a smart allec that it's just plain funny. You can see some examples in the trailer on Youtube. The acting is also fantastic, and is sure to skyrocket the careers of both Mark Zuckerberg and Jesse Eisenberg(the guy who plays him). There are no faults in the lines and therefore that shows up as no faults in the well written dialogue. So far, I've never heard anyone say they didn't like the movie, and I doubt that you, the reader, will say that either. In short, I loved the film so much it inspired me to make a Facebook page myself.

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield,
Justin Timberlake Director: David Fincher

Vampires Suck

I AGREE. My Rating: ** - Fair



FINALLY! FINALLY! FINALLY someone made a movie that is a spoof of a film series that I DON'T care for. Not only that, but it was "Twilight"! My first choice. And the best part is it's so easy to make fun of. But, the film is not much different than it's cousins "Epic Movie", "Disaster Movie", "Scary Movie 1-4", "Superhero Movie", "Meet the Spartans",ect. I promise that in my lifetime you will never find a movie as light as ones like these. They are spoofs, and they have no sense. In comedy, there are different types of material. There's screwball comedy( "The Hangover"), Vulgar comedy ("Bruno"), Slapstick comedy(" Grown Ups"), and Dark comedy ("Leaves of Grass"). This film is a combo of slapstick and vulgar. Making it relatively the type of funny you'd see in "J.A." . The only bad thing about this film is that you probably won't laugh that much if you are A. Clueless as to what "Twilight" is, B. old, or C. mature. And the plot is derived from the first twilight movie but also borrows from "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". So, almost any major part in the two films you may remember will be disassembled and changed into a spoof. As for acting, well, in these kinds of movies you don't especially need to act. Just go out there and act crazy. I was really laughing a few times, nut I can only give it two stars because it was so stupid. If you want anything with a remote bit of seriousness, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! If you don't mind this sort of thing, go ahead. But if you do watch it on DVD, you probably will be out of options at blockbuster.

Starring: Jen Proske, Matt Lanter Directors: Aaron Seltzer, Jason Freidberg

Takers

EVERYONE'S AFTER SOMETHING. My Rating: ***1/2 - Good

Mansions, clubs, and pretty much all-out lives of luxury are in possession of a group of takers. Physically fit, smart, highly trained bank robbers. Played by a cast consisting of Idris Elba("The Losers"), Hayden Christiansen (Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith), and many other stars. Although, I could feel a rise of resentment in the theatre wen Chris Brown came on screen. But, I think they still enjoyed it. Anyways, the Takers have been pulling off bank jobs for a few years, and now, after finishing their latest one, an old friend is released after doing five years and prison. He is nicknamed "Ghost", and played by the famous rapper T.I. ... and he's got plans of his own that will decide the fate of the Takers and two cops( Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez) who are investigating their bank robberies. In many ways, this film reminds me of movies like "The Bank Job"(starring Jason Statham) and "The Town"(Starring Ben Affleck). Both of which are movies about bank robberies. But the main thing they have in common, is that they all end the same way. It seems to be a common trait among robbery movies. Of course, I won't tell you the ending because that would make me a VERY irresponsible critic. The audience that would like this kind of movie is a person who likes films with a lot of tension and drama. Because when cops and robbers are involved, it's hard to lose your attention. Yet, it is also not as heavy or inappropriate as most movies of its kind. So it's a little easier to so younger audiences why you shouldn't be robbing banks. The acting is good, nothing spectacular. It was what it is: enough to keep your attention. If I had to put the film in a nutshell, I'd say its a light, short, entertaining bank robbery movie. But in the end, most people probably won't have that much to say about it.

Starring: Idris Elba, Hayden Christiansen, Director: John Lussenhop
Matt Dillon, Chris Brown, Paul Walker, T.I.

Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World

My Rating: 3.5/4


Some movies in film history have been unexpected gifts. Some films looked like they were either made by a psycho or were going to be duds. "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World", at first glance of the previews, looked to be both. But, after watching the film, I was proven wrong. Now, "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World"? What is that? Just hearing the name of the title makes you curious as to what it's about. Well, the plot goes like this: Scott Pilgrim(Micheal Cera...above, last on left) lives in the odd land of Toronto. Heart broken from several recent break-ups. One day, He gets a glimpse of a new girl who's moved there, Ramona Flowers(Mary Winstead... above, second from the very left),. One look and he's instantly into a trance. And is seemingly later obsessed. After much drooling over the thought of her, he gets a date and later finds out her big piece of baggage. He, in comic book-ey, special effects fireworks, cheesy videogame-like battles, must defeat her seven evil exes. Well, nothing is free right? Her exes consist of a weirdo who wears dark make-up, a cocky movie star, a vegan superman, a (well, I'll let you see the film for this one), two twin Japenese electric piano-whiz kids, and a snotty rich guy. With big challenges ahead of Scott, it's a shocker, but if he wants Ramona, he's going to have to fight for her. Now, I understand how weird that sounds. And I presume you now know what I was saying earlier about the previews. You may think it's dumb and weird, but it, like I said, is one of those unexpected gifts. "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World" (out of what I've seen) is probably Micheal Cera's best film. As for other critics, this one ranks just behind the likes of "Superbad" and "Juno". I loved how the film didn't copy off of any known plot, but was made by total imagination. It's probably the most original film since "Inception", another great movie. This film was a bold attempt to try something new. And folks, this is what keeps the movie industry fresh. New Ideas + hard work = New Movies + very well done = NEW PHENOMENON! While I don't known about Scott Pilgrim becoming a "Phenomenon", considering it ranked # 10 at the box office in it's opening weekend, and now ranks outside the top 10(which is pretty bad for a major movie release), I still think that if it had more attention, more people would rave about it. It is actually a very interesting movie, and it keeps the unique quality of a happy/sad mood at the same time. The acting is so well done that the main characters you meet are instantly very like able. Especially Ramona....anyway, the acting gets the job done and doesn't allow any lack of talent to tear at the film's core. Which the perfectly chosen cast is responsible for. I also like how they took such an oddball plot and turned it into "Hall of Fame" material. Now what makes it hall of fame material? I already mentioned the great acting and original ideas, but the film's script and sequencing is what people like most in movies. And that's what I loved about "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World". The script is very well done, while lines may be funny, surprising, serious, or are perfect matches for the sequencing, they all contribute to the film's wellness. Avoiding the diseases that plague so many films. And almost all of the things in "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World" are part of the cure. It was such a fun and enjoyable movie, you can't help but like it. It seems to remain in that tricky middleground of being morally deep and symbolic all the way to being a light viewing sitcom type - ordeal. Although it does use creative yet video- game like special effects(which was what they were supposed to be like, it even does the Universal pictures theme song in a digital remix type way at the beginning), it does maintain that love-story sense of realism. Whether you think the film looks interesting or like a piece of weirdo junk, I recommend "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World" to everyone. This is a textbook example that shows you how blessings come from the most unexpected places. And I'm proud to say that this was the movie I reviewed for my 50th movie review. I don't know about you, but I'm defintely looking forward to this one on DVD.
Starring: Micheal Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead Director: Edgar Wright

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

My Rating: 2/4


Jeff Kinney, the author of the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" series, has claimed seemingly more attention and praise nowadays than that of J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" series which has become a world-wide phenomenon and it looks as if the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" series is on its way. In order to jump-start this rise of attention, 20th Century Fox has released the feature film of the first book. It's about a kid named Greg Heffley(Zachary Gordon) who's mom(Rachael Harris) buys him a blank book with "Diary" on the cover. He claims it's a "journal", but I'll leave it up to you and what you think it is. The entries in his journal are all about his experiences in middle school, which he is just starting as the film picks up. During this time, he must juggle class, his parents, his gross baby brother Manny(Connor Feilding), his psycho and mean older brother Rodrick(Devon Bostick), his estranged friend Rowley(Robert Capron), and many other odd characters throughout middle school as he goes through one "sucks to be him" experience after another. Which(I am being sarcastic) serves as great encouragement for yours truly who just started the 7th grade as well. Another character I must mention is a friend he makes at school, Angie Steadman, played by Chloe Moretz who, when she isn't covered in victim's blood,(I'm referring to "Kick A**" by the way) actually is kinda...well...you get the point. While I was curious to see how the film would compare to the book, I wasn't very impressed. The acting from the main cast was average, nothing too exciting, the script was a little cheesy and childish, as was the film in general. I was glad that the film did avoid on major problem. Most books or series that are made into movies edit out a lot of the book. Even if it's important. This problem arose in things like "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Theif""(of which I read the entire series), "Eragon", "Harry Potter"(but then again those movies had the potential to be four hours long if they had not edited anything), and countless others. In fact, to avoid this problem, the makers of the "Harry Potter" Series are presenting the 7th and final installment, "Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows" in two parts(part one: Nov 19, 2010, part two: July 2011). Luckily, the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" books were so short (only about 200 pages each), I can't even really think of anything that wasn't in the film. It included pretty much every event I can think of. But, that can't completely save the movie. While I wasn't exactly excited while watching it, it did at least keep my attention. But, for an older audience, you may wander off to other things. It doesn't exactly hit every type of audience, you may love it or you may hate it. The acting isn't great, the script isn't great, it's cheesy and childish, but some adults have enjoyed it so I can't really judge the film and say that's how much you would like it, I can only tell you how much I liked it. But regardless, if you plan on watching the film and are maybe in high school/ college or just finishing them, "Proceed With Caution".

