The Dark Knight Rises

                                             My Rating: 4/4

                      Seeing as the epic finale to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy was my most anticipated movie of 2012, it is an understatement to say that I was very excited for "The Dark Knight Rises". I have always greatly admired the Batman series for its style, unique colors, and oddly poetic writing. The question then becomes " can Nolan continue his winning streak?". "Batman Begins" was an incredible new take on a superhero whose previous visits to the screen have not quite done him justice. "The Dark Knight" was a revolution, and not merely for the wondrous fleeting spectacles that make up most comic book films, but for film in general.Where then does the story have left to go when it appears that it has reached the summit?
                      "The Dark Knight Rises" starts off slow, gradually weaning the audience back into Nolan's universe after its four year excursion, or in the film's timeline, returning from Bruce Wayne's(Christian Bale) eight year excursion from the Batman. He has been in hiding for this period of time ever since the Harvey Dent incident at the end of the previous film. Bruce has become a hermit, living with a broken body in his dwindling riches, he has long hair, and walks around with a cane and bathrobe on. He has been able to live in luxury with his internal feelings of pain and loss knowing that Gotham has been at peace, and that he can give up his days of masked crime-fighting. However, a new terrorist leader who is known only by the name "Bane"(Tom Hardy), has different plans for Gotham, and threatens innocent lives. Bruce must then resurface with the cape and cowl, or as police commissioner Jim Gordon(Gary Oldman) pleads, "the Batman must come back."
                       Now I must admit that the first hour or so of the film was not quite as riveting as I hoped. However, the second and third acts completely pick up the pace and throw you into a mindset that the film has really been preparing you for all along. When applied to reality, these acts are the most frightening. One of the big concepts explored in the film is the scenario of terrorist rule.The picture is made even clearer in the mind of the viewer with the fact that Gotham resembles New York City, which of course is not surprising because the scenes that take place there were filmed in New York City, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles. The terrorists intimidate the government out of saving Gotham with the threat of nuclear annihilation, and introduce a new government. Now I have no intention of spoiling anything, so therefore I cannot reveal in complete detail the context in which these are used, but the film includes lines like "this is everyone's house now" and "We are not here as conquerors, but as liberators, and we only want to give Gotham back to the people", that really drive the idea of terrorist government home.
                       The action sequences and visual effects are stunning, and all combine for a sensational climax during the last half-hour. Many of the familiar toys and gadgets that Batman has used before return, all though I can't help but feel empty at the absence of the Batmobile, which makes no appearances during the whole movie. However, the film makes up for this by introducing a new flying vehicle, "the Bat".
                       There are several new characters in the film, who all have surprising roles in the story, and create new situations. Every performance from the actors is fantastic, bringing the characters to life, but the performance that stands out is Tom Hardy as Bane. Out of all of the Batman villains Nolan has used in his trilogy, Bane is the most menacing, ever more so than the Joker. Bane is an incredibly brutal, hulking, and monstrous man. The fact that Bane wears a very unique mask, and it's horrifying enough that it could work if it was used in a horror film, adds to this effect. The mask covers his mouth, nose, and the middle of his face(between the eyes). Because of this, Tom Hardy essentially ends up playing the character entirely with his eyes, conveying a various array of expressions. It is hard to imagine how difficult it is to do such a thing, but Hardy gets the job done is a terrifying manner.
                         In the end, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a suspenseful, stunning, and visionary epic with a captivating story and massive amounts of action. It combines elements from both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", and ultimately gives a satisfying conclusion not only for all of the characters that have grown on us over the past seven years as well as the new characters just introduced to us, but for the Batman story as a whole. I am happy to say that the film is a great experience, and is the strongest pillar of Nolan's Batman trilogy.

