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.

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

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

Alvin & the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

UUUUHHHHHH, YEAH, STICK TO THE LITTLE ONES CHIPMUNKS. I THINK EVERYONE ELSE MIGHT THINK YOU ARE PESTS. My Rating: ** - Fair

"Alvin & the Chipmunks" (2007) was the first of the films and was good in some ways and not in some ways. "The Squeakquel" may not provide your ideal movie but shares a lot of the same qualities and weaknesses as the first movie. The plot picks up in the middle of the rock star lives of the iconic little singing chipmunks when their manager/dad Dave is hurt by one of Alvin's stunts and is hospitalized for a week and somehow the "munks" (haha, I made a funny! I'm actually surprised no one, not even the creators thought about that yet. I actually made that up on the fly while writing this review.) end up being watched by Dave's Aunt's nerdy, video game-addicted son, Tobey. The film does a good job of showing you his love for video games

as well as his somewhat responsible side as he takes care of them. To ease his pain, Dave signs up the fun-sized rock stars for High School. A creative plot twist but not quite enough to make a satisfying sequel. The chipmunks face everything that a new person at a high-school would. Everything from bullies, boring work, odd teachers, ect. The two things that aren't one of the normal things are 1., the principal being a fan of them and going so far as to have a tattoo of them on her arm that no one knows about(no wonder she always wears long sleeves) and 2., one of the most interesting new things brought to the plot is a group of three female chipmunks who end up meeting the old manager/villan from the first film, Ian, and adopt the name "The Chipettes". The "munks" and the "ettes" end up becoming 50% rivals and 50% in love. Now throughout this crazy plot there are a number a good things and bad things about the film. The plot, although creative and somewhat a good idea for a "squeakquel" , doesn't seems to have a point and there being no real threat on the lives of the chipmunks like in the first one. Maybe just too much of a kiddy movie attitude like one of those PBS T.V. shows and less of a squeakquel. The acting is not much of an issue with the spectacular voice talents for the chipmunks but the other acting is a little cheesy and not much else to expect for people who have seen the first one. You will get a laugh or two...or three out of this but you don't really feel INTO the film most of the time and there is really not much to walk away with at the end. It was overall a good try and you kinda get to appreciate the creative ideas but our furry friends don't really help give you a good movie experience.

Starring: Jason Lee Director: Betty Thomas

Matthew Gray Gubler

Jesse MCcartney

Anna Faris

Amy Poehler

Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince

RADCLIFFE IS BACK FOR THE SIXTH TIME.

My Rating: ** - Fair

Director David Yates has directed the last few "Harry Potter" films. And, he's done a decent job. But Has he continued his streak with the 6th installment? Not so much. Not all of the films were directed by him but here is my opinion on the series so far: I didn't really like the first three and then the 4th one was pretty good and the 5th one to me was the best and then this one fits somewhere in the middle. There is not much satisfaction I gathered while watching the film but fans won't be disappointed. There are a lot of things in the film that will be fan-pleasing. Whether it's colorful spells, ghetto/nerdy action that was introduced in "Order of the Phoenix", or more kisses for Harry, the fans will probably like it. But i wasn't too impressed. I think that the films are making SOME progress and as Harry & company matures through the story, so do the movies. And that makes it all the more realistic. But it wasn't as good as I expected. The plot is very tongue-twisting to explain but here it is: Voldemort is rising and one of the people at Hogwarts has been working with his death-eaters and Harry has been taking secret lessons from Dumbledoore that are vital if he is too save his own life from his mother's killer. They later find out that Voldemort somehow broke his soul into pieces and stored them inside objects called "Horcuxes" and that leaves them going along with a kind of "oh well that's just GREAT!" kind of attitude. Although throughout the film you can see somewhat of a conspiracy unravelling and many of the people at Hogwarts can't be trusted. This makes it epic and interesting but it sometimes seems more like a "CSI: Hogwarts" T.V. show rather than a movie about a teenage wizard fighting for his life. The film may seem boring at times and didn't leave me in particular satisfied. I did not feel very engaged sometimes and there was no sense of adrenaline or the feeling that something was coming that both excited and frightened you. That was what the 5th Harry Potter brought to the mix an i was hoping for that in this film. But there are some qualities that are required for a film like this but the way these films should be done in my opinion is to give MUCH more than the minimum. Whatever will make it better should be put into a film to make it great. I'm not talking money I'm talking something entertaining but with an important message in the midst of it all. It is those messages that are a vital thing that i look for in a film. Especially where characters make an extremely hard choice because of the sole purpose that they know it's the right thing. That is what made films like "The Dark Knight", "Spider-Man 2", "Spider-Man 3", "Iron Man", ect. so great. Things like that could have fit into a Harry Potter story very well and that's what i was hoping for. Although after seeing the films you can start to have these characters grow on you and you develop some kind of emotional connection with them. A lot of that comes from the great acting portrayed in almost all of the films and sometimes you forget it's only a movie. The film is not as satisfying as I would have liked but serves as a great advertisement for "Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows: Part One" which is scheduled for release on November 19, 2010. Overall, it doesn't really works it's magic like it should.