Starring: Zachary Gordon, Robert Capron, Director: Thor Freudenthal
Chloe Moretz, Rachael Harris, Devon Bostick,
Steve Zahn

Creation

My Rating: 3.5/4





In 1859, Charles Darwin published one of the most famous books in history, "On the Origin of Species". The book talked about his theory of natural selection. Or, more commonly known as "Evolution". Which states that species evolved from a single celled organism over billions of years. "Creation" tells the story of how he came to write the book. I find the title very ironic, however, because these events have sparked a mental and verbal WW III. The contenders being Creation and Evolution. Polar opposites. The title is "Creation", but it's movie about Evolution. Now, you may ask, what's so interesting about a movie about someone writing a book? Well, it's more like watching a journey. Darwin's theory would change everything. As he even described it in the film, when someone asked him what he was so afraid of, he replied: "Suppose the world where people stopped believing in God(because evolution is inconsistent with the Bible's Genesis account), no belief in any sort of plan for us, no honor, or respect, only brute survival. Most of all, it would break your mother's heart." And his daughter replied: "Hearts can't break silly, you told me that." Darwin had so much pressure on him that it lead to puking, sadness, horrible hallucinations, and arguments with his wife who was strongly Christian. So, I guess you could say he wasn't in a very good emotional or, "scientific" state of mind. Now, I am a Christian as well as a Creationist(which is basically the science behind God). Do I believe we have a common ancestor with apes? No. But that did not in anyway stop me from enjoying the film. I'm glad the film focuses less on science and more on story telling. And tell the story it does! In fact, here's the link for the trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5hPThezMEyWw . But, even after watching the film, I am not convinced that my faith has somehow been misplaced. I am not in any way "anti-science". And I don't think science and religion are at war. I don't wish to have any sort of animosity with those who disagree with me, and from watching the film, neither did Darwin. But I have been so involved in this subject it's been as if I'm a magnet for that sort of thing. The film is so beautifully acted and written. Never have I seen a script written any better. Some of lines in this film are so priceless I may never forget them. One of the priceless lines is an analogy. Where Charles is talking about the idea for his book to his scientist friends who are greatly encouraging him to write it, and one of them tells Charles "Congratulations, you've killed God sir." And a look of shock went onto Darwin's face and it seemed like the director and writer were leaving it open for interpretation as to whether or not that was meant as something positive or negative. With stars like Paul Bettany as Darwin and Jennifer Conelly as Emma Darwin, his wife, the acting is astonishingly good, and tops even the likes of "Sherlock Holmes". Which takes place in the same time period. It's dramatic, it's interesting, and it's not boring to those who care to listen. The soundtrack is fantastic and well composed, and that says something since that's not usually mentioned in movie reviews. The story is not only true but very powerful. Whether you agree with Darwin or not, I recommend the film to anyone with an opinion on the Creation/Evolution argument. But just to watch with an open mind. But when all is said and done in this battle of beliefs,, who is to say that the other side is not educated? Who is to say that the other side is mental? Who is to say that the other side is not full of good people? What it comes down to is that when each side is done talking, you decide. "Creation" is a mature, interesting, engrossing, colossal manifestation of part of the attitude a scientist should have. Whether you like Darwin or you don't, I definitely recommend the film. It is not rude to religious people, nor is it focused on proving people wrong, and more on telling a fascinating story. And, I hope the same will go for Walden Media's upcoming film "In the Beginning", which is a 3D film about the Genesis account. I also hope the same goes for me as long as I'm involved in the argument.

Starring: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Conelly

Director: Jon Aimel

The Other Guys

My Rating: 3/4

I guess now that Will Ferrell (above, right, "Kicking and Screaming") and Mark Wahlberg(above, left, "Max Payne") have been in a film called "The Other Guys", they can also be called the "B Team" or "The Back Up Dynamic Duo". The plot takes place in everyone's beloved N.Y.C. where the city's most famous and prized cops, Danson(Dwayne Johnson) and Highsmith(Samuel L. Jackson), are top of line...then, you have the pair who sits at the desk all day, listens to calls but never goes on cases, the guys who don't come in pumped and ready to bust crime and instead bring their doughnuts, coffee, and newspaper...The Other Guys. Played by Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, the other guys are tired of sitting at the desk all day and finally get a chance at the big shots. As they go on a big case, all (something) breaks loose. They must uncover the secrets of a case that may be the biggest crime in...well... a while. Now, the film is a comedy of odd proportions. Most of the comedy only provides the audience with a small grin, as I can only recall one moment where I really laughed as hard as the film's supposed to make you laugh. When you get to see Will Ferrell go completely berserk wrecking everything in his path was corny yet hilarious. But then again, can you think of ANY movie that that guy has done where he hasn't gone berserk in one scene or another? Either way, it's funny. Most of the film's time, however, is spent on odd yet slightly funny piles of entertainment that don't seem to be going anywhere at certain points. I wasn't completely feeling it the whole time, but it wasn't bad. Some of it wasn't exactly dead space, but I felt there was wasted potential, some of it even was a little boring. It did avoid the dangers of predictability however, but, the sequencing was falling too much toward the "average" level. The writing could have been much better and so could the comedy. But I guess the two tie together. The acting is good. the star do well, nothing really fake. Steve Coogan plays the film's, well, sorta-kinda villain, and he also played Hades in "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief", as well as the scientist in "Around the World in 8O Days". If you aren't looking for a serious, heavy, or exciting movie, "The Other Guys" should serve as a sample of interest. While you may not find it so great, it gets the essentials of the job done and will not fail you as much as say, "Alice in Wonderland". Which is a terrible movie by the way. So, overall, Good acting, much wasted potential, could have had better writing and comedy, you may like it, or you may not. It's not the ideal film for a very mature or serious person, and I understand how short this review was, but I didn't have much to say about it. And it seems that the film itself didn't have much to say either. But if you do watch "The Other Guys", it's probably because you didn't have something better to do anyway.
Starring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
Director: Adam McKay

Dinner for Schmucks

My Rating: 3.5/4


If anyone is hungry, let his/her appetite be satisfied in "Dinner for Schmucks". Having a star loaded cast doesn't seem to be an obstacle for the film, seeing as how it has Paul Rudd(right, "I Love You, Man"), Steve Carell(Left, "Get Smart"), Zach Galifinakas("The Hangover"), and Bruce Greenwood("Star Trek"). I understand this is probably the 5th or 6th movie I've reviewed in the last few months that has a star-loaded cast. Such as "Grown Ups", "Despicable Me", and so on and so forth. When you have an element such as this, great acting becomes the absolute standard. And, I'm sure you noticed my four and a half star rating, so I'm also sure you can take an educated guess that it delivered on the standards with interest. The plot is a remake of an old French film where a man named Tim(Paul Rudd) wants get a promotion at work but in order to do so, he must attend a dinner with his boss and superior co workers. His boss(Bruce Greenwood) hosts a dinner every month where everyone at work(who's in on the messed up scam of course) invites an idiot to dinner. Whoever brings the biggest idiot gets a promotion or a raise on something of that nature. And the biggest idiot, well, gets a trophy. Now, as if it's just his luck, Tim runs into an idiot unlike any other named Barry(Steve Carell) Who's biggest hobby is making dioramas with small mice dolls as the civilians. But, over this journey, will Tim use him to get a promotion, or has he found a best friend? Now, the film is a comedy and so you can tell the story was set-up to be one. I can honestly say it's one of the best comedies ever made. I CAN'T honestly tell you how hard I laughed because I laughed so hard it may count as a near-death experience. But wait, even THAT is not an honest description. So, if you are planning to see this film in the theatre, make sure you don't drink to much Pepsi at once or stuff your face full of Popcorn and/or candy or any other food that we all want to eat but it's not good for us or else you might choke. As I said before, the acting is great, no visible flaws unless you go into the film with intentions of searching for them. The story is interesting and works well with it's characters and script. I obviously enjoyed watching the film, and my attention never ceased or wandered around lost in the clouds(which it normally is) and I never, well, didn't enjoy it. I felt that "Dinner for Schmucks" was a textbook example of how to make a comedy. It's well-rounded, heartfelt, interesting, and most of all...hilarious. But, in order for me to give a Five-Star rating, the film REALLY must go above the "above and beyond" rank. "Dinner for Schmucks" was the above and beyond, but no further. But overall, I loved the movie, it's funny, clever, and just a well-told story. Definitely wanting to buy it when it comes out on DVD. So, my advice to you is, (also given by Time's Richard Corliss in his review) well, that only a Schmuck would miss it.
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Bruce Greenwood, Director: Jay Roach
Zach Galifinakas

