Blog Reveiw: Gran Torino

Director:Clint Eastwood

Producer: Bill Gerber and Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood

Filled with nostalgia for times past, Gran Torino is an excellent example of how movies can succeed based with a strong central actor and an equally strong plot. As a Korean War veteran Clint Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski in "Gran Torino,” a recently widowed Detroit auto worker who has a very shor tmper. He cant stand his spoiled children and even more spoiled grandchildren who argue over who will be left with what once Walt dies. Armed with a cooler full of beer but still maintaining his athletic fitness, Walt spends most of his time on his porch bemoaning the influx of Asian immigrants into his blue-collar neighborhood. Often, Walt seems content to simply spew racial under his breath, often over his breath, too. Similar to the classic Hollywood cinema, Walt is like the grouchy underappreciated chracter who just needs to find some love.

Much of the joy of "Gran Torino” derives from watching Walt's deepening relationship with his newfound Asian friends, whom he persists in giving names like "Yum Yum" and "Toad" even as he develops a surly affection for them. In several scenes Walt can even be seen moving beyond the barriers that he has kept up his entire life and coming to terms with a war that still haunts him. Amusing however, throughout the film Walt is an equal-opportunity verbal bomb-thrower, as evidenced by the quick, unprintable way he dispatches one of Sue's white boyfriends when he sees the couple being threatened by a group of African American teenagers.

As its title suggests, "Gran Torino" is a nostalgia trip, in this case for the 1970s vigilante action pictures that Eastwood made his own. The film feels not only like a culmination of a director who has spent much his later years filming gritty realistic movies, but also an actor who’s past is filled with the contours and lines of a pulp genre. 

Tough has never been enough for Eastwood, instead the film concludes on a twist ending in which Walt exorcises his demons without easy violence or false redemption. A lifetime in movies runs through this vintage Eastwood performance. You can't take your eyes off him. The no-frills, very gritty and realistic Gran Torino is one film you will not regret seeing.

Critic Watch: The Haunting in Connecticut

The critic Roger Moore in Charlotte Observer titled the film The Haunting in Connecticut as “Amityville’s retread manages a few surprises.” He means that the film is an “Amityville Horror” one, which mean only one guy believes in ghosts and nobody else. But there is a man who cans senses the evil, however, his warnings is not enough for the people to know. Then he said that the writers were plainly recycling this “Amityville” story structure.

Austin Chronicle’s critic, Peter Cornwell’s review on “The Haunting in Connecticut” is about his dislike of the film bases really on the older horrors kinds of film such as The Beyound, Shock, The Others and The Amityville Horror, and is adapted from the book In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting. Beside that, he also hates lines of the actors and actress, where he calls couple “boring upper-middle-class.” They make the decision to move into the house served as both a mortuary and nexus of eternal evil.

Jeaninetter Catsoulis on, The New York Times, give the film the title “A Family Plot.” It review says that when the Campbells discover that the house is a former funeral parlor, the family just leave the ill son to handles this clients. Also it also compares to the movie “Psycho,” “The Shining” and “The Exorcist” saying that “these mnemonics movie are far less distracting this endlessly prompting, screeching score.” Beside the ghostly conversation needs the shrieking violins in order to compete it.

Jason Buchanan, a TV GUIDE critic, also gives a bad review that is the score of 1.5 star out of 5. He said that film has some interesting ideas, but it is too far to please a large crowd, where this film can be forgotten instantly. He views the film as too less emotional action toward the characters.

Los Angeles Time’s critic, Mark Olsen, is writing in his bad review for “ “, is about the characters and the director. He says the characters were oddly fitted in film; it is like the “oil-and-water” mix of acting styles. He views the film as a domestic drama rather than a completely horror tale. He believes that the film better off as a “straight-up horror film”

DVD Review: Bedtime Stories

Directed by: Adam Shankman
Screenplay by: Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy
Produced by: Jack Giarraputo, Andrew Gunn and Adam Sandler
Starring: Adam Sandler, Keri Russell, Courteney Cox, Jonathan Morgan Heit and Laura Ann Kesling



When we look into our pasts, we remember the good days of being so carefree. We remember our favorite games, TV shows, toys, friends and of course, we remember bedtime. For some, it was an ongoing battle for just "5 more minutes" and for others it was a time to hear the greatest tales ever told. Director Adam Shankman takes us back to a time when our imaginations would simply run wild.

