2009: From Best to Worst

I have always been intrigued by the fact that the movies I enjoy the most are the ones I have the least to say about. It is so much easier and natural to harp on the negative. So often in retrospect, it is the irritating things that stick out. Its like we're so obsessed with the wrong, that we forgot the very idea of how to be positive. I find this disturbing, and a bit of a blow to my faith in humanity. Then again, it is probably just me. Most people are fully capable of gushing over those things that they love. What an oddly comforting thought.

That being said, Moon is absolutely brilliant. I'm a major sucker for pretentious little indie films, but Moon really is next to flawless. It is absolutely enthralling from start to finish. I honestly do not recall being bored and impatient once during the entire duration. Sam Rockwell's performance is phenomenal. He would be my first choice for an Oscar, even though the Academy chose to ignore him. It is just so beautiful, surreal, human, and unsettling, that I cannot begin to rave over Moon.

By this point in time probably just about everyone is familiar with Max whose mother called him a Wild Thing and sent him to be without supper. Where The Wild Things Are is one of the most iconic pictures books of all time. Its a surreal story childhood and love that has connected with thousands of readers. Scholastic had previously released a dvd adaptation, but it was essentially just a reading of the book. Spike Jonze's film is at once completely true to the book, and something completely different. The film is much more complex, for one thing; but it takes you on the same journey and brings out the same emotions.
When I first heard that there was going to be a big-screen adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, I was really skeptical. There have been precious few good film versions of childrens' books. The only other really good one that comes to mind is Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A few are flat out terrible (i. e. Horton Hears a Who) but it seems like most are just mediocre, like the filmmakers really didn't care all that much about what they were doing. Films like The Spiderwick Chronicles and The Tale of Despereaux are not bad at all, and if you enjoyed the books that adds interest. However, they just are not that memorable or special beyond that. Where the Wild Things Are is not like that at all. There is obviously a great love for the project and it goes above and beyond the source material to become something marvelous.
The film is extremely visual. The locations are absolutely gorgeous. They are completely ordinary, but just unusual and mixed-up enough to really emphasize the dreamlike quality of the story. I like the Wild Things were real, so to speak, instead of being completely done up with CGI. Everything has a very unique style. Its not really stylish, but not completely retro either. It kind of fits in with the whole indie scene and the arcade fire music used in the trailer and...chucks. It's absolutely brilliant, but also impossible to describe accurately.
Karen O. from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs wrote and performed several songs for the movie. They are wonderful, and it wouldn't totally surprise me if "All is Love" were to return at the Oscars. The songs really blended well with Carter Burwell's score, which in turn blended perfectly with the film.
Possibly the best thing are Where the Wild Things Are are the characters themselves. Max, especially, is absolutely convincing and real. He is confused, and misunderstands things. He loves and grieves in a way that is completely heartfelt. He is impulsive and makes mistakes; not because he is a Bad Character Who Needs To Learn A Lesson, but because he is a 9 year old. Max does not think, act, or experience things like an adult.
There are various themes and morals in Where the Wild Things Are, but they are fairly obvious and an integral part of the story. Max's whole time with the Wild Things is a mind opening and character defining experience for him- sort of like an elementary school Juno. The film is an emotional roller-coaster, but it never feel manipulative or contrived. Even though the ending can be spotted almost as soon as the film starts, it is sweet and touching.
So far, this is probably the best movie I have seen this year. I actually enjoyed Harry Potter and The Brothers Bloom more, but they are not better films. There is a difference. Where the Wild Things Are reaches higher and accomplishes more. It really is not the sunny carefree hippie movie that the adverts made it appear to be. I thought it looked great from them, and while its different-certainly darker-it was not a disappointment at all. It is definitely not a film for everybody. I really can see why people might not like it. Its ultimately optimistic, but it takes a while to get there. Still, its one of the most beautiful, emotional, and artistic film your likely to see. Its hard to be in a family, and hard to truly love someone; But when you do, you'll keep the food hot even after they've bitten you, even if they are out of control and being a Wild Thing.

There is really one huge factor that sets this film apart from everything else; and that would be Tom Ford's direction. It seems like more and more films are being driven by imagery and style as opposed to the actual story or characters. As a fashion designer, Ford has the advantage here. Visually the film settles into various impressionistic images: George laying beside Jim's dead body and laying on the floor with Charley, Pedro leaning against the wall with a cigarette, Charley applying her makeup, comforting George in the doorway. Every shot comminucates so much. Like artistic photography or even advertisments dialog and plot are not necessary. These images tell the story. The dialog is the film's only weakness. It just seems forced, out of place. I would almost like to see this as a silent film. Every other aspect of the film is perfect. Honestly, the film is better than Christopher Isherwood's book, which was a masterpiece itself. I really would like to see Ford take on another film. He has the artistic sensibilities for it. Even if it is just a one shot deal, A Single Man stands out as one of the most beautfiul, intoxicating, and expressive things I've seen in quite some time, or possibly even that I've seen. period.

I didn't even realize how much I was enjoying Ponyo until it was over. So, I turned around and watched it again. It is just so absolutely perfect. Sweet and innocent, optimistic and charming. The actual animation is vibriant and gorgeous. Everthing about it is just .. beautiful: the animation, the story, the style, the sheer emotion. A first it seemed like the film was maybe overly childlike, but Ponyo and Sosuke are five year olds, after all. Instead of being irritating, it just adds to the charm. I would really like to see Liam Neeson and Cate Blanchett play a couple again. Those two smooth voices just come together so well. This is a movie that is underrated no matter how much hype it recieves. Film's like Ponyo do not come along very often, and you really should gobble them up when they do.

This is one of those movies that is so absolutely intoxicating and enthralling. You really cannot help but fall in love with it. There were two things that really stood out of the expected for me. First, it doesn't really condemn or come down heavy-handed on the fact that Jenny is in a relationship with a man twice her age. Peter was obviously not an ideal lover, but that had nothing do with his age. It has more to do with the fact that he is married and has a family. Otherwise, I could have very well seen the two of them married and maybe not living in bliss, but as happily as anything other married couple. Second, I really, really liked how Jenny didn't seem to have any regrets in the end. Instead of being all "I made such mistakes, and wasted so much time, and quite possible fucked up the rest of my life!" the ending is really just peaceful. content. It more like she realizes that she made some choice that have potential consequences, but instead of moping she gathers her wits and moves on. She is not even bitter towards Peter, he gave her an education and wonderful experiences, and she is thankful for that even when the affair has ended. Plus, she is 17 at the end. She has time for the wounds to heal, time to create her own life. All around just a wonderful and beautiful movie.

I really find it disgusting that a movie this great has yet to kind any kind of a release in the U. S. It may have taken the mandatory two-weekend run in LA, but I honestly do not think it ever branched further than that. It really makes no sense at all. Not only is the film perfect in just about everyway possible, but Toni Collette, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Eric Bana are not exactly a fly by night cast. If Mary and Max ever gets a dvd release, I'll probably buy it just on the principle of the matter! Complaints aside, I absolutely loved Mary and Max. The story is made up of incredibly depressing and pessimistic elements, but the overall effect is anything but. It's really pretty optimistic and uplifting. I loved -LOVED - the visual style. This is a bit of spoiler, so be warned, but I liked how the Aspergers was not brought up by name until pretty far into the plot. I was pretty sure that Max had the syndrome, but I liked that the script worked in such a way as to let you form your own opinion without the fact that Max 'isn't quite right' handing over it. All around just a beautiful, human masterpiece. Watch it, in whatever form you can, whenever you can. Movies like this do not come along very often and they should not be overlooked when they do.

After finishing Up in the Air, I honestly do not know what to say. It is absolutely brilliant, but why? I cannot even begin to sort out everything that this movie made me think and feel. It is at once completely realistic and complete fantasy. The characters - every single one - is complete and human. George Clooney and Vera Farmiga give two of the slyest and classiest performances I've ever seen. The people Bigham fired took me by surprise. I thought it was kind of hokey when I first heard that Jason Reitman was using real people who had lost their jobs, but it works so well. It made for some of the most moving and emotion scenes in the whole film. The story itself seemed more fun and symbolic than anything. It doesn't seem plausible, nor does it seem like it was supposed to. I think every scene left me laughing or crying. Things do not get under my skin to that degree very often. I'm really tired of hearing about how this is the Film for Our Times. Yes, it currently holds a certain applicability right now, but at the core it is not a social movie. It is about people and relationships, and that is something that is timeless and always relevant. I had extreamely high hopes for Up in the Air, and was not disappointed at all. It believe some of the marketing used a review saying that it is "Sly, emotional, and gently heartbreaking". Truer words were never spoken.

Simply breathtaking. Bright Star is one of those films that is completely enrapturing and enthralling, makes you feel so much, apparently without even trying. Visually it is an incredibly artistic and beautiful film. Generally, I am not all that fond of these historical romances and dramas only because it all seems so posed. No matter how good the acting is, you do not feel like the characters actually speak in that way, and a lot of times the actors just seem awkward in their costumes. It just does not feel real at all. Bright Star manages to pull this off brilliantly. The dialog, costumes, locations, etc, all seem natural. For that alone the film deserves praise. Top that with fine acting, great story, and bucketloads of emotion, and you really have a masterpiece on your hands.

I'm choosing not to review this movie - in depth anyway - because I cannot begin to describe it accurately, how it makes you feel, the charm and style it carries. Its not flawless by any means, but still one of the best things I've een this year. Its completely real and completely fanciful. Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon Levitt are awesome, but would you expect anything less? I think Marc Webb is a talent to be watched. This seems like a very personal film, and I'm very curious to see where he goes in the future. Oh! One final note: the soundtrack truly is amazing. I realize it has had a unreal ammount of promotion, but its really is great. And for the recond, "There is a Light That Never Goes Out" is one of the greatest songs ever written, but I knew that before the film even began.

Inglorious Basterds is really pretty fantastic. I sort of want to give it five stars just for the heck of it. Its dark, twisted, and satirical. Three things that I absolutely love. There have been a lot of movie I have really enjoyed lately, but this is definately among the best. It really deserves all of the hype it has recieved. There are an awful lot of World War II movies out there, but Inglorious Basterds is vibrant and fresh. It may not be that historical, but it is entertaining. Its kind of odd, but sometime the humor becomes funnier the more you ponder it, while the rest of it is rather horrible if you really think about it. Regardless, it is extreamely funny in the most macabre and perverted ways. I was kind of surprised at how good the screenplay and acting was. All of the characters and fully realized and developed, even the minor ones. I also liked how most of the dialog was in French or German. It is always kind of annoying when a movie like this is done completely in English. All of this contributes to what is probably the single greatest thing about Inglorious Basterds, and that is the sheer quality of the film. It is pretty unusual to see a comedy that is this well-done. Still, it is not flawless, not is it completely mindblowing. But it is extreamely good, and something I will want to watch again sometime.