Kick-A**

My Rating: 3/4



Okay, I have to admit, in a weird sense, "Kick A**" was a good movie. Now, with a title like that, you can't help but wonder what the film is a about. Well, allow me to shed some light on the subject. This tells the story of Dave Lezewski(Aaron Johnson), a high school comic-book geek who has always wondered the inevitable question: "How come no one has ever tried to be a superhero?" Now I agree. Of course, it is a dumb and especially dangerous idea. But then again, we have thousands of psychopaths who've done crazier things. I mean, don't you think at least ONE of them would've tried a dumb idea with good intentions? But Dave is curious as to why people say it's impossible. He answers them: "Putting on a mask and helping people? How is that impossible?" So, (clearly not knowing what he's getting himself into) he orders a wetsuit(above, front), two batons, and a tazer off of the Internet, and takes on the alias of "Kick A**". Which ends up being all over the Internet, T.V., and pretty much everywhere you'll find news. But, sometimes people do things at absolutely the wrong time. During this time, Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong), a cocaine dealer who disguises himself as wealthy man in the lumber business(although he IS extremely rich), is tracking down another mysterious superhero that the world never saw enough for him to catch on like Dave did. He calls himself "Big Daddy"(played by Nicolas Cage) and he wears what looks like a batman costume ripoff. And his daughter, Mindy, calls herself "Hit-Girl"(played by Chloe Moretz). The crazy thing is that she's eleven and she does the most butt kickin' in the film. From doing backward- flipping kicks to chopping people's legs off and shooting them in the head, when she's involved in violence, there's always going to be blood. But anyway, Dave(or, well, Kick A**) is thought to be the one killing all of his men and destroying D'Amico's drug stock. So, he is mixed into a big misunderstanding and must partner with other superheroes that include the ones already mentioned as well as the one who knows how to ride in style, Red Mist(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who owns and is driving the car in the picture above. And he must stop D'Amico. Now, you may think that the plot is either cool, interesting, or stupid. But regardless, it works out well. It's funny, entertaining, interesting, and most of all, original! In an interview, Christopher Mintz-Plasse(again, Red Mist) said that all of Hollywood's current comic book films were either reboots or sequels. It was as if everyone was afraid of trying something new. But "Kick A**" was one of those bold attempts to find something fresh that would get a lot of fans. And well, mission accomplished. I loved the film's idea and storyline. It's creative and well done. The acting was also great. Everyone did a great job. But there was, however, some controversy about Chloe Moretz(Hit Girl)'s potty mouth in the movie. But, you must understand that it's acting and she doesn't say that in real life...at least I don't think she does. The star of the film that plays Dave/Kick A** is Aaron Johnson who happens to be a British actor. And for this film he had to use an American accent. Which he does perfectly and if all you did was watch the movie and didn't know anything about the stars, it wouldn't even cross your mind he was British. Now, that aside, I think that the moral of the film wasn't that you should go out and try to be a superhero, but that you don't need laser vision or super-strength or the ability to fly just to help someone out. And I think if you really pay attention, "Kick A**" really shows you that. Now the movie could definitely have been more appropriate. And there was some wasted potential. I had ideas that I think would have made the film more enjoyable. But I recommend "Kick A**"to anyone who can handle it. And for the most part, "Kick A**" kicked a**.
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage, Chloe Moretz, Director: Matthew Vaughn
Christopher-Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong,
Lyndsy Fonseca

Salt

My Rating: 3/4


Wow. If I am certain about anything in this movie, it's that thrillers will never be the same. The plot focuses on a woman named Evelyn Salt(Angelina Jolie) who works for the C.IA. . One day, a man comes in for interrogation. He is a Russian. He claims that a Russian spy will come and kill the Russian president at a government funeral in the U.S. . The spy's name: Evelyn Salt. After he says this, the neural scanner says he is truthful. So, Salt becomes hunted by the C.I.A. and must discover who set her up. Now, after reading the plot line, there are quite a few things you can tell. The first thing is that it's an action movie. There's a lot of chasing a gun fights as Evelyn must stay alive. The second thing is that it's a thriller. There are so many shocking revelations revealed that you couldn't see coming. As well as many "WHAT THE (never mind this part)?!" moments. But, this is easily the best thriller I've ever seen. I was never certain of what was going to happen. But, when something did, I was extremely surprised. I was kept guessing and guessing the entire way through. It's the best thriller since "Lakeview Terrace"(as I mentioned in my last review). And one more(or third) thing is that, it's interesting. I wasn't bored for a single second during this film. Everything about it intrigued me and interested me. Just imagine "Lost" on the big screen. That's how much I wanted to know what happened next. The action is very well done too. It doesn't lack the entertainment element but also doesn't use that to hog up the film's running time. Which by the way is a very lean 1hr. , 40 Mins. . The perfect length to tell a story like this. That way the suspense never dragged or kept you waiting too long. The acting was very well done. Of course I like Angelina Jolie's performance...but then again, who doesn't? Liev Schreiber(X-Men Origins: Wolverine) had a very good performance as well. All of it was fully believable. And truthfully, I didn't spend much of my time watching the film thinking about the acting. Because the sheer quality of the movie was enough to keep my mind off the subject. The only problems I had with this film are that of which I had with "Inception". Some of it was a wee-bit confusing. But in the end, I understood. I also understand that it's supposed to be a thriller but I think it was just a little too dull. I'm not saying it should've been a comedy but maybe one or two funny lines could've brought it further. It reminds me of the Joker's famous line in "The Dark Knight": "Why so serious?". But overall, I loved "Salt". Despite it's tiny flaws, Salt delivers on it's promise and will keep you on the edge of your seat...until you move to the center of your seat.

Starring: Angeline Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor Director: Phillip Noyce

From Paris With Love

My Rating: 1.5/4

John Travolta is earning his increasing reputation of being a good actor that is always put in weird roles. Like in "The Taking of Pelham 123", he played a crazy guy with a gun. Now, in "From Paris With Love", he's playing a very similar role. The plot centers around James Reese(Jonathan Meyers), a personal aide to the U.S. Ambassador in France. But, his dream job is to be an agent for the C.I.A. . So one day, he's put on a mission for such an organization with his highly-skilled, balled-headed killing Machine partner, "Wax"(John Travolta) to stop a terrorist attack.
Now, the plot is certainly interesting. But, does it deliver? The clear answer I can give is "Nope". I just wasn't really liking the film. The best thing about it is probably the acting. But even that doesn't qualify as "outstanding". But it still was pretty good. Nothing seemed fake, but nothing seemed to be at the level of the performances by Morgan Freeman in "Invictus". Or Tim Robbins in "The Shawshank Redemption". Or especially Morgan Freeman(again) in "The Shawshank Redemption". As for the action, it's certainly entertaining. Travolta pulls off some crazy fighting "manuvers" that usually result in quite a few dead badguys. From things like shooting while hanging upside down or to droppping a bomb on top of a car as soon as the bad guys reach it, it's crazy. But, all the same, it feels senseless. Not much of a point to it. The movie just seems to go on and on, without much of a purpose. But hey, at least it only has a length of an hour and a half, which is very short. One thing that really killed the movie was that it failed at hitting one of its targeted genres. It tries to not just have action, but be a thriller as well. But, it fails. It's totally predictable. When I watch thrillers, I like to have my brain guessing the whole way through, but never being even remotely certain of what comes next. That quality was shown to the max in films like "Lakeview Terrace"(2008) and "Salt"(2010). My grandmother figured out the film's most "shocking" revelation within five minutes of watching it. And that's just about all she watched! But, when all is said and done, "From Paris With Love" had entertaining action, good acting, a predictable story, but overall mainly just fails. Let's hope this is the last love letter we get from Paris.
Starring: John Travolta, Jonathan Meyers Director: Pierre Morel