Skeeter (Adam Sandler) is recruited to watch his niece and nephew while his sister leaves to search for a new job. To get the kids to sleep at night, Skeeter begins to tell them stories. When things in the stories begin to happen in real life, Skeeter discovers that he could he could finally get everything he's ever wanted. But is what he wants really for the best? When Skeeter discovers that in order to achieve his dreams he risks putting his niece and nephew in a tight situation, Skeeter must do some self-reflection.

We immediately get a feel for the movie as soon as it starts; a pop-up book gives us the opening introductions. The movie is geared towards a more younger audience with it's exciting and entertaining stories contained within the movie. Adam Sandler plays the part of a carefree uncle that is very similar to his character in Big Daddy. However, Bedtime Stories has a less serious tone to it. Because of this difference, audiences in the upper age range would not go out of their way to see this movie; unless they have a child begging to go.

Overall, if it's a laid-back, simple entertainment that you're looking for, then this movie is the one to watch. Adam Sandler does his typical comedy tricks to entice a laugh from the audience. Although there is a time when things become a bit more serious, the ending is what we would expect. As the famous saying goes, and they all lived happily ever after.

BLOG REVIEW: WATCHMEN

Directed by: Zach Snyder
Written by: David Haytler, Alex Tse
Produced by: Lawrence Gordon, Loyd Levin
Staring: Jeff Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Bill Crudup


---Superhero movies seem to be the new trend in Hollywood these days. Film makers of all kinds have been sorting through their old comic book collections and bringing them to life of the big screen. Zack Snyder’s Watchmen is the latest superhero blockbuster to make its way into theaters. Don’t be fooled however, Watchmen is not your normal superhero movie...
---Set in America in 1985, Watchmen takes the audience on a twisted journey through the lives of several superheroes and shows a side of them we are not used to seeing. The basic idea behind the film is that history is portrayed as it would have played out if superheroes had existed in the 20th century. In the early 1900s, a group of individuals decided to dress up in costumes and fight crime, a tradition that carried over up until the 1970’s. At this time, President Nixon outlawed superheroes, and the group known as the Watchmen were forced into retirement. The film begins a decade later in 1985, with Nixon still president and the Cold War tensions high between the US and the Soviet Union. The first scene shown is the murder of one of these superheroes known as the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). The murder ignites a sense of paranoia in another one of these heroes Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who goes on to investigate why one of his own had been killed. As the plot develops, the audience is introduced to the other Watchmen, including Daniel Dreiberg (the Night Owl II, played by Patrick Wilson), Laurie Juspeczyk (the Silk Spectre II, played by Malin Akerman), Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode) and Dr. Manhatten (Bill Crudup). The film goes on to unveil the back stories of all of these characters and how they relate to one another. The movies then becomes a bit of a psychological thriller as these group of superheroes must uncover a conspiracy among themselves, as well as saving the world from a nuclear holocaust.
---Watchmen’s story line is very elaborate and has plenty to tell. This fact however proves to be the films greatest strength, as well as its greatest weakness. The skewed view of American history that the film offers, as well as the many interest characters, gives the audience plenty to think about through out the movie. However, in the end there seemed to be just too much to fit into one film. The characters of Watchmen are very powerful, but there just was not enough time in the film to fully develop them for the audience. Snyder had the challenge of introducing this complex world to the audience as well as introducing all of these characters, but it all was just a little too much. The film proved to have many twists and surprises in the plot, but because of the lack of character development, those moments failed to stimulate much emotion in those watching. It became a challenge to really connect with any of the characters because they were introduced so quickly, it felt throughout the film as if the audience was just getting to know them. To Snyder’s credit, the film did flow well and the story was presented cleverly in a series of flashbacks and narrations. However, their just was not enough time to present all the details that the story deserved. At a run time of two hours and forty minutes, the film was already too long for most people’s liking.
---Overall, not a bad attempt. Watchmen had plenty of superhero action to keep the audience entertained, and with an R rating, the graphics could reach an extreme beyond most comic book movies. If you are a fan of these kind of movies, Watchmen is worth seeing, even if it is just once.