"We're different - him especially - but, you've got to admit, there's something pretty fantastic about that."

Despite being one of the single most clever, inventive, and charming things I've seen in quite a while, I was kind of disappointed with The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I feel like a bit of a twat for always harping on this, but the only think that brings the film down is the presence of overused ideas. At times the movie is very typical. We have misunderstood children. A father who is apparently more impressed with his nephew that his own son. The ideas that we're all special, and that everybody should be true to themselves. There is nothing wrong with any of this, but haven't we seen it all enough times? Granted, Mr. Anderson does manage to present them in clever and charming ways, but you still cannot help but bristle.

Still, enough whining. The film is incredible. There is no way around it. If you are familar with Wes Anderson's work think of everything that you love about those movies, and if you're new to his work, well then, you are in for a treat. I love the music, love the style, love the characters. Random side-note, but this is the first time I have really been impressed with Meryl Streep. Maybe it because she is an animated fox, but she seemed to completely lose herself in the role. She was so good, that I kind of forgot that the voice was Meryl until seeing the little icon right now. I think this will become a iconic film over time. Like Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, this brings stop motion animation into new territory. I have never seen anything quite like our dear Mr. Fox. Next to the animation, the script would be the strongest point. Pretty much every line is sly and witty in some way or another. All around it is a wonderful movie, but it not perfect, and I went in with high expectations, demanding perfection. Besides, just because it does not meet my expectations, does not make it any less of a film, it does not make it any less great.

Damn, I loved this movie. It's at once bubbly and intoxicating, but at the same time incredibly heartbreaking. It's not a real movie. at all. But, neither does it try to be. The characters and situations are all the more beloved because we cannot totally believe them, totally relate to or understand the circumstance. The characters are drawn in absolutes, but never really feel flat. They are all fasinating, most are even easy enough to love, but they are not complex in a human sense. They all at once completely focused, but at the same time they have the complexity needed to be confincing and understood. The acting is obviously great. Everyone has already mentioned that fact, but really. Everyone is fantastic. I've always liked James McAvoy, but this is the first time his acting itself has really stood out as being incredible. The Last Station is a relentlessly optimistic film, and the characters are as well. Which one obvious exception, these are all "nicer" people than the average person. It is even varied types of selflessness that pit them against one other. Everyone feels they know what it best for everyone else, essentially causing all the strife in the film. Love can take many forms, but who is to say which is the best? We see family love, romantic love, pacifism, etc, each takes a different flavor, but each is based on one thing: Love. And what is the antidote to this tragedy? Rules, boundaries, legalism. As Mash says to Valentin "You forgot the rules and remembered love." It is true sincerity that matters, the actions are irrelevant. Love might cause one to give everything to better society or it might cause one to gather up a great inheritance. Neither action is better or worse than the other on it's own. We do not cherish and love people because of what they did FOR us, but because of what drove them to those actions.

I watched nine close to a month ago now, but had never gotten around to reviewing it. I tried to a couple times, but nothing I wrote really seemed right. It is an extreamely good movie, but fairly unique and complex. In parts 9's dystopian pessimism is actually unsettling. I had not expected that at all. It is also surprising that parts of the film are so beautiful. The puppets themselvse are cute and artistic, and oftentimes, the locations are as well; especially the twin's chapel/garden. The puppets themselves are surprisingly human. 9 is not flawless by any means. At times it feels very stereotypical and contrived. However, overall it is about as enthralling and masterful as anything that you are likely to see. There really is not a single box or genre that completely fits I, and that is probably the single greatest thing about it.

Who would have ever thought that a movie about roller derby, a sport dominated by punk goddesses, would be most accurately described as "cute." Granted, that sounds like a flaw, but it's part of what makes Whip It brilliant. Most movies and books fail miserably when they intentionally try to tap into a certain scene or image, think of Twilight's "emo"ness or the "epic" fantasy of Narnia. Whip It cleverly evades this by not even trying. The actual storyline makes me reminiscent for the days of Mary Kate and Ashley, and Beanie Babies. It is very, very familiar, but Barrymore manages to present it in a new and fasinating way. Great music, great atmosphere, great script. The screenplay especially, it's really clever and funny, but not in the sense of there being a bunch of stand alone one-liners. The whole thing collectively creates something pretty fresh and off-color. BIff, and Ellen Page as far as that goes, is a pretty incredible person. She is willing to sacrifice pretty much everthing for this activity that she loves and makes her happy, this one thing that makes her feel alive. I do not think that most people would do that. We are all so very comfortable filling toher's expectations. We do not have the courage to break away and piss some people off, create some waves, and possibly even ... fail. Or least I wouldn't. I'm no Biff.

Apparently the name 'Pedro Almodovar' carries some weight and prestige; but I've never heard of him, so this could be an extraordinary or poor example of his work and I'd be none the wiser. The film is over-the-top melodrama from start to finish. These lovers could put Heathcliff and Catherine to shame! Catastrophe after catactrophe is pilled on, but unlike a movie of the likes of Twilight, Broken Embraces really does not take itself seriously; and this is part of the film's charm. The actual storyline is rather depressing, but everything else is rather light and lush. The style was hands down the strongest point for me. It's gorgeous! It's bright and vibriant, and just as important to the film as the story or actors. The sets and location are fairly surreal, but in a realistic way, if that makes any sense at all. Cruz' hair and eyes are probably the most memorable thing in the entire film. There are very few actresses who can pull off a platinum blonde wig. Penelope Cruz is at her absolute finest, but everyone else is pretty forgettable. The story has holes, there is no denying it; but, overall, this is an incredibly strong work. It is completely engrossing, flawless visually, and really, if done well, that is enough.

There is no denying that A Serious Man is brilliant, but I'm not totally sure what the Coens were trying to say. At the end, it seems like everything has been button up and resolved, but I'm not sure how or why, or even what 'it' was. The whole thing is incredibly satirical and ironic, and for that alone, the film deserves praise. I really, really loved the look and feel of the film visually. It totally captures the 60/70's look like a photographic snapshot. Yet it is still slightly off, slightly off-color, slightly over-the-top. It creates a world that is at once familiar and still very fantastic. The same goes for the use and presence of a Jewish culture. I imagine most people are at least vaguely familiar with some Jewish customs. Still, the usage adds depth, complexity, and interest to the movie. Very, very much a deadpan, blach-comedy, but I would not really say that it is funny; at least not in a ha-ha sort of way. Overall, I still think that A Serious Man is a sparkling little gem of a movie, even if it is a bit puzzling. Then again, maybe that was the intent.

There are three words that epitomize Nine and they are "Style", "Talent", and "Beauty". The film itself is insanely stylish - the costumes, scenery, everything! Then the cast is made up of incredibly beautiful and talented people. The actors are all perfectly cast for their roles, and they all give top-notch performances. The characters themselves are from a broad enough range of people-types that I think everybody could find a character in which they can relate. Personally, I'm thinking Judi Dench's Lili. Nine is definitely shallow, but in a way that makes sense. While it certainly has the plot material needed to be a heavy drama, it is a very clever comedy. At times it also does not make the most sense, but why overanalyze? Otherwise, it seems like everything there possibly is to say about the film has already been said. I'm kind of surprised that it did not do better at the box-office. If nothing else, you would think that the promise of Penelope Cruz singing bawdy love songs while clad in lingerie would sell a decent amount of tickets. Overall, Nine really is a great film and a notable achievement. It certainly does not deserve the critical bashing it has recieved.

Well, here's a film that has truly left me speechless. First, because the film really is incredibly. Second, I watched it a couple weeks ago and am struggling to think of what seemed important when watching it. Hunger is definitely an 'art' film, and I think that it really the main things that causes the film to be so affecting and noteworthy. Like everybody else has already said it is an disturbing film of incredible beauty. The only thing that kept this movie from being absolutely perfect in my mind is that Hunger really is a bit busy. I cannot totally figure out why the whole documentary/historical elements are thrown in. I guess, I just think that everybody would know the general context of the film before watching it. The scenes that seem to exist for the purpose of explainng the situation are the only weak moments in the entire film. Damn, the rest is amazing, though. Like Tom Ford's A Single Man the film can almost be split into a serious of single shots, each incredibly affecting pieces of beauty of brutality. McQueen is able to use image, sound, etc to get the viewers attention, grasp their emotions, convey his meaning. He does not need dialog or a 'plot', really. I just felt that Hunger is artistry to the very greatest degree. A wonderful, wonderful film that while not completely perfect, should not be ignored.

Simply put, I loved this movie, every minute, every frame, every aspect. Is it perfect, not at all; but I really do not care. Richard Curtis is a complete master at making feel-good movies, and Pirate Radio does not fall flat in any way. It a way, I think we automatically think of movies like this as being "intelligent" films - for lack of a better word. It is a period piece and based on true material. As such, I just would not have expected anything this ... fun. There is not any depth or historical relevance. Instead we have incredible charisma. Simply put, movies come along far to infrequently that have both this degree of quailty and comedy. The music and style of absolutely amazing, but that seems to be the main emphasis of the marketting. Pirate Radio creates one of those worlds that you cannot help but want to live in, a world where everyone can wear leather pants and checked dresses. Just a exteamely fun and lovable movie from start to finish. It also deserves to be mentioned that the main "message" of the thing seemed to be "lets stick it to 'the man'" Come on, you know you love it.

The main thing that made The Messenger great in my opinion is that way that is the way that it tugged my heartstrings, crushed my soul. It is truly an emotionally devastating movie. The three principle characters are broken people, in different ways, by incredibly real and plausible. They are very REAL people and you cannot help but want things to work out for them. On top of that, every scene where 'the messengers' deliver their news is absolutely heartbreaking. The most notable would probably be where the Spainish speaking father is informed via traslator that his daughter has been killed, while her child, his grandson, a toddler, plays in the room beind him, unaware that anything is wrong, unaware that he will never see his mother again. The film has flaws, yes, but it is a very important film, a relevant film. I have very, very strong convictions against warfare, but still have the utmost respect for those who fight for their countries. The Messenger does the same. It pays respect and homage to those soldiers who have sacrificed their lives, while still showing all the strife and pain that war causes, and gentle hints at the possibility that the deaths could and should have been avoided.