Our Family Wedding

My Rating: 2.5/4





In short, "Our Family Wedding" was stellar. It collided its own flaws and strengths. Not making anything about the film tiresome. Centered around a comedic plot about a couple played by Lance Gross(Tyler Perry's "Meet the Browns") and America Ferrera (Ugly Betty).They want to get married, but their families are polar opposites. They want the wedding to go different ways, they want this, the other wants that, and so on and so forth. So, will they be able to cope with each other and have a nice wedding or will they have one big mistake? Well, you can watch "Our Family Wedding" or, read the walk through story of the film that those spoiler-lovers wrote on IMDB. But, I personally would watch the movie. I did enjoy the film. But why was this movie necessary? I'm just missing the point the movie was trying to get across. I for sure know it was entertainment that was it's primary goal, seeing as it's a comedy. But, there have been many films like that but they always have SOMETHING else they're trying to tell you. But, like "Dumb & Dumber", there doesn't appear to be one. But all the same, There were at least plenty of funny parts. And to me, everyone needs a movie like this every once and a while. Something we can just enjoy. Not much to walk away with, however, other than a small grin. So whatever you learned from watching, say, "The Blind Side", I guarantee you won't learn it after watching "Our Family Wedding". The acting was pretty well done(I guess that's just long for "it was good") It's stars do well. But perhaps the best performance in the film is from a star that oddly enough doesn't play a VERY main character, just a semi main character, and it's by Forest Whitaker(shocker). If you don't know who that is, he was in "The Great Debaters"(2007), "Repo Men"(2009), as well as MANY others and is extremely famous. And like I said, he had the best performance. Overall, I enjoyed "Our Family Wedding'. It is yet ANOTHER small, light-viewing, joyride. I laughed a few times, and enjoyed watching it. Today, sometimes movies just like to be that way, but they've done it so much a lot of people who don't see a lot of movies think that this is the REAL DEAL when it comes to film. But, I have seen enough movies to know that no, they certainly aren't. But, for that branch of film, "Our Family Wedding" gets the job done.

Starring: America Ferrera, Lance Gross Director: Rick Famuylwa

The Bounty Hunter

My Rating: 2/4



Gerard Butler has been a dad, a spartan, a "Law Abiding Citizen", a game avatar, some dude in a love story(twice), (as well as many others) and now, a bounty hunter. While Jennifer Aniston, on the other hand, has been a mom, a wife, some dudet in a love story(several times), a puppy owner, and now a, well, I now this isn't proper English but let's just say she's a "bounty huntEE". The plot centers around Milo(butler), a has-been cop that now has a crazy line of work as a bounty hunter. But so far, that's left him with very little. One day, he is offered $5,OOO to take his ex-wife(Aniston) to prison. Why? Because she is a journalist who wanted a story so bad she decided to skip her time in court was automatically sentenced to a small amount of jail time(for assaulting an officer). So, Milo must hunt down his ex wife and take her to jail. But, this could go one of three ways. Either it will go as planned, they could start falling in love again, or they could kill each other in the process. What killed this film was the same thing that killed "Did You Hear About the Morgans?". Was it fun and funny? Yes. But the rest of it seemed just like dead space almost. I felt that some wasted potential was taken up by slight nothingness. I saw how the story all fit together, but it could have been much funnier. That's kind of the point of comedies. But, I did think it was a nice movie. Nothing to big, but still enjoyable. It had some good acting, of course, from it's two very expensive stars. But it all turned into a small, light-viewing movie. Some parts I laughed, and I was interested. But I think whether or not you will enjoy it depends on what genres you like. But for now, this will do.

Starring: Gerard Butler, Jennifer Aniston Director:Andy Tennant

Cop Out

My Rating: 3/4

Comedy has always varied between different films. Some movies are truly funny and are done right. Some replace that with vulgar jokes and the F-word. And then you have "Cop Out". Which seems somewhat of a hybrid between the two. It's a lot like the more mature version of the "Rush Hour" series. The film stars Bruce Willis(Live Free or Die Hard, above,right) and Tracy Morgan(G-Force,above,left). They are two NYPD cops who are trying to get back Jimmy(Bruce Willis)'s mint condition baseball card that he was going to sell to pay for his daughter's wedding. And Paul(Tracy Morgan) is his partner in anti-crime and is helping him out. But, along the way, they are pitted against a cruel money-obsessed gangster. And are tangled in a long struggle to, well, get a baseball card. But hey, it's worth about 80,000 dollars...or something close to it. So, the plot doesn't include anything too fancy. No work of art. But it does make it work. However, it doesn't do what the ideal comedy would do. I know I mentioned this same comedy principal in my review of "Grown-Ups", that comedy movie must build the hilarity on the situation, not solely on just one-liners. And I felt that "Cop Out" just built off of one-liners. There were some situations where comedy could have built off of but didn't. Although, somehow, a miracle is performed. Whats this? "Cop Out" actually had a lot of hilarious one-liners. Perhaps the funniest line is when the two main characters are talking and at one point Jimmy says "But I already made my decision." and then Paul replies "Hello, the president is black now, we make decisions!". I laughed so hard you have no idea. They are many others like that but that by far was the funniest. The acting is good. Two stars do the job but there's nothing extraordinary. But I did feel that the story lacked some detail. It seemed jumbled and could have been better. But the funny thing is that the movie seems to almost tell you that it's excuse for that is the funny comedy. And well, that my friends, is a cop out. While I did enjoy watching it, it was slightly predictable and had some flaws. But overall, it WAS pretty funny and this film seems to make it work. If they turn this into a series, I do think it has the potential to overcome even the"Rush Hour" series which is like this film's cousin. But for now, it has plenty of time for improvement.

Starring: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan Director: Kevin Smith

Despicable Me

My Rating: 3 /4

I must admit, I wasn't particularly excited about this movie. It seemed like just another box-office hogging, dumb-looking, star loaded animated movie. But for the most part, I was wrong. While the cast is again(just like my last review) star loaded, that certainly brings in some great acting from the voice talents of Steve Carell(Get Smart), Jason Segel(I Love You, Man), Russel Brand(Bedtime Stories), Will Arnet(Monsters V.S. Aliens), Danny McBride(Drillbit Taylor), Miranda Cosgrove(The Wild Stallion) and Julie Andrews(Shrek 2, 3, and 4). With talent like this, the acting is without question fantastic. All of the characters are portrayed to their full potential. Nothing is questionable. Unless you have no imagination whatsoever. But Steve Carell of course steals the show and I don't know if it's just good acting or if it's just flat-out funny but you actually get to hear him in a Russian accent. In one scene, instead of "my turn", he says "my torn" and it just made me laugh for some reason. You just never hear that guy outside of an American accent. It's like hearing Brad Pitt's old country accent in that WWII Quentin Tarantino movie that I probably shouldn't mention the name of. But I think it just made the film more enjoyable. But, this accent centers around the plot, which then centers around Carell's character, Gru(above). Gru is, well, I don't know how else to say it, a super villian. He lives in a nice neighborhood and pretty houses flood the block, then you see Gru's huge, haunted-house looking, dark semi-mansion. He has spikes and armored suits as the main theme of his home's decor, and he carries a Medieval mase with him whenever the doorbell rings, and he has pet that I'm pretty sure isn't from this planet and probably has rabies. Oh, and he drives this 20-ft. tall -death machine-type vehicle that more than likely is a danger to society. AND, he has a large weapon-factory of evil that's run by little yellow minions that I also am sure are not from this planet. That is what he calls his basement. So, he really is the hard core- bad-guy of animated films. One day, a new villain named "Vector"(Jason Segel), steals what I believe is the Pyramid of Giza and is considered a better villain than Gru. So, Gru comes up with a master plan that would make him the greatest villain in history, TO STEAL THE MOON. Now I don't want to spoil this movie so i will just not go into the details. But as part of his plans, he adopts three orphans. And he just may find out he would make a good dad. So, the plot is obviously silly, but hey, what did you expect from an animated kid's movie? The satisfaction, however, expands outside of the targeted audience. There's comedy, there's seriousness, and well, it's just plain fun. And I found myself just enjoying the movie. I was was never bored, never minded the small amount of predictability, and I was never confused. It's this heartfelt, funny, ideal animated movie. I guess there may have been some minor details I wasn't liking, and maybe I dwell ed on it too much. Or, maybe it wasn't something I didn't like, it's just that the level of how good it was wasn't the highest it could go. I may even have graded it on this a little too harshly. But oh, despicable me.
Starring: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Miranda Cosgrove, Directors: Pierre Coffin
Russel Brand, Chris Renaud
Will Arnet, Julie Andrews.