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe Director: David Yates
Rupert Grint
Emma Watson

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

"THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX"? SAY IT AIN'T SO MY FRIENDS. My Rating: ** - Fair



I have never seen a movie with stop-motion animation before so this film was a first for me. The film producers obviously knew that stop-motion was not a very fun way to watch a film and they were smart and hired the biggest actors for this movie like George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, and Owen Wilson as well as developing an interesting and clever script. However, the film still had it's flaws. The plot is about a fox (George Clooney) who would steal chickens and other goods from three different farmers for a living. But one day, his girlfriend(Meryl Streep) gets pregnant and she makes him promise to find some other line of work. So, twelve "Fox Years" later, the film shows you that Mr. Fox is a newspaper column writer and he is married to Mrs. Fox and they have a son named "Ash". But, Mr. Fox is tired of this boring work and finally decides to forgo his promise and try and steal three main goods from three big, ugly, and super-rich farmers. Soon the farmers get mad and retaliate and it's just one big adventure. The problem with the plot is that (yes I know it's a kid's film based on a kid's book and that these types of movies are just like that sometimes) sometimes it feels like there is no point to the story. The film also does feel a little tiresome but it manages to keep your interest. Acting is absolutely great in this movie and there is no issue on that but the movie still just seems very weird a lot of the time and you just can't really connect with the movie. At the end you feel that it just wasn't all that great. The dialogue is however well written and clever but that just didn't bring it all of the way. But I still have to give props to the producers for trying to use a style of movie making that isn't often used outside of the "Wallace & Gromit" series. Or, as "Star Trek" would say, they are "boldly going where no movie has gone before". And it was a good attempt and maybe in the future there will be triumphant stop-motion movies but for now, we will just say this one wasn't all that fantastic.

Starring: George Clooney Director: Wes Anderson
Meryl Streep
Jason Schwartzman
Bill Murray
Owen Wilson
Willam Defoe

Sherlock Holmes

DOWNEY PARTNERS WITH LAW...LITERALLY! My Rating: *** - Decent

Director Guy Ritchie has told the story of the famous detective from the 1800's with his new film "Sherlock Holmes". The plot is a made up case where a man seems to be practicing magic and killing people in a mysterious pattern and after he is finally caught and hanged, he rises from the grave and continues his rampage. He is instantly feared by the people as a sorcerer and who better to be assigned to this case than Sherlock Holmes and his partner in anti-crime, John Watson. You don't find out what the killer's "powers" really are until the end of the movie. The film has a very mysterious beginning with the perfect introduction to the hero of the story which causes the audience's attention to be attracted to the movie like a magnet. And it at least has a good try to keep that kind of thing going throughout the movie. The movie can feel a little boring at times and a little slow but is somewhat made up for with great costumes and a very realistic 19th century setting. The best thing in this movie is the acting. The only word I can use to describe this movie's acting is "amazing". The actors changed their accents and made it very realistic. That is not easy to do in a setting that is a lot different from today and that's the position where your acting is exposed as merely acting and where it's hardest to make it seem as if they really are in whatever situation they're in. So overall, there was great acting and costumes and settings but was boring and tedious at certain points. They did, however, have the right ingredients. Now for the upcoming 2011 sequel, all they need to do is make something with it.