So, way back when I was incredibly hyped for this movie, but for whatever I reason I did not get around to going to see it. Then, once it was out, the general consenus seemed to be that it was not very good. Regardless, I hadn't gotten around to watching it until now; and not to be contrary, but its really good. For the most part Taking Woodstock is not particuarly realistic. At times the settings and situations drift towards realism, but for the most part it is a sunny, sweet movie. Then again, I might just be completely cynical. Perhaps Ang Lee dipicted Woodstock accurately. I was not there to know. Either way, it doesn't really matter. It just seems awfully idealistic for a movie "Inspired by True Events". Even if it is romantized, the movie works extreamely well. Its funny, visual, and compelling. It really is almost sticky sweet, but is presented in such a way that makes the film a touching human comedy rather than a sappy, sentimental, and manipulative drama. One of my favorite things about Taking Woodstock was the characters themselves. Even though they are not nessasarly realistic, they are essentially plausible and believable. I do not think that there was a single character i disliked. On the same note, it kind of seemed like the characters floated in and out, like most of them really did not have much of a role to play. Especially the builder guy/ Demetri Martin's lover. First off he was a beast! (okay, so that is not a bad thing =P) and second it just seemed like he should have been a mojor character, but as it is he didn't have much screen time or seem to do anything particuarly important. I suppose this is all major overanalyzing, but they are things I noticed. I completely enjoyed this movie, and I will probably watch it again and again. Ang Lee's fanciful and euphoric view of Woodstock makes for a pleasent viewing experiance. Ther is not any one thing that makes it great. Every just works together to create, maybe not a masterpiece, but a very good film. There are plenty of people who would hate this movie, but I do not think that they would pick up a movie entitled Taking Woodstock to begin with. Even so, they can write their own reviews to bash it. I do not mean to sound snooty, but I cannot, and really do not want to, write for other people. Anyway, a few simple words can sum up what I have spent for too many saying: "I liked this movie." The End.

I should have reviewed this right after I finished it, because now, days later, all I remember is that I liked it. Its cute, flinty, and charming. I think the interviews and the puppetish stuff it what really made the movie though. The rest was good, but that is really what made it wonderful. Idk, the stories themselves were fasinating, but then it also helped the whole documentary end of things. Part are tragic, parts are hilarous, but all around Paper Heart is a fun and captivating movie to watch.

"Some people tell a story 'n it don't make sense or be true. But I'm gonna try to make sense and tell the truth, else what's the fuckin use? Ain' enough lies and shit out there already?"

It is on this note that Precious opens her narrative in the novel Push, which would have to be one of the strongest and grittiest books I have ever read. While the movie Precious is almost a page-to-page adaptation of Push, the film is much, much lighter. For once, I think this is a good thing. The film reaches a delicate balance of realism and artistry. The story itself is about as bleak as it is possible to get. It revolves Precious, pregnant with her second child at sixteen, who has been abused by both parents all of her life. What keeps the film going, and makes it great is the promise that she can movie beyond everyhting she has gone through, that Precious can form a life of her own and be happy. If there is a weakness to Precious, it is that the film really is a bit idealistc. At the same time, though, it is not sappy sweet or sentimental. It is filled with hope and optimism, that you cannot help but want to believe in. I would have to say that Precious achieved her goal: Her story makes sense, and, while it doesn't always feel like truth, it is way to real to be a lie.

This is honestly one of the most entertaining things I have seen recently. Granted, its predictable, and there is certainly a sense of "I've seen this before...". Still, its incredible fun and charastmatic. It has a historical setting and tone, but its not overtly historical. Its distintively French, but also reminisant of classic Hollywood. I'm kind of curious as too if the songs were created for the film, or if they are traditional French songs... If they are original, they are really pretty impressive. I also really liked how the whole thing revolved around the Chansonia- sort of like how the Moulin Rouge is the backdrop of Moulin Rouge! or Hogarts in Harry Potter. There is a certain audience that will absolutely love this movie, and just as many that will hate it. Its certainly not for everyone; but its visual and entertaining, and, personally, I liked it quite a lot. Its definately a movie I will watch again and again. =]

I really am not a fan of war movies at all, but The Hurt Locker really took me by surprise. It's dark gritty and emotional, and the more I watched it, the more I was enjoying it. It's tense and gritty, but it never really feel right or left winged. It does not nessasarily show war as being "right" or "wrong". It focuses on the fact that there are sacrifices involved, and I do not think that there are any gung-ho conservatives that will deny that. We see soldiers sacrificing, not their lives, but rather giving up their souls, their humanity. It also felt real. It did not feel like there was a angenda being pushed at all. It's tense and gritty, and at times even unsettling and disturbing. The skinny,skinny cats sticks out as the single most horrible thing in the entire film.

At times, the film does seem kind of stereotypical, but it is not overwhelming and it does not really draw away from the film as a whole. I like Ralph Fiennes a lot, so I was kind of disappointed that he had so little screentime. I think the use of a little-known cast was nothing short of genuis, though. I think it helps that I didn't see the actors and see the actual people and their other roles, you only see the character's they are portraying. There really did not seem to be any kind of a plot, but then again, if it had one, I would probably be whining that the film is contrived. It sort of seemed like one secluded event after another. But, its presentation works. Extreamely well, even.

I"ve given up on trying to figure out Summet Entertainment. I mean, think about it, what do Twilight, The Brothers Bloom, Push, and The Hurt Locker have in common? Honestly, this is the closest thing I have seen to a good drama in a long time. It seem like there has been an awful lot of buzz, and Oscar buzz, for The Hurt Locker, and I would have to say that it at least deserves a nomination.

The Lovely Bones tries very hard to balance both story and style, but overall, the latter takes presidence. Every scene, every shot of this movie is absolutely gorgeous, but the story really could be better. I guess I'm not totally sure what the main conflict of the story was. There seem to be several possibilities and they really do not come together. At all. The most obvious would be that Susie has to accept the fact that she is dead and has to leave the world and her family behind, move on; but if that is the case, why does her family benifit from her continual haunting? She wants atonement for her murder and is filled with hate towards Mr. Harvey, but she does not really seem bent on revenge. She even tries to keep her father from persuing the killer. It has been a couple years since I read the book, so I honestly do not remember it that well, but it seemed like the novel really focused on the Salmon's and how they were adapting, or failing to adapt, and accept Susie's death. The really is not the purpose of the film, and that changes everything. I have incredibly mixed feeling about these Bones, but the total effect of the movie is amazing. It is certainly sentimental and cutsy in parts, but still a beatiful, beautiful movie about love and life ... 'and everything that comes after.'

I realize that everyone else apparently hates this movie, but, god, I thought it was awesome. It's incredibly stylish, trippy and artistic; absolutely intoxicating. It is extremely slow paced and there is hardly any plot or action, but it is still completely enthralling. The production and editing are amazing. It is all obviously filmed on location somewhere, but I've never seen places like these. It creates a world that I would like to experience. The story itself is incredibly suave and, also, a bit boozy. At the same time it also gently satirizes the typical tale of thrills and espionage. The sheer irrationality and pointlessness is part of what makes the film great. It is incredibly stimulating and fun to watch, and I'm pretty sure part of Jarmusch intention was to make his audience go 'what the fuck?' at least once. Everything is at once significant and at once meaningless. It really doesn't make any difference either way. Use your imagination, the experience is the same.

So, I understand that Uncertainty is a "bad" movie, but I absolutely loved it. I'm not even totally sure why, but the whole thing is intoxicating and tight. For a micro-budget film, it looks incredibly stylish. It is incredibly realistic and there is a total lack of effects, but at the same time it is not tacky at all. Really, the whole film is realistic, making an exception for the obvious. Bobby and Kate's relationship seemed plausible and tender. The family relations and even the "thriller" storyline carried a lot of gravity. They were pleasant, but also plausble. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins really hold up the film. They truly become the characters they play. Those characters are also great. They are fully rounded, they have virtues, flaws, convictions and peeves. I guess, a lot of what I loved in Uncertainty is that ultimately it is believable. It is not placed in the pleasant fantasy land of the cinema. This is our world, and Bobby and Kate will not have a picture perfect relationship. There would be bumps in the road, but the promise of a happy ending doesn't seem far-fetched. Both stories come together to bring the realization that they have what it takes to take of each other, to raise a child, and ... live.

Honestly, I wasn't as crazy about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo as I would have expected to be. I DID like the book a lot more than I ever would have expected, so maybe it is just the universe?s way of balancing everything out. Or more likely that is the problem right there. Stieg Larsson's book is incredibly dense and complicated. The film is nearly three hours long and it only covers the highlights of the novel. It really is a good adaptation, but still disappointing somehow. It just seems to simple and too fast. I really did not like most of the cast, besides Noomi Rapace, or the locations that much, either. Really, all of my complaints with the film come from comparing it to the book. I really wonder what it would be like to watch the film on its own. I imagine it would be a lot better. Still, despite any cuts in the adaption, we still have a fantastic story, and wonderful characters. Thrillers and mysteries are some of the most generic and uninspired films around as a whole. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo breaks away from the mold, away from the typical; becoming something special, whether that be as a mind-blowing novel or a not-as-good-but-still-great movie.

I was extreamely excited to find this on shelf at the library, despite not having watched the trailer or read any reviews of the film. Generally I would agree with anyone who would say that it not a wise move to watch something simply on impulse or because you've heard of lot about it, but here I think the less you know about The White Ribbon going into it, the better. There is depth and stublties to the piece. I really do not think that everything can be totally understood and grasped in a single viewing. I actually did not totally "get" it while watching; but that was not due to any shortcoming of the film, but being blinded by my own opinions and experiences. Personally, I find the conservative in the extreame, protestant world to be a very scary place. Some of the most unsettling parts of the film come from the discipline and forms of punishment. All of it is a abusive in varied ways. What I found to be the worst are the parents, insistent that they are experiencing more pain in administrating the punishment than the child will experience. This is so unsettling because it's still happening. There really is not much of a differance between the situations of these villagers and so many religious zealot families today. It is also so disturbing that both parties fail to realize that what they're doing is in any way wrong or dysfunctional. The children have been brainwashed their entire lives and know nothing else and parents honestly feel that they are in the right. Still, while this is a major part of the film, it is not what The White Ribbon is about by any means. It is definitely what stood out to me, but really the true issue addressed is the burning, unconditional hatred that can fester in us all. The film is a great achievement no matter what you take from it. It is busy and simple, focused and vague. I think everyone who watches it will probably draw something slightly different. And, really, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

They say that you should never judge things by their cover and I've always been among the rebellious minority who ignore this advice. After all, a cover or poster is usually more than sufficient to reveal a film's style and purpose. However, in the case of Summer Hours, 'they' are acutally right. The marketing of the film is incredibly tacky, while the actual film is incredibly beautiful. Rarely is afilm that strives for so much realism this artistic and lavish in it's design. Every scene, every moment, every shot is just so simple and low key. Part of the beauty even seems to stem from the fact that everythiing is definitely very real, incredibly beautiful, but real. The family dynamics and relationships are great and well-done, but that really isn't what stuck with me in the end. Ultimately, it is a peaceful and poetic film; one that lacks pretension and one that creates a family and world that realistically reflects the brighter side of humanity.