BLOG REVIEW (DVD): CLOVERFIELD

Directed by: Mark Reeve
Written by: Drew Goddard
Produced by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Mike Vogel, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Odette Yustman


The “Monster” movie has been apart of cinema since the beginning. For decades, audiences have enjoyed being horrified by large creatures terrorizing cities and the people who reside in them. Mark Reeve’s 2008 film Cloverfield is that latest monster movie to terrify audiences around the world.
Inspired by movie monsters of the past, such as Godzilla or King Kong, Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams sought to capture the majesty of those creatures in a modern day scene with a brand new monster. The movie starts out with a very obvious twist, it is told in a first person, real time style from an every day camcorder. The movie focuses around the main character Robert Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David), who is attending a going away party for his upcoming trip to Japan. The party was being thrown by his brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and his brother’s girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucus), and was being filmed by his best friend Hudson (T.J. Miller). The first 15 minutes or so of the film focus on the characters and their back stories, specifically Rob and his struggling relationship with his best friend/girl friend Beth (Odette Juliette Yustman). This information, like the rest of the movie, is all presented through the eyes of the hand held cam, so the audience is left to put together the pieces. The party is soon interrupted by an earthquake like event, and the characters soon find themselves in the streets of Manhattan with an unexplained event happening. As the movie goes on, more is revealed about a monster invading the city, and the movie focuses on the characters trying to escape from the city.
The key to Cloverfield is the style of filming; it is the Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla. The unique style works well for the film though, it give the audience a very realistic and human feel to a very none realistic situation. The film does a good job delivering a deeper love story in the midst of all the chaos, and it serves to be a solid secondary plot. The monster element of the movie is very much there, as the movie is full of suspense and action. The monster is gradually revealed to the audience, in traditional fashion, until the end where the whole thing is shown.
All and all, Cloverfield is a pretty entertaining film. A decently short run time and suspenseful structure make it a fun movie to sit down and watch. The one element of the film that does disappoint however is the lack of explanation of the monster, which weakens the ending. Cloverfield won’t replace King Kong and Godzilla in American pop-culture, but it is a good monster movie.

Blog Review: W.

Directed by: Oliver Stone

Written by: Stanley Weiser.

Produced by: Tom Ortenberg, Bill Block

Starring: Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfuss, Toby Jones

Hyped as a parody of possibly he worst president in U.S. history W. manages to pull off an ideally simple film with only moderate success. It does not feel as if the actors can’t get the film off the ground, in fact, Josh Brolin manages to play a truly magnificent role as George W. Bush going from life of privilege to commander in chief. However, it seems that director Oliver Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser simply do not agree on whether to bash the president or to simply leave the issue alone. Whatever the case may be the movie stutters, ironically, in the same way our ex President George W. Bush once did.      

Like many Oliver Stone films,  W. focuses on one man, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) the focus is always on him: His personality, his addiction, his insecurities, his unwavering faith in a mission from God, his yearning to prove himself, his inability to deal with those who advise him. In the film, most of the decisions of his presidency were shaped and placed in his hands by the crafty vice president Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and the political mastermind Karl Rove (Toby Jones). However, Unlike Stone's "Nixon," this film revises no part of the president’s life. Everything including the scenes behind closed doors, is now pretty much familiar from books written by former Bush aides, and reporting by  reporters such as Bob Woodward.

Throughout the movie however, the political bias of stone makes it clear that if Bush had only become commissioner of baseball, we would all be better off. Obviously, Stone released the movie during the election as if to remind us all what happens when we vote the wrong man in because he looks like a fighter or someone we would all like to have a beer with. Brolin plays him well; the confusion is palpable even when he's asked to answer a question on the fly, the pain of being Daddy's second-favorite son even when he uses the Iraq invasion to avenge his father.

At its best, W. is a father-son story. Near the end, Stone shows a scene with Dubya and Dad trading punches in the Oval Office. Although a great  it is the kind you expect to see more of More of that, and W. would have been a movie that makes sense of Bush's legacy instead of excuses. 