Grown-Ups

My Rating: 2.5/4



Director Dennis Dugan has brought us yet another star loaded-flick for 2010. This film is pretty much "Death at a Funeral" 's twin brother. The plot focuses on five guys, who, like I said, are played by an all-star cast that includes Adam Sandler(The Waterboy), Kevin James(Paul Blart: Mall Cop), Chris Rock(Death at a Funeral), David Spade(Joe Dirt), and Rob Schneider(Don't Mess with the Zohan). They were all part of a coach's only winning championship basketball team back in the 70's. Now, about 30 years later, they all hear that their coach has died and so they all gather for his funeral. They are all meeting each other's families and just catching up. After the funeral, they all stay at Lenny(Adam Sandler)'s lake house for a couple days. And this film is about their hilarious journey through this time of loss and reunion. The acting would obviously be an important element to this movie(or well, really to any movie). And it was very good which is expected from a very expensive-looking cast. But the vital principle of comedies is that you can't treat them like stand-up. When it's a MOVIE, you can't just build the comedy from one-liners. You need to build it off of the situation that the characters are in. And "Grown-Ups" did a good job of that but it did have a little too many one-liners. But that's when the acting comes in. If the acting is good, then the situation seems real, and that's what gets the laughs. The film knows this and does not defy it. It follows it. The movie was just generally funny.I found myself cracking up in the theatre and there are quite a few LOL's. There's so much creativity to be used with this kind of plot. And a lot of it is done right. There are some shocking revelations revealed between the characters, but they all just end-up making it even more hilarious. But, in the midst of all this comedy, it has a heart and that is shown towards the end as they all learn from their experiences. So overall, good acting, good story, and just another light-viewed funny movie. And I couldn't help but walk out with a smile.
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Director: Dennis Dugan
Chris Rock, David Spdae, Rob Schneider, Salma Hayek

Inception

My Rating: 4 / 4 

Christopher Nolan has dished out some amazing films in the past few years. The most famous ones include "Batman Begins"(2005), and "The Dark Knight"(2008). Now comes "Inception". Which in my opinion ranks way up there in the best movies he's ever made. While I still think his best film(from what I've seen at least) is "The Dark Knight", Inception just barely misses that line and ranks his 2nd best. Now, I will tell you the plot, but don't drift off because it really can get a little confusing. Dom Cobb(and yes, his name is "Dom", not "Don") is not your ordinary security guard. He specializes in subconscious security. Or, in other words, dreams. He is trained in the art of navigating people's minds. So, when someone has a deadly idea, he breaks into their minds when they are in their most vulnerable state, sleep. Once in there, he steals that idea. He has become a great player in this little game but it is also not strictly speaking legal. And that eventually makes him a fugitive and forced into in hiding. But, he has a chance at redemption. His way home, the only way to get his life back is to pull off one last job. Instead of stealing an idea, he must plant one. This process is called Inception. So, him and his team of specialists must travel deep into the mind of a very rich man and pull off the impossible and in exchange Cobb's life may return to normal and he may see his children again. Now, this idea of plot is definitely original. As well as being perfectly cast. Cobb is played by Leonardo DiCaprio(Titanic), Arthur is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt( (500) Days of Summer, G.I.JOE: The Rise of Cobra), Ariadane is played by Ellen Page(Juno), Yusuf is played by Dileep Rao(Avatar), and Miles is played by Micheal Cane(The Dark Knight). The acting was fantastic and DiCaprio's performance would make even Sandra Bullock's "Blind Side" role jealous. All performances were believable. I couldn't even sense an ounce of fake-like substance in the lines or anything similar. Now, if you have a decent I.Q. , you will enjoy "Inception". In order to have a good experience watching this film, you must have the intelligence of Documentary-lovers and a wide attention span. The film is certainly the opposite of boring but if you don't understand what's going on, how can you enjoy it? That goes for pretty much every movie. Th action scenes are aligned with the plot perfectly and are also exciting. The special effects are nothing TOO huge but ARE sights to see. I especially love the idea of them going into dreams. I 100% agree with the statement made in the film which was that dreams feel real while we are in them but it's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange. That is very realistic. Now, a delicate subject I must discuss is the ending. I will NOT say a word about what happens though, so don't stop reading! But I loved how Nolan left it up for debate as to what it meant at the end. It could go two ways. Either it was just a good and happy ending or it's teasing you with the idea of a sequel. Either way, I'm happy! The one and only problem with this film was that confusion may effect TOO large an audience. Unfortunately, not everyone has an attention span to really try and understand what's going on. And that's the point. This isn't a movie to be lightly viewed(especially with a length of 2 1/2 hours!). You must really TRY to understand. Or, in other words, the film needs your co-operation. If you give it this, however, you have the chance to embrace a long but deep, entertaining, well-acted, engrossing experience. Or, to sum it all up, a masterpiece. I definitely am up for a sequel and I am always on the look out for Christopher Nolan's films. I can't wait for the conclusion to his reinvented "Bat-Man" trilogy in 2012 and hopefully an "Inception 2". But for now, let's just say this DVD would be a nice addition to many collections.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio Director: Christopher Nolan
Ellen Page
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Cillian Murphy
Ken Watanbe
Tom Hardy
Marion Cottilard
Tom Berenger
Micheal Cane

The Last Airbender

My Rating: 2/4


Air, water, fire, and earth are the four nations in the world of "The Last Airbender". Based on the original Nickelodeon cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender" (which I was a big fan of and yes, I know I'm a dork). The plot is about four nations(that I already mentioned) that lived in harmony. Some people in each nation have the ability to "bend" or in other words, manipulate their native element. One day the fire nation got greedy and wanted to control all the other nations and declared war. And have been at war for over a century. As the other nations struggle under the attack(which is weird since it's three on one), their only hope lies in the "Avatar". The only one who can control all four elements. One day, brother and sister Katara and Sokka from the southern water tribe find Aang, The last airbender(all the other were wiped out)/the Avatar frozen in a block of ice. They later find out he was frozen a hundred years ago and he wakes up to the horror of the war which is new to him but old to everyone else. But, before he was frozen, he did not learn the other three elements. So, Katara and Sokka agree to help him go on a journey to learn and master the other three elements and defeat the fire nation. Now, as you can obviously tell, this is a kid's movie. Comprehensible and pretty simple. Nothing too deep. Just another cartoon shot to the big screen. But, (SAY WHAT?!) it's directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Who mainly directs horror movies and is the creator of things like "The Sixth Sense" and "The Happening". Now, all of the sudden he moves to a children's film?! But, calm down people. I didn't find it as bad as you might think in this kind of situation. He didn't scare me out of my wits so I guess you could say it's a "kid's" movie. But a major turnoff for me was how cheesy it was. The script was poorly written and cheesy, and the acting was very poorly done and cheesy. Well guess what M. Night? It's Na-cho cheese! The script could have been way better, and the acting was not that impressive. The only really good performance was by Dev Patel, who plays Prince Zuko. He is famous for his starring role in "Slumdog Millionaire". But,I could've thought of a better introduction and ending. But the main sequencing wasn't bad. It stuck to the cartoon storyline which was a wise choice because then they would've had all this weird stuff and upset the fans. Another wise choice was that the film makers knew that they would have to fit an entire season of the cartoon into each film in order to divide it into a trilogy. So, they knew they would have to cut out A LOT of things. But everything was removed perfectly. They only included the fan-pleasing and important events, removing all unnecessary implications. They just kept the essentials. The only problem was instead of it being too slow, it went too fast. The movie just seemed a little rushed. Although the pronunciations were wrong...also A LOT. Like the main character, Aang. In the show, he was pronounced "Ang". In the film, he's pronounced "ong". In the show, Sokka was pronounced "Sock-a". In the film, he's pronounced "So-ka". They DID, however, get one of the main villain's names right, Prince Zuko. Who's ultimate goal is to catch the Avatar and restore his honor. But, now guess what?! They pronounce his uncle's name wrong. In the Show, his name was pronounced "Uncle I-ro". In the film, it's pronounced "Uncle ee-ro". WHY, WHY, WHY?! After all of these negative comments, reader, I would imagine you thinking "Then what DID you like about the film?". Well, this film did the unique thing of showing me things I didn't know I wanted. Kind of like what "Iron Man" did. It gave people what they didn't know they wanted. In a strange way, I liked the senseless action, I liked the absurdity, and I liked how they developed a comprehensible issue and battled it out with top notch special effects. Which brings me to my next point, the action. Three words, "I", "LOVED", and "IT"! The special effects of element bending and swords clanging was very well done. I was completely entertained. Those scenes provide you with good action that stays in the tricky middle ground where it's a wee-bit more serious than Jackie Chan-style violence but doesn't have the blood and guts of "Ninja Assassin". In fact, since the film is clearly for the purpose of entertainment, and there's nothing really deep, (I know my grandmother is frowning upon me right now) the violence in scenes were most of my favorite parts. I would say "it was clearly just for the TRIVIAL purpose of entertainment", but if you look before T.V., waaaaaaay before, even back to things like gladiator fights, it's not so trivial. But all in all, "The Last Airbender" was a cheesy experience. Had a bad script, bad acting, but in a strange way, I ended up just having a blast watching it. It's a good movie to watch when you're in the mood for a Saturday morning type thing. But I don't think Shyamalan will have these films be good for the whole trilogy. You know who I want to direct the next one? Micheal Bay. That would be a good choice. But unlike Roger Ebert, I hope, no, I KNOW the title is not prophetic. And thankfully, it is not "The LAST Airbender".