The Amazing Spider-Man

                                            My Rating: 3.5/4


         As a big fan of Sam Raimi's original 2002 adaptation of Marvel's most classic character, I had my doubts about any new film in franchise that wasn't called "Spider-Man 4". But, as time went on, I gradually began to like the idea of a new start for Peter Parker's story, and now that it's here, I'm glad to say I was not disappointed.  For his very first big-budget film and second film ever, director Marc Webb (I'm also surprised no one has been cracking Spider-Man jokes about his last name) certainly delivers the material well.
        One of the tremendous challenges facing a Spidey reboot is the fact that it has been released a mere ten years after the first installment of the last series. Because of this, the writers has to add a new twist to the origin story so it doesn't simply become a rehash of what we have already seen. The challenge within that challenge is making sure that this twist isn't so odd that it doesn't not belong in Spider-Man's world.
         This new twist is that Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) has become the first successful subject of what the film calls "cross-species genetics". This is the concept of taking certain genes from the animal kingdom and merging them with human DNA, which in this case is of course genes from Arachnids. The concept was apparently explored by Peter's father, who disappeared when he was young. Another scientist who also worked with his father on the project is an amputee named Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who later becomes a very unsuccessful subject of cross-species genetics. Serving as both a mentor and an enemy to Peter, Connors holds the key to him unraveling the mystery not only behind the disappearance of his parents, but also behind his very identity as Spider-Man.
         The nature behind Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker is the sense that he is a lost soul desperately attempting to find himself. This makes the story's struggle not only a physical struggle, but an emotional one.He must learn the classic lesson of "with great power comes great responsibility." This emotional struggle is made very believable with great performances from every actor. Garfield brings a deeper, more thoughtful take on Peter Parker while Emma Stone, Dennis Leary, and Rhys Ifans  bring new characters to life that we haven't seen before.
        The visual effects are very fun to look at, and the action scenes are much more grounded in style and choreographed in a way that is easy to process. Mindless violence is non-existent in the story, and when there is violence it is for a very specific reason, especially the action scenes that take place long before the hero dawns the tights.
        Overall, "The Amazing Spider-Man" triumphs over the 2002 original. I am happy to be as blown away walking out of the theater from this film as I was walking out of the original film. The performances are great, the plot, despite a few loose ends, goes where it needs to go, and it brings a new interpretation of Spider-Man's story to the screen in spectacular fashion.

The Dictator

                                    My Rating: 2/4

                  Sacha Baron Cohen has been one of the central (and controversial) comedic figures in the entertainment industry since the 2006 release of his film "Borat". The movie was a huge success, and the funniest movie I have ever seen. Three years later, in 2009, Cohen released his next film "Bruno", which was not received as well, but was still an intelligent comedy. Both of these films were shot as mockumentaries, as well as his television show "Da Ali G Show". Now, three years after the release of "Bruno", comes "The Dictator". This film is Sasha Baron Cohen's first time co-writing and starring in something that is not a mockumentary.  "The Dictator" is a fresh new type of story for Cohen to tell, and fortunately, it retains the same controversial ethnic humor and razor-sharp political satire. The latter is definitely the movie's strongest asset.
                  The story centers around Cohen's fourth character, General Aladeen, who is the dictator of a fictional North-African nation of Wadiya. He is the epitome of the oppressive, cruel, violent, insensitive tyrant that we all imagine when we hear the word "dictator". However, Aladeen is also a very lonely and clueless soul who is thrown into a situation of betrayal in New York City that forces him to go on a personal quest to discover the world outside of his own country that has been completely shut off from the rest of the world, and is on the verge of destruction.
                There is good material here, but I would have to say this is one of the few times Cohen has not delivered things very well. The whole point (or seemingly the whole point) of each of his movies is to bring forth some revelation about the United States. Borat showed us that America harbors a lot of stupid people, Bruno showed us that America harbors a lot of hateful people, and the Dictator shows us the America harbors many elements of a dictatorship. The revelation here is not the problem, it is the build up.
                 "The Dictator" is full of many weak spots the ultimately bring it down. There is obviously a lot of ethnic humor in this film, and I don't care about racial comments in movies as long as they are funny, and Cohen has a history of doing a good job with that sort of thing. However, this movie contains many jokes that simply exist. They are not there to move the story forward nor are the even really that funny. It seems like they are there simply to serve the purpose of being vulgar.
                  There are also a lot of celebrities in the movie, and like many other things in the movie, most of them don't need to be there. John C. Reilly is in the movie for about ten minutes, Megan Fox is in it for about five minutes, SNL's Nasim Pedrad is in it for about two minutes, and Edward Norton is in the movie for about twenty seconds. The only big actors other than Cohen that have necessary roles are Ben Kingsley and Anna Faris, and even their characters were not interesting in the slightest sense.
                  In the end, "The Dictator" fails. It fails to be funny, or at least it failed to be funny to me. I only laughed one or two times, but to see the big picture as funny would probably require a complete suspension of one's maturity. Also, in some ways, the movie fails to be intelligent. The jokes are tasteless and unimpressive, and won't reach a wide range of audiences. I appreciate Cohen's humor, and I'm glad he took the opportunity to venture out of his comfort zone and into a different type of movie. However, with this three-year pattern of his big releases, I hope that in 2015 he goes back to his roots and releases another mockumentary. This round was certainly a disappointment for me, because it was a film I desperately wanted to like and didn't.