This movie does what so many others have sought to do and failed, and that is to create a sentimental feel-good movie that actually - wait for it - makes you feel good. I watched it mostly for Clive Owen, and was incredibly surprised at how sweet, funny, and ... heartbreaking it is. Granted, it Is incredibly sentimental, but it also seems fairly realistic. His parently really seemed to have some much needed perspective. How many things to parents, and everyone else, get worked up over every day that really do not matter? The first fourty minutes are definitely the strongest, but the rest is decent enough. I really did not like the older boy that much. He looks like Ronald Weasley and was really just a confusing character. I was really fond of the musical selections; and Australia is a beautiful, beautiful, country that is filmed so gloriously. It bums me out so much that Miramax is no more, who will give us these films now? Certainly not the big hollywood three.

Pretty impressive documentary. I personally find that to be one genre that just generally isn't that intersting. The people involved obviously felt strongly about the topic, but they were not irritating about. I honestly thought I was going to throw up in a couple parts though. The only thing I did not like, is that is its very provogative, but I do not think it will effect people. They even state during the film that people are so detatched from everything food related that nothing will change. I think that is completely the case. Even watching something brilliant like Food Inc. is not enough. There are certainly disturbing images and stories there, but its still not personal enough to make a differance. Still, its a well-done, and fasniting documentary to watch!

I know a lot of people hate Michael Moore, and I sort of see why. He is really kind of judgemental and obnoxious. If I didn't more or less agree with him, I do not think I would have sat through this film. He makes good points and says things that need to be said, he just has a total lack of grace or tack. At times, echos of Bruno came to mind. At the same time, you also have to admire the fact that he feels needs to be said, not necessarily what people want to hear. The only reason I did not love this film more is that I instantly bristle against people like Michael Moore, people who fail to realize that theirs is not the only way, that's it might just be possible that they do not know everything, that other people really are doing the best that they can. Still, its a good film, certainly interesting, but I just cannot really rave about it.

Overall, I really did like this movie a lot, but at times it really is awfully typical and cliched. Hugh Dancy does a marvelous job of portraying someone with Asperger's. I really liked the way it was portrayed as well. You cannot help but feel sorry for Adam, but at the same time the film does not look down upon him. The rest of the characters are just as disconnected and lost as he is, and they're completely normal, functional people. The film has a nice little soundtrack, both with the score and the bona fide songs. Everything else has a really, really washed-out and sterile look to it. I imagine it must have been intentional, and it really is a nice touch.

I really felt that the first half hour was the strongest in the film. Its not only charming and light, but also incredibly sad and emotional. The tragic part of this is that the rest of the film goes down hill then. While Adam is never downright unenjoyable to watch, there are quiet a few parts that drag. I think it would have been much better overall had it focused more on Adam and less on Beth and her family. Still, its a good movie. Its just that it could, and should, have been so much better.

Michael Sheen is talented and adorable. I'm not shallow as to rate a film well on those term alone, but still. Just saying... I'm impressed with what a diverse selection of characters he has played.: Lucian in Underworld, Tony Blair in The Queen, Aro in New Moon, The White Rabbit in Alice, David Frost in Frost/Nixon, and now Brian Clough. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of the coach, but apparently he was someone worth knowing. I'm genereally not that fond of sports movies (or the sports themselves) but this really is incredibly good. Timothy Spall just looks right in the 70s. Who would have ever guessed? Written by Peter Morgan, and very, very similar to his work in The Queen. While is film is very fun and entertaining, it is not something to be remembered forever. It really will not make you think or feel anything at all. I'm actually not totally sure that it had any kind of a point, but maybe that is part of the brilliance. A certain charm and appeal comes with the lack of an obvious message or agenda. At any rate, the film is sweet and charming, very likable all around, and that alone goes a long ways.



I'm also rather fond of the closing: "Brian Clough was the best manager that the Leeds never had." That was a bit of a paraphrase, but the gist is the same.

All things considered, it is really sort of amazing that this movie ended up being completed and released. There is nothing quite like having the lead actor die to hinder production. The film is flawed, yes, but it has nothing to do with Ledger's demise. Personally, I really liked the idea of having four different actors play the same character. Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, and Jude Law all bring a different edge to the character of Tony and, really, is helps underline his chameleon-like character. Lily Cole is so perfect for a film like this. I hope she takes on more acting jobs in the future. Visually, the film is incredible. The effects or not wonderful in the sense that they are incredibly realistic or elaborate, but they are amazing. They have style and authenticity, making the sequences in the Imaginarium the best parts of the film. The style and presentation is amazing, but the actual story and characters drag. The true core of the film is incredibly typical and predictable. "Parnassus" is bubbly, charismatic, trippy, and really, really entertaining. Terry Gilliam's films seem to be sort of hit or miss for me. This one really has the potential to be amazing, but it just falls short in many parts, but at the same time, it is an incredibly easy movie to watch and love.

Very funny. Very clever. Very satirical. Honestly, that is all I come up with to say about In the Loop. There are certainly longer and more inspired reviews out there, but I just cannot pull one together.

It seems like this is an easy movie to like, but a hard one to love. There is absolutely nothing to complain about, but it just seems like Brothers could be much better. What really stuck out to me was the acting. The only performance I would actually consider to be poor would be the grandparents. Everybody else is magnificent. Natalie Portman probably stood out the most to me, and that is just because her character seemed the most complex and plausible. I felt more for her than any of the others. Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal really are great, but they do not have the human connection that Portman had. I think everybody can connect with her to some degree, where so many of us have not had to deal with the things Maguire has in his past; And Gyllenhaal's big transformation seems a bit far fetched- but he is a talented enough actor to make it confincing. I still haven't seen An Education, but with just two scene Carey Mulligan is right on step with everyone else. Considering who she is running with, that is pretty high praise! There is certainly more to the movie than the cast and performances, but that is the main thing that really stands out, its the main thing that will be taken away after the film has ended.

The actual story and script certainly is not bad, but it is not extraordinary. I expected a lot more. It just seemed to focus more on the actual actions, whereas I would have liked to have seen something that was more about what they were actually thinking and feeling, less action but more thought and heart. I still haven't seen "Brodre", but it is obvious that this is not originally an American film. There are certainly Hollywood embelishments, but mostly the film takes place in territory in which Americans fear to tread.

So to repeat the opening sentence: I liked the movie, I did not love it. Brothers really is good, but it is not great.

This is one of those movies that does absolutely everything that is expected of it, everything that it SHOULD do. We have the traditional British locations and lavish costumes, political corruption and rebellious youth. It does all of these things incredibly well, but it never accomplishes anything more. While it is a wonderful, intoxicating movie, it will always come in second best. The Young Victoria just is not unique and special enough to take the world by storm. That being said, I still enjoyed this movie to no end. This will definitely be remembered as a break-out performance for Emily Blunt. It is unlike anything else she has ever tackled, and there is no denying that she is great. Rupert Friend has the most amazing hair and to top it off, makes a rather nice Albert. I know regrettably little about Victoria's life and reign, so the film may be incredibly accurate, it may not be, I haven't the faintest clue. Either way, the story is played out in incredible, wonderful ways. I honestly carred a lot about what happened to the two lovers. It is not one of the best things I've ever seen by any means, but I really did like it. It is a very easy movie to love if you just give it a chance.

I sort of amazed that this has turned into such a 'love it' or 'hate it' movie. Like any other movie it has both strengths and weaknesses, but it does not really seem like one takes presidence over the other. If it were not for the hype, I would say that it is rather forgettable. On the side of strengths, there is no denying that Avatar is a visual wonder. After the incredible sucess of Titanic, Cameron took the time and funds to create a monumental picture if for no other reason than because of the degree to which this film has excited people. Personally, I thought the movie had some hideous dialog and Stephen Lang is a talentless fiend. It seems like Cameron played every card in his hand with the story and messages. There is a bit of a "green" and a bit of female empowerment, but overall, it doesn't seem like Cameron really believes in those things. The story demands that the militia be trigger happy goons, but the Director does not seem to be able to accept that. Even though he created everything about Avatar, it doesn't seem that personal. It seems liberal by design, not out of heartfelt conviction. There is so much to say, so much to analyze, so much to complain about in this movie; but it really is "good", at least in the sense that it is insanely pleasurable to watch once and in many ways an achievement.

When I first heard the title "Men Who Stare at Goats", I was instantly hooked. Besides sounding slightly kinky, it just seems like it should be odd and off-color. The opening states that more of the movie is true than anyone would ever believe, and I cannot bring myself to believe much of it. However, that does not diminish the umor and entertainment value. i would like to say that this is one of the funniest things I've seen in quite a while, but that would not be ture. Still, it is incredibly funny, pretty shallow and pretty obvious, but humorous all the same. Generally, I would prefer something that is either character or emotionally driven, something that makes you feel whether that be through drama or comedy. If that cannot happen I would like something that makes you think, maybe not anything profound, maybe not anything complicated, but raises ideas and questions all the same.



The whole of "Goats" seems like it is working towards something, like there is some overarching idea or message that should be taken from it; but I certainly have no idea what it would be. The film seems to exsist soley to amuse - and shock - but for once, I really do not think that there is anything wrong with that. The acting is remarkable. This would be expected from the likes of Ewan McGregor and George Clooney, but still. Everyone plays these absurd characters with the utmost sincerity and gravity.



While the film certainly pokes fun at the "New Earth Army" and tradition armed forces alike, it still manages to show that there is something inhuman and wrong with the way nations go about their warfair. The only thing I can pose against the film is that is does not leave you with anything at all. Still, it is an incredibly pleasurable viewing experience.

It seems like Public Enemies has been one of the most most buzzed about movies this year; and year it deserves it. Not only is it good, but it is also generic in a way that makes it excesible to just about everyone. Marion Cotillard, Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and Billy Crudup are all actors I admire, and they all give good performances. Personally, I think it would have been better if it had been more of a character study than an action movie, but that's neither here nor there. The cinematography was really good as well- actually just about everything was well done. Idk, I really liked and enjoyed Public Enemies, but it didn't blow me away at all. Still, its a good - not great- but good movie well worth a watching.

It's sort of ironic that now that 3D movies are becomming more and more common, and computor generated animation is the standard, the novelty item is hand drawn animation. That is not a complaint, I'm rather fond of it, and would like to see more projects like this. Even beyond that atypical animation, The Princess and the Frog deserately tries to break away from the mold of modern animation, and it does so by returning to the past. This princess will slide alongside Belle and Ariel very nicely.

The storyline, and pretty much everything else, is incredibly sweet, optimistic, sappy, sentimental, cute, and, dammit, I love the film all the more for it. It is not something stylish or edgy in any way, not does it try to be. I do not remember any of the character's names, but I really like the fact that the fat guy/mardi gras king had a certain respect for the mom, and that the blonde girl and Tiana were friends. I had expected a heavy anti-racism message, and it was completely apsent. Really the fact that everybody got along without comment says more for the sake of equality than if the issue had been harped upon. There was also a total lack of sexism. It had seemed inevitable with the topic that there would be a few key lines about Tiana having to fight her way through a world of men; but neither topic is addressed, and for that alone, the film gets my praise. I really, really liked the witch-doctor's shadow. That was just fun and inventive.