Starring: Noah Ringer Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Nicola Peltz
Jackson Rathbone
Dev Patel

Invictus

My Rating: 3/4

If there was, is, or ever will be a film hall of fame, Morgan Freeman should be in it. Never in my life have I ever seen him give anything less than an exceptional performance. And that quality about him truly shines in his new film "Invictus". This is a true story about Nelson Mandela. Mandela was a prisoner on Robben Island, South Africa until he was released from prison and became the president. Only to be faced with the challenge of bringing the country up to greatness seeing the turmoil it is in. The best way at the time to him was to get their very untalented Rugby team, the "Springboks" to win the world cup so they can"be a shining light in the world". The film is perfectly cast. Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon( who also gives a very good performance) as Francois Pienaar, captain of the Springboks. The best thing in this film is the acting. All performances are powerful and believable and help build upon a strong film. It is not boring to those who will bother to pay attention. But you will probably be bored if you half pay attention while doing something else. But I really thought that the film makers kept the politic-y stuff to a minimum as to keep the audience from drifting off(no offense Obama). And above all, it kept the experience fresh. The film also does a good job of showing you how they must balance "black aspirations with white fears" as they called it in the film. Because when I said the country was in "turmoil", I mean racial hatred, riots, poverty, and all other negative uproar you can think of. The soundtrack was excellent. Mainly using African folk songs that you may even find yourself humming throughout the rest of the day. It serves as a great accompaniment to the characters and events. Another thing I noticed was that Mandela, even though he'd been imprisoned for almost 30 years, came out of that prison a very wise man. He makes decisions that all of his co-workers think are very strange. But in the end, you see that they all serve a great purpose. And Mandela knows it(although only his black co-workers call him "Madiba"). You can also see the growth of the Rugby team throughout the film as well as their lessons learned from Mandela as he begins working with them to win both the world cup and the hearts of 43 million South Africans. But, what I didn't like was that there could have been a little more excitement. Just be a little less Dull. I felt something was missing. And that something destroyed star #5. But overall, I had an inspiring experience and saw some great acting which combined to deliver an amazing story. For those of you who don't judge a book by it's cover, I definitely recommend "Invictus".

Starring: Morgan Freeman Director: Clint Eastwood
Matt Damon

The Karate Kid

My Rating: 3.5/4





After the filmmaking revelation that was "The Karate Kid"(1984), I was feeling a little defensive when I heard about a remake. I thought the original was so good, there shouldn't be a remake out of respect for it. This one didn't look as good or well written. But I was completely proved wrong. Although the plot wasn't very original because it's pretty much structured(and I'm not even exaggerating) EXACTLY like the original. I'm talking down to every last event, with a couple new ones added in. So all in all, the plot is pretty basic. Boy moves far away, boys meets girl, bullies get jealous, bullies beat him up, kid is bullied by the bullies..a lot, boy finds out the maintenance man at his apartment complex knows kung-fu and so he begins to teach the boy, and boy must train to face his fears. The best way I can describe the change between the original and the new one is "better,faster,stronger". The action scenes especially are more fast-paced and, well, violent. The script is stronger, the acting is stronger, the action is faster, and the movie as a whole is just, well, better. The 2010 version of "The Karate Kid" is the most heart pounding, entertaining, moving experience I have had in a very long time. I was never bored, never did my attention wander to the boredom of counting sheep, never was I having anything less than an amazing experience. While I was hoping for this Karate Kid to be a little more original, it does seem kind of like they're making the exact same movie over again. But my definition of remake is that it has the same ideas and story but brings it's own originality. But, "The Karate Kid" did change some things and had a small amount of originality. And when you see that in action, it's very moving. But the names mainly are what changed. Instead of "Danny LaRusso", it's "Dre Parker". Instead of "Mr Miyagi", it's "Mr. Han". Instead of "Alli", it's "Mei Ying". Instead of "Johnny", it's "Cheng". As well as instead of moving to California, they move to Beijing, CHINA. So hopefully, to all the readers, that will get rid of the confusion with the foreign character names. So as you can see, I actually ended up enjoying the remake more than the original. Also, the action scenes are (like I said) more fast-paced. The fighting in the original seemed a little more realistic however, the kids in this are younger and somehow fight like Jet Li! From lightning fast punches to deadly kicks to acrobatic mayhem you will NOT be bored with these scenes. The acting is great. Will Smith's talent must have been carried through his genes and into Jaden. Because after watching this film, there is no doubt acting is in his blood! Both him and Chan deliver excellent performances making a movie about something as common as karate into a unique and moving movie about karate. Moments containing such a thing are what true movies are all about. They can be an influence on society, and give a classic that the whole world falls in love with at the same time, And it's things like that that are part of what we live for. It is difficult to put this element into a film, but "The Karate Kid" is a textbook example of how to do so. Whether you liked the original or not, you will stand up and cheer for "The Karate Kid".

Starring: Jaden Smith Director: Harold Zwart
Jackie Chan
Taraj P. Henson

Toy Story 3

NO TOY GETS LEFT BEHIND! My Rating: ***1/2 - Good



The Toy Story series has captured the hearts of both critics and Pixar fans for the past eleven years. What was the appeal of these films? It wasn't necessarily just the entertainment. But it was the creativity, the originality, the jokes, the kid-friendly manner, and the pretty much all-age interest. The thing I love about Disney/Pixar movies is that they come in the FORM of just kid's movies. But they always entertain the little ones but I can tell that the adults see that something valuable was hidden in the film just for them. The story is actually good and interesting to an older audience. Even though watching the previews is not enough to see that, if you pay attention closely, you can see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That was contained in the 1st and 2nd "Toy Story" and remains for the most part in "Toy Story 3". The plot has a pretty good set-up. Andy has grown up and is headed for college. But the question remains, "What is he going to do with all these toys?" Well, while he is deciding, the toys end up being thrown into a box of old toys being donated to Sunny side Daycare. At first the toys seem very happy about it. But, they soon find out that it isn't do great and must escape to get back to Andy before he leaves for college. It is an entertaining film and at least avoids the predictability flaw with new surprises around every corner. Whether it's jokes or action, it's certainly not boring. But what does the film lack? Well, it lacks the eerie humor of "Toy Story" and it also lacks the heartfelt mood of "Toy Story 2". The ideal "Toy Story 3" would be a combination of those two and adding in another one of it's own elements. But to my disappointment, it wasn't. I did not feel connected to the film very much throughout the film and I saw some small amounts of wasted potential. But the acting is good as always. Disney always casts their films very well. But I just wasn't feeling it the whole way through. I don't want to spoil it, so I won't but the ending was a good way to close the series, it's just that I felt like it lacked some closure. It was not a BAD ending, just could have been better. But the pixar films are usually very honest and straightforward. "Toy Story 3" is a truthful movie. The idea of Andy growing up and going to college is realistic(despite the fact that the series is about living toys). And as Woody and Buzz Light year & company state in the film, "We all new this day was coming." At some point this was going to have to happen. He wasn't going to stay like a kid forever. But I think the lesson here is to learn to let go. But "Toy Story 3" is a worthy volume in the saga. While it may not reach the level of other Disney/Pixar films like "Ratatouille"(2007) or "The Incredibles"(2004), It's not just a story that I know will go into the Pixar hall of fame, it's a TOY story.