Starring: Robert Downey Jr. Director: Guy Ritchie
Jude Law
Rachel Mcadams
Mark Strong

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

ANOTHER SUPERHERO FLICK FROM JACKMAN. My Rating: *** - Decent

The origin of one of Marvel's most famous super "Heroes" is finally explained in this epic comic book adventure that will not(for the most part) fail to entertain you. The plot is obviously well, wolverine's origin and it tells the story with characters like sabertooth, deadpool(above), gambit, and many other comic book characters with unique personalities. The main problem with this movie is that sometimes it's not very interesting and you feel a little bored watching it but most of the time it's fine. There is no lack of action in this movie and it's almost guaranteed you will be entertained when you see bullets deflected and chopped in half while in mid-air with swords, adamantium claws slicing through helicopter blades after the hero jumps off of a motorcycle that was blown up with a missile, Wolverine fighting some very deformed person, and well, you get the point. But the acting at certain points can be a bit questionable and sometimes at rare points the movie itself is just plain bad. Hugh Jackman( Wolverine) did a good job as always by turning his Australian accent into a big, bad, tough-guy American accent. So overall, the movie is good but could have been done a whole lot better and you will like the action sequences but watch out because at certain points, the movie may stick three metal claws right into your attention.

Starring: Hugh Jackman Director: Gavin Hood
Liev Schreiber
WILL.I.AM
Ryan Reynolds

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

YEAH OKAY MR. PATTINSON AND MR LAUNTER, WE GET IT, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR SHIRT OFF! NOW CAN WE PLEASE WATCH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU ADVERTISING?! My Rating: **1/2 - Average



The sequel to the mega hit "Twilight" is now here and fans piled up to see it in theaters and everyone was like "OMG! I can't wait to see this movie blah blah blah." It's not as good as you would think and it doesn't manage to keep itself together at certain points so simmer down a little bit people. The main problem with this movie is that it's only aimed towards a certain audience which was a main trait from it's predecessor. Pre-teen and teenage girls will have a wonderful time watching this movie but mainly because they would like to gaze at young male actors the whole time. It again picks up where the first one left off and goes deeper into Jacob's(Taylor Launtner) story. The odd topic of some girl falling in love with a vampire has wowed fans of the series and this time around, it may ONLY be the fans. The acting in this movie is very believable and realistic which helps you understand what's happening a little better and the special affects (like the werewolf above) were amazing and the film does manage to throw in a few LOL's but other than that, it's just an oddball tale that you would think is just trying to earn money from teenage girls because it, just like the first one, throws in Robert Pattinson, Robert Pattinson, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Launtner, and of course more Robert Pattinson which, for everyone else, will make you feel like the movie itself is sucking your blood.
So overall, instead of being very much like the previous "Twilight" it manages to do an odd thing that most movies don't because it may destroy your interest but it still in it's own little way manages to keep your attention.

Starring: Robert Pattinson Director: Chris Weitz
Kristen Stewart
Taylor Launter
Billy Burke
Bryce Dallas Howard
Dakota Fanning

2012

THE APOCALYPSE HAS BEGUN!...SO GRAB SOME POPCORN! My Rating: **1/2 - Average


This movie has earned the rightful title of "The Mother of all Disaster Flicks". The Mayans predicted the end of the world to be on December 21,2012 and that's where this movie takes off. Of course, this would have made a cool documentary but director Roland Emmerich decided to single in on one family and their experiences during the end of the world. In real life, scientists have found no threats to the Earth in 2012...so you can breathe while reading this. The movie does have some funny parts at the most appropriate times to have funny parts and the movie manages to keep your attention 95% of the time. The best thing in this movie is it's disaster sequences. Some of the most amazing special effects I've ever seen were in this movie and you can't help but stare in awe at the Earth being deformed by earthquakes,tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. The parts where it doesn't show these things are good too with occasional really sad parts but sometimes just doesn't have very interesting dialogue. The story can sometimes be a little boring but acting for the most part is not an issue in this movie and John Cusack(above) did a great job. Overall the movie is in fact very flawed but still may or may not be classified as "good" and has a very creative ending.

Starring: John Cusack Director: Roland Emmerich
Amanda Peet
Oliver Patt
Danny Glover