Blog Review: Knowing

Directed by: Alex Proyas

Written by: Ryne Douglas Pearson

Produced by: David Alper, David J. Bloomfield

Starring: Nicholas Cage, Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne

Unabashedly predictable, Knowing casts a famous actor (Nicholas Cage) throws a few curveballs scenes, and wraps it all up with nice Christian overtones. Mirroring the trademark crises of faith which made M. Night Shymalan immensely popular, director Alex Proyas both tries and fails miserably at combining themes of Christian morality and Shymalan suspense into one feature length film. In short, the film was one really long version of the biblical version of Armageddon.  

The movie is generally straightforward, a grouchy MIT professor (Nicholas Cage) prone to alcohol driven fits of hysteria and outbursts of atheism, changes once his mewling young son (Chandler Canterbury) comes into possession of a handwritten scrawl of numbers—a 50-year-old single-spaced page full of digits that just so happens to provide dates, times, latitudes and longitudes for every natural or man-made catastrophe— including the forthcoming Armageddon. As the storyline progresses, more characters are slowly introduced and soon it becomes clear that Armageddon is something much more than simply a “natural” event. In fact, there’s not much investigating to be done or story left to tell once Cage guzzles a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red and figures out this numerical code. There’s much ado about the disturbed psychic child who penned these prophecies back in 1959, but that just amounts to arbitrary wheel-spinning before the CGI can finally kick in.

After a few climax building moments and mysterious flashbacks the storyline seems to rely more on running and pure special effects rather than on storyline and dialogue. The special effects complement the theme of Armageddon in the film fairly well and certainly help to bring the moral conclusion, occasionally providing visual cues to foreseen events and a lending a spooky inhuman backdrop to the chaos onscreen. Yet, after all provide only seems to truly shine once the storyline fails to hold the audience’s interest. Without spoiling the plot, it is sufficient to say that the overarching conclusion of the movie is conceived in such a way that the audience will walk away from the film believing they had both their money and time clearly wasted on a cinematic version of one of Kirk Cameron’s Left Behind flicks.

State of Play: Blog Review

It's the kind of movie that makes ex-Political Science majors like myself drool. Combining journalistic saavy in a not so polished package (Russell Crowe as Cal McAffrey), and political power dressed to the nines (Ben Affleck as Rep. Stephen Collins) faceoff in this political thriller set in Washington.
Crowe plays the character he is cast as almost flawlessly, beat up and beat down, while Ben Affleck could be the new poster child for Congress. But, despite the ragged appearance of Cal McAffrey (Crowe), he does his job well, knows everyone in Washington, or so it would seem, and the seemingly good boy Collins (Affleck) might just be hiding a dirty little secret.
And McAffrey knows all about it. They were college roommates. Surprise, surprise.
But the Congressman might be getting, as so many things in Washington are, framed. The movie is a high paced thrill ride, absolutely perfect for anyone interested in politics or the innerworkings of journalism, or even just a good movie.

Blog Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Directed by: Danny Boyle

Produced by: Christian Colson

Screenwriter: Simon Beaufoy

Starring: Dev Patel, Irrfan Khan, Anil Kapoor, Madhur Mittal, and Freida Pinto

Born to nothing in the slums of India to grow up and become a millionaire. It wasn't luck nor greed that got him there, rather it was love and the desire to be with the one he loved, no matter what it took. This is no common love story, which may already be obvious, instead it is a story filled with danger, pain, greed, an unrelentless love, and a game show. What would seem to be an odd combination is actually a movie that you will fall in love with.

Danny Bole's "Slumdog Millionaire" steps away from the typical love story and makes a film that crosses several genres but can still be identified as a beautiful love story. This film is a story of how and why an uneducated man from India was able to answer every question correctly on "What Wants To Be A Millionaire?". This young man, Jamal Malik, is suspected of cheating on the game show and is kidnapped and questioned in order to find out how he knew these answers. Most of the movie consists of Jamal telling his captor exactly how he knew each question and how he had learned these things in his life. As he explains himself, the audience watches his life unfold from a young boy to a young adult and we find out how he got where he is. 

The film is really  a story within a story. As Jamal is telling his life story, he is also revealing his feelings for a girl he saved when he was very young and all the times he lost her. His purpose is finally revealed as his desire to find Latika, his one true love, and take her as his own.