The Avengers

                                      My Rating: 3.5/4

      With "The Avengers", Joss Whedon has brought a well-told, witty, and visually stunning story to the big screen. With a lot to dig out of Marvel's comic book lore, the story is put together in a way that will satisfy the members of the audience, regardless of their reasons for attending a screening. When I was at the theater to see this, there was a sea of both people who seemed to know everything about Marvel and people who seemed to know very little about Marvel, and one thing the movie really has going for it is that you don't have to be either to enjoy it.
       The "Avengers" are a group of superheroes from the marvel universe who work together against whatever threat is greatest. Originally, the Avengers had more members and there were constant changes in the roster, however, Marvel luckily decided to stick to its main icons for the sake of the film. The team in the movie consists mainly of Iron Man(Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America(Chris Evans), Hulk(Mark Ruffalo), and Thor(Chris Hemsworth), with its "lesser" members being Hawkeye(Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow(Scarlett Johansson). The Story picks up after the events left off by the respective movies of the four main Avengers. Thor's evil brother, Loki(Tom Hiddleston), has joined with a mysterious race of aliens, robots, or whatever you'd like to call them. It's not really explained what they are, it is only mentioned that they are from another dimension and they are called the "Chitauri". Loki is leading his army of Chitauri to Earth to retrieve powerful cube-shaped object called the Tesseract, which also made an appearance in "The First Avenger: Captain America". In order to defend the Earth from Loki's invasion, Nick Fury(Samuel L. Jackson) and the secret government organization "S.H.I.E.L.D." begin a recruitment effort to bring together a team that can save the planet.
        Now one key concern I, as well as many other people, had about the film was that the screenplay would not give each Avenger the spotlight, and that some may seem less important than the others. In writing the script, I am sure that that was one of Whedon's main challenges. However, somehow each Avenger is given their own time to shine, and none of the Avengers seem to be more important than the others. This achievement ends up being more important than it seems, because with a balance between the characters, it adds another element to the storytelling where each character's own individual story is made known, while at the same time it shows how those stories converge into this story.
       With all of these great heroes, such a story requires a good villain. Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki has been very underrated since the film's release. His portrayal of Loki really gives you a sense that his character is vengeful, violent, powerful, greedy, and a worthy opponent to the Avengers. The witty combination of argument and banter between the characters is very amusing, with the best being between Loki and the other characters.
        Although the film brings all of these amazing elements together, my favorite thing about "The Avengers" is that it is an engaging story the entire way through. The dialogue always furthers the story, the dynamic between the characters never ceases to flip and twist in ways you would not have suspected, and surprisingly, the movie is very funny. I have been to comedies at the theater where people did not laugh as hard as they did at this movie. I was laughing too, because somehow the film seems to have outdone many comedies. The reaction of the audience did not lie, people were cheering, applauding, laughing, and really enjoying themselves. "The Avengers" reminded me why we go to movies in the first place.