starring: Tom Hanks Director: Lee Unckrich
Tim Allen

Death at a Funeral

THIS MAY BE THE ONLY EXCITING FUNERAL YOU'LL EVER SEE. My Rating: *** 1/2 - Good

With a cast as loaded as the new film "Grown Ups", you can obviously tell this movie is somethin' else. Depending on what kind of moviegoer you are, that can be for better or for worse. But instead of sounding like I'm taking vows at a wedding, I want to tell you about a movie concerning a hilarious FUNERAL. The plot deals with a grief-stricken(or at least most of them) family dealing with the death of a beloved husband and father. But, he was part of a pretty large family and a large group of mourners have gathered to attend what they THINK will be an ordinary funeral. But, that idea quickly goes out the window as shocking revelations, jealousy, tension, blackmail, severe drugs, and just sheer mayhem all show up at the same time and that time happens to be a very bad time. Now as you can see, this is a PERFECT setup for a comedy. So my compliments to zee writers. Not only that, but like I said before, they also have a PERFECT cast. Many of the actors are also pretty much comedians. These would include Chris Rock(above,left, "Madagascar"), Martin Lawrence(above,right, "Big Mama's House"), and Tracy Morgan ("G-Force"). Other stars include James Marsden( the "X-Men" series), Zoe Saldana (" Avatar", "Star Trek", and "The Losers"), Peter Dinklage( above, tied-up, "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian"), Danny Glover("Barnyard"), and Luke Wilson("Old School"). Phew! Now that I actually got finished going through the cast, I must say that their performances are very well done. All of them are believable and engrossing. That's just what a comedy needs. A good comedy also requires a good plot. Now some people might say "how does this have a good plot if it's a comedy taking place at a funeral"? Well, if you think about it, it's a comedy taking place in one of the most, well, "unfunny" places. And that really just makes it even funnier. Here's an example: The film "Blazing Saddles"(1974) is a comedy taking place in the violent old west of the 1800's. But somehow, the writing found a clever way to use the setting to it's advantage and make it even funnier. There was a lot of racism back then and especially in an old western town out in the middle of nowhere. And so the writers made it about a black guy that becomes the sheriff of that town. That's just one thing though. The writers of THIS film had several things similar to that. One example of this is (***WARNING: SEMI-SPOILER ALERT***) when Uncle Russell(Danny Glover) eats too much cake and gets diarrhea. Uncle Russell is an old man AND confined to a wheelchair. So Norman(Tracy Morgan) must help him get to the toilet. While setting Uncle Russell on the seat, his hand gets stuck under him and Uncle Russell just starts going and once Norman gets it out, it's covered in waste. Then, he tries to wash it off but it sprays it all over the place and just gets a HUGE spot on the mirror and gets it all over his face. Now don't tell me that isn't even remotely funny. This is a comedy that does, well, actually have some true comedy in it. It's not like those vulgar comedies that might as well have a sign on the cover saying "WARNING: MUST SET ASIDE MATURITY TO BE ENTERTAINED". But, the only problem is that that was one of the only parts I really laughed my pants off. My image of an ideal comedy is one that's both interesting and keeps me laughing the whole way through. I started out really liking "Death at a Funeral" and I was waiting for some hysterical mayhem. But when nothing like that happened, I just sat back and enjoyed an interesting film. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of funny parts but not much reaching the hilarity of "Dumb & Dumber". But, the work of the writing was fantastic which you can see through it's plot. Although the plot has many things happening parallel to each other, it is very well planned and thought out and even just the set-up just makes you laugh. As you progress through the film, you can see these "parallel" lines start to curve towards each other. And I know that's better than anything I could've come up with. But all in all, great acting, the story is very interesting and engrossing, and I think most of you will actually be happy after watching this one SAD family.

Starring: Director: Neil LeBute
Chris Rock
Martin Lawrence
Zoe Saldana
Danny Glover
James Marsden
Loretta Divine
Tracy Morgan
Columbus Short
Peter Dinklage
Ron Glass
Luke Wilson

Green Zone

I GUESS THE GRASS REALLY ISN'T GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE. My Rating: ** - Fair



The title of the film seems like it's dedicated to director Paul GREENgrass. I didn't realize that until one of my favorite parts in the film. Which was when it ended and the credits started rolling. Although Matt Damon (the "Bourne" series) is a very good actor, The script seemed to slow him down. The film is supposed to be a thriller and it does have a well-mapped out plot to keep the suspense but for some reason I just wasn't feelin' it. I actually had to refrain from falling asleep. The plot takes place in 2003 Baghdad and a soldier named Roy Miller(Damon) is serving there in his search to uncover the truth about Baghdad's WMD program. But as he quickly sees that the fact that every spot they are told contains these dangerous weapons comes up empty doesn't add up, he is thrown into the middle of a dangerous maze of lies and, well, shooting to help save lives. Sounds interesting right? That's what I thought. But, it's previews don't really practice what they preach. Is it suspenseful? Yes. Is it enough to really affect you? No. If you want a REAL thriller, watch "The Dark Knight" or "Taken". For almost the entire thing, I just felt like I was watching someone play "Call of Duty". Just two hours of shooting, yelling, and "good will hunting". The acting is pretty good however. If you only take a look at Damon's strengths, he's un-fire able(but then again, most actors are). Despite the fact that he has a very small amount of weaknesses anyway. All other actors deliver good performances but the screenplay wasn't good enough for you to get the full effect. What I DID like about it was that it does have a good plot, a good storyline, good acting, and a GREAT ending. Although for most of those had a lot of times that contained one of the things I can't stand that some films do: wasted potential. I feel like this movie had a lot to back it up, but it just wasn't done right a lot of the time. But like I said, the ending makes a good chunk of it worth while. It would be a felony for me to spoil it for you(maybe I should make a list of the best movie endings...). Although it's not enough to make a whole lot of the film worthwhile, it does serve as a reminder that sometimes to do what's right we need to step out of the green zone.

Starring: Matt Damon Director: Paul Greengrass

The Book of Eli

DENZEL WASHINGTON IS PHENOMENAL! My Rating: **** - Great



Denzel Washington should have won an Oscar for this movie even though the last Oscars were for films of 2009 and not 2010. All the same, they could have made an exception. Anyway, in this plot, the creativity is to such a degree that this film will leave you interested but it avoids the dangers of predictability. For the very reason that it's creative. Also, from the heart of the film, it might as well be DIVINE creativity. In this futuristic story, God has had it up to here (imagine me holding my hand high above my head) with America. We have become extremely greedy and sinful and spoiled and take everything for granted(or heck we already have). So God destroys America in an event referred by some of the characters as "the flash". In the aftermath, America as we know it becomes desolate. Very little life is left to walk the soils of the country and most life that IS left is fighting in somewhat of a "caveman type war" over dwindling resources. So, God chose one man, Eli (Denzel Washington) to protect the last Bible on Earth and take it far west. So, with no other form of transportation and very little food and water (but God still provides), Eli has been walking. Walking west and west and west, to complete his God-given task. And has been doing so for 30 years. That's where the movie starts off. And anyone who gets in the way, well, that's another story. As he is under attack by a man named Carnegie(Gary Oldman) who is hooked on getting his hands on that book. The film's depiction of the state of the world in the story is crystal clear and gets for the most part straight to the point. Minus the pretty slow beginning. This is mostly due to the very good acting. Gary Oldman's performance is almost as good as his role in "The Dark Knight" and Denzel Washington's performance is GREAT...just like all of his other films. The action scenes, or at least 90% of them, go down like this: Eli will try to avoid trouble, but some idiots always gotta start it so they attack him, ALWAYS in groups of at least 10, Eli will repeat some verses from the good book that kind of "match" his battles, and then, well, he goes straight to the slicin' and dicin'. After that, he just moves on with his task. Once you see these scenes, you know this guy doesn't mess around. Equipped with guns, knives, a bow and arrows, a small sword, and divine protection, he's one unstoppable man against a thousand men with immovable ways. While, as you can tell, it IS a dark film. But, at the same time, it is also a hopeful one. Which is also how I would describe the film's soundtrack. The somewhat "theme-TUNE" of the movie is very dark but yields a spark of hope. The cinematography is very unique. Almost as if most of the film is "tinted" with a sun-burnt brown color. But does have some normally lighted scenes. But, whatever faults the film may have, a little slowness, a little gore(but the "tint" blocks most of it.), and a somewhat depressing mood, all contribute to costing it a potential fifth star. But, if you can look past all of that or even the outer coat of the film itself, under it all, especially with the ending, there is beauty and moral value in the movie. And that's no leap of faith.