The audience is able to view Jamal's life by the use of flashbacks throughout the film. This film really takes you for a crazy ride through the life of Jamal Malik and the amazing adventures he experienced. The story is thrilling, disturbing, and beautiful at the same time. This movie will make you laugh and cry and will ultimately keep you on the edge of your seat as you root for Jamal. 

The use of flashbacks in this film truly adds to its uniqueness. Danny Boyle does an excellent job of connecting two stories without making it confusing or too busy. The film has a great plot line and the story would keep anyone's attention. The cinematography is excellent, the acting was exceptionally good, and the story itself was nothing short of fantastic. It was altogether a great movie and is sure to entertain.

DVD Review: Frost/Nixon

Directed by: Ron Howard
Written by: Peter Morgan
Produced by: Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Kevin Bacon

---History does not make for good entertainment very often. When it does there is typically a war involved and politics are certainly not the main focus. “Tricky Dick” Richard Nixon’s most infamous stunt was the Watergate Scandal, involving wiretapping and many civilian laws broken at a series of Democratic National Committee meetings at the Watergate Hotel. This was not a physical war but a political war that ended up in the first and only president to resign from office. Few attempts have been made to bring this to Hollywood. There has been a biographical style movie, “Nixon”, by Oliver Stone. Released on DVD on Tuesday April 21, “Frost/Nixon” tried to characterize the time after Richard Nixon left office. At this point it has grossed more than “Nixon” made and it is still in the spotlight.
---The film focuses on British talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) and his attempts at getting Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) to sit down for a post-presidential interview. The film starts with Nixon leaving office after being tried for a battery of charges regarding the Watergate Scandal. Frost realizes that Nixon knows how to work the crowd and get out of actually making a confession; so he focuses on getting Nixon to admit that he was responsible for this act against democracy and to apologize. Eventually they all agree to terms and Frost interviews Nixon, at first with some difficulty, and gets Nixon to acquiesce to everything.
---Director Ron Howard, being known for his work “Apollo 13” and “A Beautiful Mind”, is great at making anything full of emotion and emphasizing one or two characters. “Frost/Nixon” really focuses on Frost and Nixon. During some of the interview scenes you can see Frost really squirming trying to get a word in edgewise. Nixon is shown to be really focused on answering every question in order to get out of something that may condemn him. Lots of close ups were used which really added to the meaning of the film as a whole.
---The actors did a fantastic job with the characters they were hired to play. It would be incredibly easy to go wrong with a character like Nixon and make him seem very evil. Frank Langella played Nixon perfectly; someone who clearly has the ability to commit crimes but who also has a heart. Michael Sheen also played Frost up to all expectations. Sheen acted out a great talk show host and slick talker that is respectful to those he is around.
---Overall this movie was great for a non-war related political movie. I give it a 4 out of 5 for the acting and directing.

Blog Review: "Watchmen"

Director: Zack Snyder

Produced by: Lawrence Gordon, Lloyd Levin, Deborah Snyder

Screenplay: David Hayter, Alex Tse

Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Carla Gugino, Jackie Earie Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson

SPOILER ALERT! MONKEYS AND DINGLEBERRIES BEWARE

Who Watches the Watchmen? You Should

Watchmen, one of the most highly anticipated films of 2009, adapts the apocalyptic, quasi-dystopia alternate future of the graphic novel by the same name. All masked *heroes have been outlawed by 5^th term president Richard M. Nixon. The film casts a caveat on the label “hero” through depictions of narcissistic sadism by “The Comedian” and the affluent “Ozymandius.” But is either of them in the wrong? Is the public at large wrong to revolt against the heroes who risk their lives to protect them? While the film is visually astounding, has a story line unique but logical enough to follow, and is caked with a sufficient amount of high-definition-choreographed violence and sex to satisfy fans of Snyder’s 300, 2 hours and 40 minutes was simultaneously too long and short for such a venture.

Showing off his mastery of slow-motion and possibly gratuitous violence in the opening battle sequence, those of us whom seldom witness superfluous violence in movies in comparison to that which propagates the non-fiction world offer Snyder our praise. But the next twenty minutes reveal that Snyder not only is attempting to, but has developed in his vision as a director. We witness the world Bob Dylan surely could not have imagined as his song “The Times They Are A-Changin’” peruses through what the world became as the Cold War escalated, Nixon stayed in office, and Vietnamese communism was defeated. Our narrator then makes his entrance as Rorschach, a pessimistic realist; he represents an extreme product of his time. Through his journal we retrace the steps of his and other heroes as they deduce why ex-hero Ozymandius is killing retired heroes.