The Hunger Games

My Rating: 3/4

What appears to be a group consisting every teenager who reads and then some has been raiding the theaters in eager excitement for "The Hunger Games". Based on the first book of the best-selling "Hunger Games" trilogy which was written by Suzanne Collins, the story takes place in post-apocalyptic North America which has been divided into twelve districts and a Capitol. The Capitol rules the districts, and as punishment for a rebellion that the districts fought against the Capitol 74 years earlier, Each district must annually select at random one male and one female "tribute" between the ages of twelve and eighteen to compete in an arena where they must fight to the death. This televised event is known as the Hunger Games.
When the story begins, we meet the main protagonist: a sixteen-year-old girl from district twelve named Katniss Everdeen. On the "day of reaping", on which the tributes are selected, Primrose Everdeen, the twelve-year-old little sister of Katniss, is chosen as the female tribute. Not wanting her sister to die, Katniss volunteers in her sister's place, and must fight for her life in the arena.
Right off the bat, "The Hunger Games" has something many stories lack: originality. It brings a new dimension to science fiction in which has a much darker yet more realistic take on the future. The beauty is that the story uses this make a seemingly preposterous idea into a story that grabs the audience's interest.
In preparation for seeing the film, I decided to read the book. I was glad I did, because it turns out that all of the hype centered around "The Hunger Games" was not a false promise. I found that it is a unique story with characters that you come to really care about. I instantly became a part of the giant fan base the series has, and as a big fan of the books, I held high expectations for the movie.
To my relief, I was not disappointed.
Director Gary Ross has brought not only his vision to the screen but he has also brought the author's vision as well. He does a great job of articulating the many different elements and tones of the book, and making sure that the characters are believable and that the audience becomes attached to them whether they have read the books or not. The characters have been perfectly cast, and when I say "perfectly", I literally mean the choices could not have been better. Each cast member portrays their respective characters exactly as they are portrayed in the books. Some of the performances that really stood out were Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, and the oddly moving presence of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
Another smart move the production team made was having Suzanne Collins help write the script. No one would have a better vision for a book on screen than the author herself. While a few details are left out, the film is extremely close to the book, which is really the job of a novel adaptation.
Just as the books does, the movie keeps you on the edge of your seat, and does a beautiful job of incorporating story, action, and character development so that they all work in harmony for the duration of the film.
In the end, "The Hunger Games" reveals itself not only as a movie, but as an experience. An experience that interests an audience that isn't really gender specific or too age specific, even if it may seem that way.
The next installment, "Catching Fire", is slated for release in November 2013. I have high expectations for the next film, in hopes that the production team will continue to capture the essence of the amazing story to be told and bring it to life on screen, just as they have this first of three, and possibly four, rounds.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