In many ways, this is a charming and beautiful film, but at the same time it seems like it could, and should, be better. Hands down, the film's biggest weakness is the length. It is just so slow and drawn out. It also does not help that the first half-hour is the best part of the entire movie. Still, The Princess and the Frog is something special, certainly over-hyped, but something to cherish and remember.

I was actually surprised at how good New York, I Love You ended up being. My gut feeling after watching the trailer and reading others' reviews was that it would be a disappointment. Paris, Je T'aime stands out in my mind as being one of the single greatest films ever created. While New York, I Love You is not a remake or a sequel per-say, they are companion pieces. Still, it really is not worth comparing the two because Paris, Je T'aime is better in just about every way possible. You've really got to go into the movie with an open mind or you are definately going to come out with the short straw.

Overall, it is a light, artistic, and sweet movie. it is filled with off-beat characters and situations, and is really very entertaining to watch. One major thing that bothered me is that none of the segments seemed particuarly romantic or perceptive about human nature. The "love" stories are mostly about people trying to get into each other's pants, and the segments that seem like they are meant to be touching left me cold. Then again, this is New York, and kinky sex and shallow drama are two things that Americans can do so very well. I know a lot of this is negative. So, do not get me wrong, I really did enjoy New York, I Love You. It is just that in the end it is the flaws, not the virtues, that stand out.

I was not totally sure how much I was liking Paris until the film was over. Storywise, there really is not anything. The movie is all over the place and really does not make much sense. Every scene is secluded and impressionistic; but very deeply felt. That is what really stood out to me, the sheer emotional impact every scene carried. In many ways the film is incredibly depressing and pessimistic, but there is still a glimmer of hope, the promise of redemption. This is not a film to look back upon and remember the story, or the cast, or any of the details. The only thing that is enduring is the emotion. That is enough to make for an extreamely good movie, but, personally, as much as I loved it, I think the film needed a bit more of a backbone. Paris is a long movie, and you would completely justified in saying that it is boring, but, with an open mind, it is worth watching. It will, gently, and with the utmost sensitivity, crawl under your skin, tickle your heartstrings, make you laugh, make you cry.

In all honesty, the first half-hour or so of Crazy Heart is boring as hell. Seriously, I came close to shutting it off. Thankfully, it gets better as it continues. Jeff Bridges' performance really is remarkable, but the best scenes are those with Colin Farrell and Maggie Gyllenhaal. They, really, are the life of the film. The film really is well done, but the world of country music holds very little appeal for me. It really did seem realistic - setting wise - and artistic, as well. It is just that the film treads in places that I do not care to tread in. The actual story is not anything special. It is good enough, but it is really rather predictable and sweet. I really, really love these type of character drama, but Bad Blake just is not as interesting as Tilda Swinton's Julia or Emile Hirsch's 'Into the Wild'. Crazy Heart is not as vivacious, as fresh. Do not get me wrong, the movie really is good, it just is not quite as much of an accomplishment as we have been led to believe. The acting is wonderful, from everybody involved, but that is where the greatest ends. The rest is good and solid, overall entertaining, and, ultimately, I think that is enough.

So, i'm a bit of a sucker for these types of movies. We have buckets of raw emotion and about as much drama as can possibly be stuffed into 90 minutes. The story itself is fasinating, but strangely plausible. KIds lie to overbearing parents, our of fear, pride, and the frustration of having someone else's nose in their affairs. Siblings will watch each other's back. They will criticize each other, but anyone else, parents included, who does is unarguably in the wrong. As far as the sheer storyline and plot material goes, Everybody's Fine is pretty perceptive. I really like Sam Rockwell, and he was great, but I was really surprised the same can be said for Drew Barrymore. Plus, the two of them are really confincing as siblings. They have the chemistry for it.

While I liked Everybody's Fine it is not a great or perfect movie by any means. It's predictable and there is also a huge emotional disconnect. Despite numorous opportunities for both, I did not feel the need to laugh or cry once. That would be the single greatest flaw. Despite a great story and acting, the film falls flat from a complete lack of heartbreaking humanity. The film does everything it can to show that you SHOULD care, but it never actually captures your heart and soul. And to finish it off we have a nice, neat happy ending, which isn't so terrible as such; but I found it irritating, and while the rest the film is realistic, I cannot imagine that it would ever happen.

While I would not necessarily say that Creation is mindblowing or an endearing masterpiece, I was extreamely shocked at how good the movie is. I sort of doubt that it is all that historical; and it also cleverly evades being all that controversial, I mean this is Charles Darwin we're talking about! He is a figure that depending on your beliefs can either be hailed either as a saint or the devil's puppet. As far as trying find ideas or purpose in the film - not that is essential that there be anything - that is the main thing that struck out to me. Charles Darwin was for all practical purposes, just another guy. He had a wife, a family, his own passions, his own insecurities; not really the stuff legends are made of. I also really liked Jennifer Connelly and her character. We tend to think of Feminism as being a modern movement, but judging by Emma Darwin it seems like the very foundation of our history can be accredited to strong, passionate women. Men are generally presumed 'strong' because of inflated ego and excess testosterone. It seems like we could appluad many, many woman even in their pre-enpowered roles. Visually, Creation is absolutely gorgeous and artistic. Everything else could have sucked and I would have still enjoyed watching it. The only reason I do not rate the movie higher is just because the film didn't leave me with all that much. Just a couple of days now after watching it, I do not remember many details or even the major plot, nor did I feel anything while actually watching it. Still, it does an awful lot of things incredibly well, and is not flawed at all. It's more like it doesn't totally fullfill its potential.

One interesting thing about The Good Heart is that from the style and tone it seems like there should be depth and subtlety to the film, when in reality it is incredible obvious. The style screams "This is ART!" while the story itself differs. There is not anything wrong with this, but it is a fairly unique concept. I really like Paul Dano a lot, but he tends to be overlooked. I wasn't familiar with anyone else in the cast, but they all seemed decent enough. The only complaint I have it that the entire film is incredibly predictable. Generally this wouldn't bother me that much, within reason, but this is just too much. I think it might be because you almost get the feeling that you are supposed to me surprise. No one is surprised at the end of a romantic comedy, but neither did anyone expect to be. The Good Heart is different, it seems like the ending is supposed to be shocking, even though it is set up from the start. Overall, I thought the film was great. I loved the characters and the style, and the whole quiet, serene - almost zenlike quality of the whole thing.

Also: Why the hell hasn't anyone seen or rated this movie? (though presumably if you're reading this you've done one of the other. Or at least heard of it)

This is a hard movie to rate and review, because although incredibly pleasurable, it is by no means a "good" movie. The Time Traveler's Wife is definately a guilty pleasure movie, but it is still much better than I had anticipated. It is throughly engrossing and incredibly emotional. Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are as good as can be expected given the material, and really much better than is necessary. They cannot be that extraordinary when working with a mediocre script and, also, having to wear their hearts on their sleeves. I think the film would be very much improved if it were just about Henry and Clare. The rest of the characters are just irritating and obnoxious. Beyond that, the film is shallow, rather corny, indulgent, and filled with an awful lot of "aww-shucks" sweetness. There is a good deal of incidental humor to keep people in their seats, and then throws around topics like vasectomy and child loss to remind us that this is a "intelligent, serious movie." It does pretty much everything it can to sell tickets.

Do not get me wrong, The Time Traveler's Wife really does the ability to break your heart, and is incredibly entertaining. I enjoyed it a lot, and would like to watch it again. It is just that I am snoot enough to harp on the flaws, which, even though they are present, they are not enough to outshine the bouyancy of Henry and Clare's unconditional love for each other, and their life together (may the grammar gods smite me for that sentence)

Its seems like there has been an awful lot of hype surrounding District 9 and I cannot that I totally understand why. The actual storyline, in adition to be kind of corny, does not seem all that original for a Sci-Fi movie. I think District 9's popularity is probably largely tied to its presentation. It is cheap and dirty. Even the actual filming seems to lack any polished touches. This gritty edge really does make the film stand out. I also cannot deny that it is an entertaining and engaging filim to watch. I really liked Sharlto Copley and his character. You really cannot help but like and sympathize with him. The style of the aliens kind of reminded me of something Guillermo Del Toro would do. Actually, as far as that goes, the whole thing is reminiscent of Del Toro's work. The is certainly an overrated movie. While I enjoyed it, it will not "blow your mind" nor is it one of the best movies of all time, or even of the year. Still, it is a good movie, worth a watching or two.

mmmm..... It seems like I'm rating this movie way to high, but that is only because I found it to be a bit boring and predictable. Still, it is a absolutely brilliant movie. The story is delightfully wacked-out and trippy. For a comedy, not only is it funny, but also incredible bleak and deadpan. Paul Giamatti and Emily Watson are two incredibly talented actors, and Cold Souls serves as a perfect reminder of that. There are some heavy echos of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but by and large the film seems incredibly original. Idk, while it is certainly a noteworthy movie, it just does not really live up to its potential. Still, it's more than worth a watching.

There is no denying that Un Prophet is a masterpiece in just about every way possible, but it really did not leave me feeling or thinking about any specific. Even with that in mind, my only real complaint would be the length. It took me six or seven viewings to make it through the whole thing. Even though I liked the film a lot, this seems like a rather large commitment. In most ways, though, the film is impeccable. The story, characters, acting, style, etc are all great. Despite the length I was never bored. To go back to the begining, the only reason I cannot rave is because I'm not totally sure what to rave about. The film is fascinating, yes; but to what end? Idk, maybe it truly lacked focus or maybe I'm being obtuse. Either way, despite some minor flaws Un Prophet would still be a 'must see' film.

Orphan would really be an easy movie to bash, but the thing is, it really is not bad. They backstory and characters are not all that involved or engaging, but I doubt that is why anyone watched Orphan. I would not go so far as to say that its scary, but its pretty creepy. Probably the best thing about it is that you can actually figure out the ending. Not in the sense that "oh this is soooo predictible", but rather all the information is giving to let the pieces fall into place. Personally, everything clicked right when the guy on the phone was like "this is a mental hospital". Also, Orphan is right at two hours long. There are very few movies that really need to be that long-especially ones like this. However, its engaging enough that the times goes pretty quickly. I cannot say that this is a great film or that I would recommend is, but it is a compelling and fasinating enough one to give a watching.