Starring: Denzel Washington Director: The Hughes Brothers

Gary Oldman

Mila Kunis

Extraordinary Measures

BREANDAN FRASER AND HARRISON FORD GO EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES IN THEIR NEW FILM! My Rating: **** - Great



Other than "Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", Harrison Ford hasn't done very many movies lately but he picked the right one to make a comeback! Adding yet another excellent performance but it doesn't quite live up to his roles as "Indiana Jones" in, well, the "Indiana Jones" series or as "Han Solo" in the "Star Wars" series. Brendan Fraser, on the other hand, is surprising me more and more. Despite how much I wasn't a real fan of "The Mummy" series, he is a very good actor. Now, their talents have been combined for a new film going extraordinary measures. The plot is based on a true story where 2/3 of John Crowley(Brendan Fraser)'s kids have a disease called "Pompe". Pompe is a bone deteriorating disease that has confined both of his children to wheel chairs and a lot of medication. The life expectancy of patients with this disease is at most about 9 years. His kids with the disease are 6 and 8. Him and his wife are tired of hearing that they "simply don't have a treatment for Pompe". So, he has been doing research on this disease and he finds an article by a scientist named Dr. Robert Stonehill(Harrison Ford). He has a theory for a life-saving drug for Pompe patients and is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough. The only problem is that he has no funding. John is for one, a very successful businessman and is willing to go, again, "Extraordinary Measures" to save his kid's lives. So, the two begin working together and start a company that works on Stonehill's medicine and with one man controlling the science of the project and one man controlling the business and legal entities, they must exceed all expectations and race against all odds and the clock to ensure a good outcome on the lives of John's children and all other Pompe victims. The story is one that is just as inspiring and uplifting as "The Blind Side". The script was very well written but the story seems just to good to be true. It's a little bit of a turnoff but then again, you have to remind yourself that the story IS true. And it's a true, hope-filled, extraordinary tale that brings the drama genre to another level. All actors contribute fully believable performances to the film driving it further and further to the point where it deserves to be called a great film. But, was there depth to the wording of the script and the emotion of the performances that was missed but easily could've been there? Yes. I did get the feeling there was some missed emotional and moral quality in the writing that, if it was there, which it could've easily been, I think it would've driven it to a 4 1/2 to 5 star movie. But it was missing that little last yet very strong emotional connection you need to a movie. Examples would be like "The Dark Knight", "Avatar", all three "Spider-Man" movies, "Iron Man" 1 & 2, "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Blind Side"(I know I mention most of these movies a lot in my reviews), and so many others that do the missing link to this film right. But, the film still does a great job of getting up after it's knocked down and fights till the end to deliver on the promise of the previews. You do still feel a connection and will be amazed by the beauty and inspiration of a wonderful movie. In spite of all the films that are much darker but at the same time get you thinking about the darkness of reality, this one manages to show us the light and hope in it. And gives us the lesson to hold on to that hope even when against all darkness. It's inspiring because it's a true story where they did exactly that. Just like the movie's tag line, they didn't hope for a miracle, they made one.

Starring: Brendan Fraser Director: Tom Vaughan
Harrison Ford
Keri Russell

The Hurt Locker

A TRIUMPHANT WAR MOVIE! My Rating: ***1/2 - Good



Wow. I like action movies but I'm not a war movie guy, but this actually was pretty good. At first glimpse it seemed boring, but the film holds real value. The plot takes place in 2004 Iraq and a man named James is deployed there in a bomb disposal team. Which obviously is an extremely dangerous job. His two comrades, Sanborn and Eldridge, just recently lost their previous leader in this fatal line of work. James is a fearless man and has the tendency to "leap without looking". This is a very different trait from the previous captain and the two must try to contain him throughout their missions together. All three are relatively new and at first seem to think of war as an adrenaline-quencher. But later on in the film, it does a good job of going in-depth as it is shot in a way that is half documentary and half, well, regular movie and you see that the way they think of their job is changing. They must learn to cope with the real emotional stress and loss of battle. They are constantly defusing bombs while being shot at or stared down by civilians. The events changing them are, from a film-making perspective, well done. Or, in the words of my former math/science teacher: "solid". You get a big feeling of adrenaline and suspense amidst all the gunfire and explosions propelling the entertainment section of the action sequences. Although in pretty much all of the action sequences, they use the f-word as the foundation of EVERY verbal response to EVERY situation that puts them in "deep doo-doo". The film does feel like a "Call of Duty" game sometimes and less of a film as the setting is always the dull, 100 degree sandy ocean of death and despair that Iraq had become due to the war. But then again, that sounds like an interesting place for a story to take shape isn't it? Just...if you think about it. The thinking behind the story is so unique and well planned out that it makes a successful movie for a change. Although I did hear that the writers are being sued because that sounds like a real military story and I think the guy suing them had a nickname in the army that was exactly like the film's title. But anyway, if you aren't an action or war movie person, I don't recommend you watch this. There is obviously a lot of explosions and gunfire and foreign(to the U.S.A.) people who look creepy and mysterious and some gross things in it. It won't work for all audiences but it DOES present something 9/10 people can at least remotely relate to. Just imagine "District 9" combined with "Green Zone". You know, that type of "mood". The acting is extremely well-done. ALL performances are fully-believable and strong. You really feel like this is all real. Overall, good acting, good action, yet somewhat has a dull, shooter-video game, out focused feeling. The audience that would rank at the "enjoyable" level may be a little too specific. But, all the same, you want an epic war movie? You got it.

Starring: Jeremy Renner Director: Katheryn Bigelow
Anthony Mackie
Brian Geraghty
Ralph Fiennes
Guy Pearce

The 7 Adventures of Sinbad

JUST HAVE TWO TODDLERS RUN AROUND KICKING A BALL AND YOU WILL BE MORE ENTERTAINED. My Rating: O Stars - Are You Kidding Me?

You know, I used to think movies weren't gonna get worse than "World's Greatest Dad". This broke that scale. There's a reason no one's heard of Asylum Studios. They make, simply put, amateur movies. That probably comes from the company's lack of money. But here's the thing: if you don't have the money, don't make a movie depending entirely on special effects! Make a drama or something. I mean really, just watch the previews for other Asylum films like "Mega Piranha" or "Meteor Apocalypse". They look so cheesy. Just like this film. The plot is short and simple: An industrialist must complete 7 impossible tasks to stop the apocalypse...CHEESY. I've seen old movies with many cheesy things that still topped this by measures that no person can fathom. 'Nuff said about the plot line. I would say "don't even get me started on the special effects", but then what's the point of reviewing it? But, to sum it all up, the effects are pure garbage. "Power Rangers" has done better than that. You can tell that creatures are CG. Just imagine a live-action movie that had a character from, say, "TMNT" standing next to the LIVE action characters. That's what it looked like. On top of that, you can tell the actors were staring at nothing. So yes, poor acting. But they were buried in a terrible plot line and poorly written script. Every event of the film is jumbled and random. I honestly think that "Sesame Street" makes more sense. Asylum just need to avoid special effects. If they are to become a major film company, which they clearly are trying to do, they need to make good movies. If they make good movies, they get more money, THEN they use special effects that look decent. But stick to some other genre for now because clearly this isn't getting them very far. There really isn't much else to talk about for a movie this terrible. It's not layered. Everything about the film is worn right out on it's sleeves. That leaves me with not much to talk about. It's so bad it hurts. Overall, bad acting because it really just wasn't believable for me;they need a GRIPPING performance, TERRIBLE special effects and plot definitely killed it, and just an awful experience. The thing I can say about this is: The film is an absolute must NOT see.

Starring: Patrick Muldoon Directors: Adam Silver
Bo Svenson Ben Hayflick