My Rating: 2.5/4

I believe Micheal Bay has dished out his best attempt at making the Transformers trilogy, and in my opinion, he has not done a bad job. He made a surprisingly good first installment, the second installment got a negative fan reaction, and now Bay must take his only shot at redemption, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. In the film, Bay does many of the same things he has done right in past movies, but has lost many things that are part of the "essence" of the franchise. The plot centers around the first Apollo mission to the moon, where Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong discover a crashed Autobot spaceship, and the United States has been covering it up for the last forty years. Now, Decepticon forces are coming after a device invented by an Autobot that allows them to teleport, and Deceptions want to use it to take over the galaxy. Now, sounds like a good Transformers plot, it puts good v.s. evil, and opens many doors the clanking of robots punching each other. The writers captured that epic feel needed for large action movies, and before the film was released they stated they wanted a much darker movie this time around, and they succeeded at this. But they may have gone so dark that they have lost the playful light-hearted feel from the first film, which was a main factor in making it the most liked movie of the three for the majority of its viewers. The plot was the weakest link in "Revenge of the Fallen", and I'm afraid it has transferred over to "Dark of the Moon". Each film has centered the plot around some type of conspiracy, each putting more of an emphasis on it than the last, the first being the Hoover Dam hiding a powerful alien artifact, the second being the Pyramids hiding a powerful alien artifact, and now the government hiding the existence of an alien artifact on the moon. Transformers is supposed to be fun. The story telling of "Dark of the Moon" has become so saturated in government cover-ups that it looses a lot of the exciting and fun elements. A good script usually will make up for a bad plot, but unfortunately, "Dark of the Moon" has its share of fails in this area as well. I was especially bothered by this in the opening minutes, when we are introduced to Sam Witwicky's(Shia Lebouf) new girlfriend, Carly(Rosie-Huntington Whitley) explaining how they met, and the entire sequence is very cheesy and rushed. It moves way too fast, and just seems awkward in how the script was handled. The problem is not the actors, who are very good actors, but the problem is what they have the actors do. Some characters feel uninteresting and the audience is not really inclined to care about these characters because the writers have not deeply shown their signifigance. I do not know if there will be a Tranformers 4, but if there is, my input to them is to not put all of their focus into special effects. The effects are amazing, and one of the few things in "Dark of the Moon" I have nothing to complain about. Spend more time coming up with ideas and making the script engaging and design it to give the audience the reaction you want. There is but ONE scene in the entire film where they really capture this. There is a scene in the final face-off when Bumblebee, one of the main Autobots, is about to be executed by Decepticons, and I could honestly feel the suspense and tension of the audience rising, and when(spoiler alert!) he is saved, people started clapping. This is what those scenes should feel like all the time. Most movies are meant to give the audience a very engaging and entertaining experience, which is captured here, and the entire movie should give the mood you want it too, not just one scene. I understand a lot of time needs to be invested into the animations and special effects of the film. But if it takes a lot of time to do both the special effects and write a great script, then take your time. You will be more successful in taking a long time to make a great film than if you take an average or short amount of time to cram in a mediocre film. If you are looking for something that's not super special, and will provide you with two hours to just be entertained, then I recommend you watch "Transformers: Dark of the Moon".

Kung Fu Panda 2

My Rating: 3.5/4

After three years, Dreamworks, has released the sequel to the very popular 2008 film. It's got the same cast, consisting mainly of Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, David Cross, and Dustin Hoffman.
Fortunately, however, Kung Fu Panda 2 does NOT have the same story. Today, we see many sequels fall prey to the mistake of making the sequel follow the same plot line as it's predecessor. But for this movie, instead of just being another shallow repeat, it's rather a continuation of a grand plot line spanning the series. Or as described in the film by Master Shifu(Dustin Hoffman), "the next phase of Po's Journey". So what is this "next phase"?
Well, the movie picks up right where the original left off. (If you haven't seen the first one, stop reading) Po is now the Dragon Warrior, leading the Furious Five against evil. Now, a fierce enemy comes once again. A "Peacock Lord" named "Shen", who is coming to invade the kingdom his parents banished him from. With bladed feathers and an army of wolves at his command, he is very dangerous.
What I like is that instead of leaving the story off right there, I won't say too much, but in this film you will learn many revelations about Po, mainly centered around his parentage and origins. Things like who his parents are(which is good because I'd hate for all the small children watching this movie to be under the illusion that Ducks give birth to Pandas), where Po was born, and how he ended up at his adoptive father's house.
With this great plot line and script, the foundations are already laid, and the last frontier is pulling off the CGI animation. Which, is very impressive. The first battle sequence in the movie was very well animated and choreographed. When this is done, it is actually very fun to watch these scenes.
With a star-studded cast, I don't need to say much about the acting.
Overall, the movie is done very well, and evades many of the common mistakes in sequel plot lines, and if you liked the first one, I strongly recommend the sequel. I think Dreamworks has achieved a great success, and should put a lot more energy in this series because it may be their next "Shrek".

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