This is a really hard review to open. I would like to start with a compliment or one of the high points of the film, but nothing is coming to mind. It is really a decent enough movie overall. However, the factor that sticks out the most is that the whole thing feels kind of cheap and amateurish - the script especially. It seemed decent enough while actually watching the film, but it seems truly hideous when reading excerpts now in the aftermath. The characters seemed more symbolic than anything else. Each takes on a particular family role. Susan Sarandon does not play a specific mother as much as a general mother; her role is not personal, but a representation of how parents typically are expected to act in such a situation. The same goes for the rest of the family. Carey Mulligan and Aaron Johnson are probably also rather typical young lovers, but I loved their scenes together. The flashback sequences are hands down the best scenes in the film. Carey Mulligan is typically great, but I'm also biased. She could simply stand and smile at the camera and I would think she had done great work. She also had some great attire. Aaron Johnson also stood out from the rest of the cast. I absolutely loathed him in Kick-Ass, but he was rather interesting here, enough that I'm curious to see him in something else. From a critical standpoint, The Greatest is in most ways an absolute piece of crap. The thing is, I rather enjoy this particular type of crap. It's a tragic tale which tries so very hard to make you ponder mortally and love and appreciating what you've got and all those wonderful things. It mostly fails, but, still, it's a rather enjoyable way to spend 90 odd minutes.

I did not expect to like My Sister's Keeper at all. It looked manipulative, contrived, far-fetched, and predictable. Seriously, its a Jodi Picoult book. And its all those things, but really pretty good. I really did not like the monologues that much. They just didn't really flow, and didn't feel natural at all. I really liked the way it was directed and presented, though. I guess, this just kind of falls between the film that are just good, and those that really are great. Its not a masterpiece in any sense of the word; but it grabs the heartstrings and teases the emotions pretty much from start to finish, and that's got to count for something.

I honestly do not know where to begin with Bruno. I guess i'm pretty sure I missed something, somewhere. Parts- really quite a lot of it- are very, very funny, but that's about it. Its overly staged, and Sacha Baron Cohen never seemed to completely lose himself in the role. The humor is mostly based in insults; whether it be towards Gays, Homophobes, Mexicans, African Americans, Politians, Humanitarians. Bruno goes after everyone. I'm pretty sure just about everybody could be offended by this movie. But at the same time, it really did not seem that offensive at all. Granted, I do not shock easily, but there really did not seem to be that much nudity and such; especially considering what a big deal people were making out of it. Also, Cohen does not look 19 in any way at all! Then again, what differance does it really make? Bruno exsists preetty much exclusively for laughs, and there are pleanty of them to be had.

This reminds me of the first Pirates of the Carribean movie. We have a bit of action, some genuinely funny moments, many more cheesy ones, some really great performances, a mildly intersting plot that is streched incredibly thin, all coming together to bring a pleasurable film that leaves you cold. I guess, as far as really popular go, this is one of the better ones. When asked, I claim to like the film without spinning lies. The same cannot be said for say The Hangover or Julie and Julia. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. do the impossible and make Holmes and Watson pretty likable characters. That's the highest compliment I can give the film. I really, really dislike the Holmes stories, so I'm probably biased, but I think this film is incredibly overrated. Yes, it is entertaining and good, but really fell flat. It remiinded me of a children's version of From Hell, which, on a side note, was pretty damn amazing. I've seen better movies, but I've certainly seen worse. Sherlock Holmes falls into that vast inbetween of films that are forgetton simply because they contain nothing worthy of rememberance.

Imagine if a bunch of parents and teachers sat back and tried to think of how to make classic literature assessable. First, the piece is placed in an "edgy" setting that looks like a cheap rip off of Sweeney Todd. Then, the actual storyline should be altered so that more than anything it resembles Disney's Beauty and the Beast. It should also resemble a grim morality tale more than a piece or literature. The title should be shorted too. There is just something irritating and pompous about a title that consists of more than a couple words. Oh, and there should also be a lot of skin and some cheap horror antics, just for the hell of it. In a nutshell, this is what has been done to The Picture of Dorian Gray. What is a fascinating piece of literature is turned into a tacky, mediocre mess. Ben Barnes actually handles a lot of the scenes very well. I'm not going to lie, I was surprised. Still, whenever a situation required any emotion, he completely lost it. I loved Rebecca Hall in The Town and Vicki Christina Barcelona, but was not that impressed with her here. The film felt like a Hollywood crowd-pleaser. That is not a big thing. Per say. It is sort of interesting, though, considering the film has made the art house circuit and went straight to dvd in the U.S. Still, it is interesting and entertaining to watch, but that really is about it.

By far the most memorable and interesting thing about The Informant is that it is obviously a dated, period piece. The shocking part is that the period is the 1990's. This completely astounded me. I never realized what difference there is between the 90's and today, or just how long ago that is now. It makes me feel old. That being said, the movie kind of falls flat. While it is clever and funny, it is also sort of dull. The plot material is stretched very, very thin, and there really is not much progresson or direction. Matt Damon looks old, but I'm pretty sure the last movie I watched that he was in was The Talented Mr. Ripley. Still, he gave a good performance, and his internal thoughts and musings were one of the film's highpoints. Overall, it seems like The Informant should be better that it actually is; but that does not change the fact that it IS good. It's just that when the poster proclaims "UNBELIEVABLE!", it's lying.

First off, I must confess, I do not like The DaVinci Code at all. In fact, i'm pretty sure I fell alseep sometime after the first hour of it. Angels and Demons, however, is surprisingly good. I have not read any of Dan Browns books, so I have no idea if it is on par with the novel; but as a film, its good. I thought the begining was kind of confusing, but I was not paying all that much attention either. I also thought it was kind high and mighty, but that's neither here nor there. There were also sone wierd light touches- like the micket mouse watch, and score was really light and quirky in parts. Idk, it was just kind of wierd. The sets and art direction and such were pretty visual, I had not expected that and it was nice. The story kind of struck as being National Treasure For Adults, but whatever. I also liked how it revolved around the cardinals picking a pope. Ewan McGregor is one of my favorite actors, and he makes a fairly awesome priest. Its pretty tense and fairly compelling. Against my better judgement, I can honestly say I would recommend it.

Cheri does basically everything right, but somehow it just doesn't end up being that great. Its stylish, well shot and presented, and acting is great. I really liked the costumes and score. They were historical but also slightly off, sort of in the same vein as Sleepy Hollow or Sweeny Todd, but much more vibrant and colorful. The story and characters themselves were interesting. Idk, I really have no complaints at all! There are so many compliments to give! Cheri really has no major flaws, but I just didn't fall in love with it. I have no idea why. Still, I would certainly deem it worth watching. Even if its not superb its certainly good. It just seems like it should be more.

This was a pleasant surprise for me. I really had not expected Drag Me To Hell to be very good. Was is a masterpiece? Absolutely not. Honestly though, its enjoyable to watch. The style almost reminded me of something Guillermo Del Toro would make. It really was not frightening though, which kind of defeats the purpose of a "Horror" movie. I'm not going to lie, the ending was satisfing, but I shall say no more. Drag Me To Hell is really is pretty good and certainly worth a watching.

Dare really has a lot of potential genuis, but ultimately it falls flat. The film is incredibly scattered and really does not have any focus, and to top it off, all the characters and situations seemed really far fetched. In the begining we have good girl Alexa trying to "Do Something You're Afraid Of", but then that fliight gets lost in midair. Then, in the middle, we have Ben, and his story makes absolutely no sense at all, so we are not even going to discuss it. And I do not really remember it. Finally, we end with Zach Gilford's character (I'm sure he had a name, but I have also forgotten it) who, consequently, is sleeping with both Ben and Alexa. Lovely, isn't it? Idk, in closing, the film left me confused. There are many interesting ideas presented throughout the whole duration, but none of them are really expanded on. I have no idea what Adam Salky was actually trying to say. Is the film about breaking out of one's shell? Trying to find one's in the world? Or something simple, like everyone is essentially messed up, or three-way sex is not a good idea. In the hands of someone like Sam Mendes, I think Dare could be absolutely amazing, but as it is, it just is not that great. Still, I enjoy watching it enough, and it tries so very hard, and you've got to give it credit for that.

One final note: It makes me so happy that Bon Voage's song "Monster" was used. I realize that is completely shallow and irrelevant, but I love the song. Seriously, now? "I wish I was a monster/ I would hide under your stairs / I wish I was a nightmare / I'd give you a scare"

My first instinct would be to pick this film to shreds. McCarthy's novel is devastating and heart-breaking, and the movie.... is just a mess. Then again, the film is not the book. There really is not any reason to hold the two the same standard, but that doesn't change the fact the novel is better is just about every way possible. There really are some great scenes and shots in the film, the setting is relentlessly gritty. I really did not care about the Man and the Boy that much. Viggo Mortensen is great, but I severely disliked Kodi Smith-McPhee. I realize that the kid is in trying circumstances and all, but he is obnoxious, the actor way to concious of that fact that the character is meant to tug a people's heart strings. The style as well as the occasional burst of emotion are really the only big virtues. In a way, I simply do not think that this movie should have been made. There really is not any way to take a completely devastating, bleak, poetic, novel like The Road and present it onscreen. Still, it is not bad, at times it is even great. Occasionally a spark of McCarthy's genuis shines through, and really, that is enough.

I was slightly fasinated and mildly irritated all the way through this, so it was definately not a winner for me. Even at a mere 90 minutes it seemed like it lasted forever. I really do not like to be so negative, but Is Anybody There? just did not win me over. Its whimsical yet pretty deadpan. We see confused and disatified people from all walks of live; but the only character I really felt any empathy towards was the mother-I do not remember who the actress was. There are also some mild macabre touches, something I would usually adore. The is pleanty of base material to create something great, but Is Anybody There? is just mediocre. Its not Bad at all, it just isn't Good. So, watch if you want, skip it if you like. Either way you have not gained or lost anything at all.

While this is by no means a masterpiece, I found it to be a very entertaining and interesting film. It is funny in the most depressing and odd ways and there is a surprising amount of depth concerning marriage and adultery. While Meg Ryan's character was obviously being a wee bit psychotic, I really felt sympathetic towards her. I think on the whole we have forgotten just how big of a commitment it is to be married. Granted, the film is not that philosophic or profound, but there is more meat there than you would expect. Still, the characters are very exagerated, and the story even more so; but, I enjoyed the movie. It made me laugh and made me ponder, but it's already mostly forgotten.

This movie is certainly entertaining to watch, and rather flawlessly deals with a rather touchy subject. However, it really left me cold. I really cannot force myself to care about what happens to Muna and Fadi. Besides, it certainly appears that they live happily ever after. The End. Idk, it seemed pretty light and humorous. That was a unique touch. Realyl, think about everything you have ever seen, read, or heard about Iranian immigration. it generally isn't that cheerful. Granted, the movie shows some hardships, but overall it seems pretty optimistic and sweet. I thought that was really a nice touch, but it is not enough to save the film. It not even so much that Amreeka is a bad movie. There are just not enough aspects worthy of praise to really call it a good movie. Still, it is light entertainment with quite a lot of heart. That has got to count for something.

