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