This movie is absolutely terrible, but in the most strange and fasinating ways. Granted, I'm easily baffled, but I cannot see why a movie like this or Post Grad are so terrible, while movies like The Proposal and The Hangover are allegedly so inventive and wonderful. This is ever so much more enjoyable, and it actually clever and funny in parts. I would not say that it is a good movie, but it is much better than a lot of what's out there. It at least tries to be creative. I liked the satirical humor quite a lot, but a lot of the humor is just crude. I'm not saying that's good, bad, or otherwise, it just is not something I appreciate. The sci-fi scenes reminded me of Terry Pratchett's work. They are just so tacky and hokey, that it actually comes out as being rather hilarious. So, in conclusion, I'm not even going to pretend that Gentleman Broncos is a noteworthy film, because it's not. At the same time, it is a huge step for Jared Hess considering it's the first thing he has made that is actually worthy watching, and despite everything, it really is entertaining.

Extract is not a work of genuis by any means at all, but it is by and large funny and entertaining to watch. My immediate response is to play this film up quite a lot. It is so much better than the other comedies I have seen recently, but at the same time it isn't all that notable. I guess, if there was any kind of a overarching point to this movie, it completely sprung wings and flew over my head. There is nothing wrong with a film that simply sets out to amuse either. It just that, at times, Extract seems like it is trying to say something but just cannot spit it out. Still, it extreamely entertaining. One intesting note on the humor though is that its pretty much all drawn from stereotypes. They do not seem nearly as nasty as those in something like Bruno. While they are certainly over-the-top, the film is not nessarily condescending towards the people themselves. Most of characters largely seem to be the type of people one would actually meet. They are also fairly pleasant and human. They have flaws, but at the same time this could very well be you, it could be me. While they are not realistically portrayed, they seem more or less complete and plausible. The story is fairly confincing as well. The actual comedy is completely over the top, and it really stands out. Extract is not the most ingenuis thing I have ever seen, but it does what it sets out to do, it is funny.

I am not a Trekkie at all, and this film did not turn me into one, but it really is pretty good. Even more notable, its a big budget action/sci-fi movie, made to appeal to the masses, which it actually NOT retarded- unlike say Transformers *coughcough* It also is something that i think can be appricaiated by everyone to some degree. Its light and predictible, but you really cannot hold that aggainst it. Also, back when it first came out, I read a review which named the film "Ambercrombie and Trek", and the describes the cast perfectly. Just about everyone appears to have been picked for their modish looks, rather than actual talent. Once again though, this film is not driven by its drama or characters at all, so what differance does it make if nobody can act? There is some HORRIBLE dialog, but that is my only major complaint. On the flip side, I REALLY liked the style and use of special effects. They are vibrant and unique. Overall, its sleek and stylish, and unbelievibly enough, worth watching. (I just realized how many capital letters i used, sorry >_<)

After coming off of a long string of atrocities like Barnyard, Over the Hedge and Monsters vs. Aliens, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is a breath of fresh air. It is by no means a masterpiece, nor is it even particularly good. However, it does show that despite all evidence to the contrary Hollywood filmmakers have the ability to make a decent animated kid?s movie.

Unbelievably enough the film is actually pretty clever and at times funny. This is largely due to the fact that the story and characters are amusing on their own. It is not allegedly funny because it gives endless one-liners drawn from sexist remarks and negative stereotypes. It is creative and whimsical, as well as a visual joy to watch.

I am generally not all that fond of digital animation, but the animation in Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is fairly impressive. It is vivid and vibrant. At time it also carries a pulsing energy, a style I have never came across before. The style and color palette is very retro. The characters have a roundness and buoyancy to them that is not seen all that often anymore. The score is made up of 80?s style electric dance music, which works and blends surprisingly well with the rest of the film.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is incredibly preachy, but that is really the film?s only major weakness. There are an awful lot of messages carried throughout the film. This is not a bad thing at all; but everything is present at surface value and in obvious ways. The only good thing is that most of the messages are an integral part of the story. Regardless, they are presented poorly and shoved down the viewer?s throat. The problem is that it is all so shallow and contrived. Nothing is particularly convincing or affirmable. It is so hokey that it loses any credibility or applicability.

Still, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs does an awful lot of things right and is more or less enjoyable to watch. Honestly, it is better than I ever would have expected it to be. I cannot say that I would want to watch it again, or that I would be upset had I never seen it. However, it certainly is not terrible.

New Moon is a terribly easy movie to hate, and there are a lot of people who have done just that. It's seems like the ratings and reviews are pretty cleanly cut into lovers and haters. The film is not great by any means, but it is not that bad either. It held my interest and is entertaining, but at the same time I do not remember a single thing that was particuarly well-done or memorable. Chris Weitz is not a director I admire at all, and he most definitely managed to botch-up the few high points that were in Twilight, the first film. Catherine Hardwicke's style was very realistic and very inventive and artistic. Instead of continueing this route, Weitz makes everything sleek and glossy. There is also more of an emphasis on special effects and A- they are not that great, and B- they add nothing to the film. He also tried to mimic to brilliant music usage of the first film and it just doesn't work. It is just weird and tacky. It just seems like despite it major flaws, Twilight was a much better movie, and seeing as it is a series, I feel the need to compare the two. I also appriciated the fact that in every big "emotional" scene somebody felt the need to strip down. I have to keep that in mind: emotional outbursts really carry no credibillity at all unless one has taken off his shirt. You know, the hating sort of makes sense. This is a fun movie to bash. Still, is it really necessary?

One postive note: Peter Facinelli and Anna Kendrick absolutely shine! Anna is the only character that shows any credible human feelings at all. Peter Facinelli is not necessarily a character anybody will connect with, but he fits his role better than anybody else. It almost appears that he believes what he is saying. The rest of the acting is pretty awful, but I would lay the blame more on the material and direction than the cast themselves.

Idk, it seems like there is a lot more to say, but it all seems rather trite. The movie is just not very good, there is no skirting the fact. To coin a term from Burton's "Alice" New Moon has simply lost it "muchness". It's just pretty stale and mediocre all around. Still, it's watchable, and very rarely is it downright unpleasant.

While Post Grad is not a particuarly "good" movie no matter how you slice it, I am having a hard time condemning it. There is denying that it is a shallow, tepid, corny, and uninspired mess. Still, it is remarkably entertaining and fun to watch. Actually, if you ignore Micheal Keaton's character, the Micheal Cera wannabe, and 'Jessica', the film is actually pretty good. Carol Burnett is hilarious. Personally, the whole 'Oh damn! I've got to do something with my life!' things is fairly relevant right now. As far I know, this is the first major role Alec Bledel has had in a film. While I wouldn't say that she is brilliant and riveting, she gives a good performance all things considered. she cannot be that great when she does not have exceptional material to work with. Still, Miss Bledel really does have the talent to carry a film on her own. if and when she stumbles upon the right director and material, the world better watch out! So, overall, Post Grad is not going to light any fires. Its sweet and sentimental entertainment, that while pleasent, is lost and forgotton as soon as it is finished.

Perhaps the most memorable thing about Coco Before Chanel is that it is incredibly forgettable. You are left with the experience of having watched something, but that is about it. Audrey Tautou really gives a good performance, but it is not enough to hold up an entire movie. There also seemed to be a lack of style for a movie about a fashion designer. I think the film would have been much better had it been about Coco's entire life. Her younger years just are not that interesting. It kind of leaves you wondering why someone felt to the need to make a movie about them. The film is not bad or unpleasent by any means, but it is not great. It just seems very typical and more than bit boring.

You know, this movie might actually have been really good had I really concentrated and watched it; but I have my doubts. As it stands right now, I enjoyed the experience I got out of it, but that is very little. It is a pleasent movie to watch and listen too, much in the same way of the act of listening to music. There is a surprising amount of visual style, and that is something I very much enjoyed and appriciated. It has a very urban and artistically gritty look and feel. People who actually like all three bands/musicians will get more out of the movie than I did. The only part I am too terribly familiar with is The White Stripes/Jack White. As far as the actual content of the film, I have nothing to say. Supposedly, this was a very information documentary; but I didn't feel the need to pay enough attention to catch on, or really care. This movie is successful in the same way as a concert documentary. There is the meat and "content", but that isn't what anybody cares about. We watch movies like this for the music we love, and to see the faces and lives of those behind it.

I really wanted to like this movie, and I tried very hard too, but it just didn?t happen. While the film is rarely downright unpleasant, the moments I actually enjoyed were very few and far between. This is really kind of surprising. Julie and Julia is a pretty fantastic book; Amy Adams, a pretty fantastic actress. There is no reason for this movie NOT to be good. It should be about like Ratatouille meets Sunshine Cleaning. That could be the problem right there. I came into this movie expecting it to be good, and its just completely mediocre all around, and that seems worse than if there had been many terrible elements, but then also some great ones.

Streep?s performance has got to be one of the most overrated things of all time. Is it a good performance? Yes, but it is just that: a performance. She does not portray Julia Child as a real, breathing person at all. She makes her seem like some sort of flamboyant, boozy food goddess. She does not have any convincing human traits. Powell?s husband, Eric I think his name was, has got to be one of the most generic and lifeless characters around; and too top it all off, he is played up to be some kind of perfect husband. That being said, Stanley Tucci is really, really good; hands down the best out of the bunch. I have never totally understood why a movie like this boasts that it is Based on a True Story, when nothing is present in a believable or realistic way. Some movies, like Taking Woodstock, end up being pretty idealistic, but this is completely different from that. Its like the creator?s had no grasp of reality at all. I have never seen anyone act, speak, or find themselves in that type of situations Child and Powell find themselves in. Even the sets and locations are shiny and new like the finish touches had just been placed before filming began.

The film is also sexist. Of the few personal peeves I have, Julie and Julia seemed to hit every single one. Julia goes on and on about how she has to fight her way through a world of men. Eric remarks that ?Men like their friends?? I mean, what the hell! This constant automatic friendship or alienation due to gender is just so low and ignorant! Now, this is not a major theme in the movie, but it is there, and it is irritating.

I could go on and on forever about the evils this film commits, but overall it really is not that bad. Completely mediocre, but not bad. I really doubt most of the people watching it would really care about any of this anyway. Streep and Adams were completely riveting and compelling together in Doubt, but that does not happen here. Julie and Julia is watchable, but that is about it. I cannot even pretend that I liked it.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouild shoot me for saying this, but I severely dislike Clint Eastwood andd his work. Like last years Changeling and Million Dollar Baby, Invictus start out good, great even. Then, after the first half-hour it turns to absolute crap. The one, and pretty muvh only, good thing in this film is Morgan Freeman's performance. He is incredible, and I really found myself admiring Nelson Mandela. We need more leaders like him. Still, one intersting character is not enough to save to save the film. The rest is fairly awful. I really do not like sports movies that much, but this one seemed to hit every cliche in the book. Plus, I really loathed all of the comic relief and cutesy touches. There really is not any tension, and what little is presented is immeadiately overcome. Maybe that's the way it was, I really do not know, but for a film speaking against racism there really did not seem to be much racist content. There are few compliments that can be gave to this film, but at the same time, it isn't altogether terrible. I a feeling that Mr. Eastwood and myself do not communicate or see the world in the same way. Although extreamely long, mostly irritating, and a bit boring, it is decent enough to sit through once.

With any kind of moral, social, aesthetic, or artist considerations in mind, I absolutely loathed this film. Really, it seems like it is stretching things a bit to even refer to it as a movie. On a sidenote, even beyond the sex and family issues, I really cannot fathom the lifestyle these people live. It just didn't seem in touch with reality at all. Or maybe people who feel the need to sleep their exes just happen to be gorgeous, incredibly wealthy, and brilliant. Everything was just a bit too perfect a bit too ... nice for my liking: characters, setting, situations, everything. It was just rather shallow. All that aside, it is entertaining enough, and rather funny at times. I wish there were more nice things to say about the film, but there just are not any other compliments to give. So, I really would not say that it is worth watching: there is nothing note worthy about it at all. However, it really isn't bad. I never thought I would say it, but Steve Martin is pretty funny and likable for once.

You know, there's a reason no one has heard of or seen this movie. It just is not very good. It's watchable. Barely. And that is about it. When she is on key (pun intended) Amy Adams is, hands down, one of the most interesting and most easily loved actresses around. See Rose in Sunshine Cleaning, Sister James in Doubt, Giselle in Enchanted, or her character in Junebug. The problem is, for every amazing film she stars in, there are several mediocre to poor ones. It struck my about halfway through Moonlight Serenade that the movie watches like a play. All things considered, I think it would stand out and be something more special if seen on stage. This is probably rather trite, but my single biggest complaint would be that there is a totally lack of style and creative touches to the production. The sets and costumes are so obviously fake, but not in an interesting way. I have never seen an office or club so sparsely furnished. It is just awful, practically painful to the eyes. Overall, the film is not terrible. It is intersting enough to watch once; but it is not good. It is even stretching the truth a bit to say that it is mediocre.

I have to admit. This is considerably better than the first Night at the Museum movie. In parts it was actually funny, and the whole thing just seemed to work and flow a lot better. Still, its loud, flamboyant, completely irreverant, and for the most part just kind of lame. Still, for a family film its remarkible inoffensive. I really liked the parts with the paintings. It was just so whimsical, trippy, and fun. For me, this movie remained just interesting and clever enough to hold my interst, but it was also irritating enough that I just cannot say I liked it. Even at the very end, I was thinking "oh, that kind of sucked", and then Coldplay's "Life in Technicolor" is in the backround. So, there a certain audience that will absolutely love this- and I do not mean that to be condescending, its just a fact - but it really is not that bad for the rest of us.

There really are only two things wrong with The Hangover, but the problem is that they are both huge. First off, the movie just isn't very good. There is not any other way to put it. Second, it is not particuarly funny. Normally, I would not bash a film because of a lack of humor, but it feels like a major flaw here. What is it purpose if not to bring some laughs. The only reason I gave this movie a shot was because I had heard from so many people that it was oh-so-funny. It is amusing enough at times, but I do recall actually laughing once. The acting is dismal. The only person who stands out at all is Heather Graham. Its not evern that she is great, but she does portray a airhead stripper with bubbly sincerity. Another complaint, and this one is a but more personal, but music really, really sucks. It is just eclectic and ... tacky. Then again, those two words are pretty much the epitome of The Hangover. What it really needs are a few Katy Perry songs. Seriously, "Why are these lights so bright?/ And did we get hitched last night?/ Dressed up like Elvis!/ Why am I wearing your class ring?". It seems more than appropriate. I really hate being so completely negative about a movie, but there is just not anything good to say about The Hangover.

Observe and Report is probably one of the most over-scrutinized films around. Just about everything I had read about it said that it was very modern and stylish (or attempted to be) or that it was completely satirical and whatnot. Honestly though, I did not see any differance between this and any other hollywood comedy on the shelf. Its lewd and raunchy, and crude- not particuarly funny, but crude. I guess, I was willing to give this a shot, but shouldn't have. Personally, I thought it sucked. It wasn't funny or well done, and Seth Rogen is it (Yuk!). So, regardless its not my type of thing. However, I'm sure pleanty of people like it, and there's not anything wrong with that. Really, if there wasn't, there are an awful lot of actors that would be out of jobs; and who wants that?

I just ........... did not like this movie. Idk, I just did not enjoy it at all, and it is not particuarly frightening. It just seemed poorly developed and poorly presented. I have not watched all that many of these types of movies, and it still seemed very typical and predictable. This is a movie that I just regret watching. It stole two hours of my life, and for what? Really, though, if you're interested in it, give it a shot. I would be willing to bet that it is actually a pretty decent film and I just missed something, quite possibly by being a biased, jaded prick.

I never had any intention of ever watching this movie. It was "Not Interested", unarguably, and hands down. Try and think of every clichedand stereotype you have ever heard and essentially you have just experianced G-Force. The only reason I watched this was becuase my family was, and I really had not been around much all of last semester. So, I played the saint and sat through most of it with them. I really do not want to harp of the negative, but there just is not anything good to say about this movie. It doesn't even feel like the people who made it thought it was good. Idk, most of the reviews here say something along the lines of 'good for kids', but just because something is aimed for a younger audience does not give it a free lisense to be lewd and idiodic.

Oh. My. God. Fish Tank was a complete shot in the dark, but it is hands down one of the best films I've seen in quite a while. People say it is not original, which could quite possibly be true. Even so, it still has the ability to captivate and surprise. There were many things I didn't expect and other things that I would have expected that didn't happen. One of the strongest things about the film is that Mia and Connor are very likable characters, but they just keep doing things that you wish they would not. It is really effective filmmaking when you wish they could be swayed, that something else would have happened. Those are the moments when a film has broken beyond the screen and became something more. I really liked the tone, it's sort of subdued and downbeat, but at the same time really vivid and urgent. Fish Tank is the type of film that draws people to the art house. It's about absolutely nothing, yet about everything. It's a slice of an individual's life, but these are decisions we all face. It strives for realism and also contains magic. In other words, it's like seeing the world through the eyes of a gifted artist.

Well, I for one am going to go against the majority here and propose that The Girl Who Played With Fire is in fact better than the first film. The thing is that the sort of obvious preachiness of the books is missing in both films, so with what's left, "Played With Fire" makes the better film. The books used statistics and quotes and also capitalization - All the Evil, Men Who Hate Woman - to make to idea of what it is trying to communicate all the more effective and interesting. This was especially prominent in The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo. There were many woman in that novel who were abused by Men Who Hate Woman. It just seemed more cut and dry and Lisbeth could simply be seen as a moral vigilant with a vague past. What made the film disappointing for me was that nothing but the main storyline made it through the final cut. Neither film is really about anything, they are simple a captivating thriller and I personally think that simply on the story level The Girl Who Played With Fire is the more interesting of the two. While it is about the sex trafficking, it just doesn't carry the weight of the first, mostly because the film focuses more on Lisbeth than on the general abuse of woman. Granted Lisbeth is a captivating character, as is her history. It is absolutely show stopping when combined with a purpose, as in the first novel, but the next best thing is simply and thriller exploration of her history, as we see in the films of The Girl Who Played With Fire.

To be extreamely blunt, this play was never produced and this film has bombed because, quite frankly, it feels very amateurish. It is not masterful or polished. What makes the material great is that you can feel the pulse of genius behind it. The potential just hasn't been reached. Idk if this was written at the beginning or end of Williams' career, but it feels like it must have been an early work. It's funny, most of the complaints about the film seem to stem from the fact that it is based on a play. However, at least personally, the things that are characteristic of a play are the very things that make the film stand out at all. The dialog in plays is always unique; everything always seems so exact and significant. You never really see the type of casual conversation that dominates regular films. Plus, most things are communicated through the dialog, there's only so much that can be done onstage. The film is like a play in that sense as well; everything takes place in a very limited space. Oftentimes it wouldn't have made much difference had the film actually been filmed onstage. Yes, it is forgettable, but I enjoyed it all the same, nor is it particularly good or well-done, but there is something special about these diamonds all the same.

Within the first half-hour of this film, I wondered if I was watching the right thing. The poster looks so broody and seeing as it was a selection at the Cannes, I was expecting something poetic and dramatic. What we have is a campy, wickedly humorous tale essentially about nothing more than the joys of sex and blood. Does that mean it's bad? Absolutely not! The film is wildly entertaining, but not at all what I had anticipated. There is some meat to the story and characters, yes; but nothing that memorable. I think the thing that sticks in the memory the strongest is when Kang-Woo is drinking blood right from one of those medical-tube things that shoot blood from the machine to the patient (I have no idea what the proper term would be) And he is slurping! It's a scene that is so twisted and horrible, but you cannot help but giggle. In varying degrees, that's how the rest of the film goes. A couple scenes are really wacked out and surreal and I wasn't totally sure what was going on and I also dozed off a bit in the middle - but the thing is terribly long. There are some moments that are genuinely unsettling, some truly gross; but overall, it's just entertaining. No, it's not what I expected, but, honestly, I think it is probably better and definitely more original.

I read that one of the animators had worked on this film over the years of 07 and 08. It makes you wonder how long this film was in production, how painstaking the creation must have been. However much time and effort, the end result is amazing. I'm a bit of an animation junkie, but I've never seen anything quite like this. Its incredibly stylized and simple, but still so beautiful and artistic. And keeping in the vein of myths and legends, it is also reminiscent of Byzantine and Midevil artwork. Some of the characters were rather weak, but I am very much in love with Aisling and the cat. Parts of "Kells" really set me on edge. That is something that hardly ever happens. And there was not even anythin particuarly creepy!

It sort of feels like style took presidence over story. On the surface level it is not particuarly complicated or original, but that does not make it any less enjoyable. Apparently there was some deeper metaphors and deeper meanings, but I missed them. It can certainly be taken at a literal level, but it feels like there is something more. Maybe there is a historical or legendary aspect I'm just unaware of. One thing I'm pretty of is that The Book of Kells is the four gospels. Even so, that doesn't really add any meaning to the movie. At least that I can see. I bring this up only beause I've read numorous complaints about it; and they are completely legitimate. Still, it does not detract from the mystery and beauty that makes up the rest of the film.

You know, I like Colin Farrell a lot, but he really doesn't seem to have found the most extraordinary work lately. Triage is absolutely forgettable and it doesn't appear that London Boulevard will be much better... (especially considering the release has been delayed over a year) That being said, Triage is not bad, but like stated before, it's forgettable. There really is not anything special about it. The one thing that really sticks out are the "artsy" bits. The photography and even the way everything else was shot is beautiful and/or repulsive at times. The rest of the material has potential, but it just never picks up steam. The story never really goes anywhere and while the characters are interesting broken people, they just have nowhere to go. So, honestly, it's not terrible, but I sort of regret having watched the film. It just feels like it was a waste of time.