Considering the film introduces the story behind over 10 heroes from pre-WWII up until 1987, introduces us to the alternate reality of 1987, and effectively develops character and story plots all while hopping back forth through time, it is a masterpiece. There really is very little confusion as to who are whom, what day and age each scene is taking place in, and the current or changing point of view of each character. And because this is done so effectively, we are allowed to become witness to the varying natures of a number of characters, each of whom may represent the nature of mankind.

Dr. Manhattan, the only true superhero in the film, obtained god-like powers in a lab experiment gone wrong. Able to see time in the past, present, and future simultaneously, be in a nearly infinite number of places at once, capable of living in any environment in the universe, and actually capable of creating his own universe, Dr. Manhattan is suppose to be the savior- or rather, God realized for man. The only problem is that, like the understanding of God in real life, the masses can’t conceive his understanding of the larger picture in the universe. For all the power he has been endowed with, the power of human understanding still eludes him, as it does us.

Other heroes serve as the pessimistic, the hopelessly optimistic, the nurturing, the idealist, the pious, and the base aspects (among many others) of humanity. Perhaps it is because the various heroes are portrayed as such familiar humans that we can empathize with “The Comedian” even though he shot a woman pregnant with his child at point blank range. Or how we find our selves empathizing with Rorschach even though he killed 3 policemen for doing their job. Yet, in the film the masses rebelled against their heroes and dismissed them while chanting “Who watches the Watchmen?”

And we see that they too, to a point, want some one to guide them and tell them what is right and wrong. This question is put to the ultimate test at the end of the film when Ozymandius and Dr. Manhattan agree that to save the world they must destroy much of it. By framing Dr. Manhattan, nuclear war will be averted through mankind’s instinct of self preservation: they will ally themselves in fear of a power outside their control. It is in this view of Dr. Manhattan that he truly becomes a god: the good in mankind is stimulated by its fear of god’s power. I give "Watchmen" 9/10 stars.

Nostalgia in Adventureland

It was advertised as a romantic comedy; not as raunchy as Superbad, but not heart wrenching as The Notebook. Adventureland seemed to effortlessly cross genres. Directed by Greg Mottola, the same man who directed Superbad, it had some raunchiness, but some indelible moments where the audience collectively sighed and said, “Yeah, I remember being a young twenty something with nothing to lose.” More than anything, Adventureland is a nostalgic film; a story of one young man’s summer spent working in a theme park he wanted nothing to do with and meeting a girl he couldn’t get enough of.
Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gives the movie an A-, citing it’s “observational eye for the late 80’s” and comparing it to George Lucas’ American Graffiti and Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused because of the way it chronicles the end of the decade of big hair and synthesizers. Gleiberman compliments the subtlety of the pop references, noting that the “park hottie, Lisa P., is obviously modeled after Madonna, but the pop star is never mentioned”. Gleiberman also praises the casting, from the staunch dumbness of Bill Hader (who plays the boss) to the coolness of Ryan Reynolds (the park mechanic). He never mentions a negative word about the film.
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times was not as enthusiastic about Adventureland, but he did give it a high rating. He calls the film “quietly funny”. However, he truly enjoyed the performance of Kristen Stewart (Emily) who, in Twilight Ebert claims was “playing below her grade level”. Altogether, Ebert says Adventureland is “more real and touching than it may sound.” Then, at the end, he adds a story of his late teen/early adult summers lifeguarding at a pool near his hometown, and a girl he met there. Adventureland, even for Roger Ebert, is pure nostalgia.
Peter Travers, of Rolling Stone, is not so keen on Adventureland. “It throws a lot at us, but not enough of it sticks,” he says, let down by the fact that it was advertised as more of a comedy. The movie is much more of a romance, and though he enjoyed the sweetness of the main characters James and Emily, he preferred the silliness brought into the movie by Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig. This was one criticism of the movie at large.
“For a film set in an amusement park, it isn’t terribly amusing,” Scott Mendleson of Film Threat criticizes. Mendleson calls Adventureland Greg Mottola’s personal project, one which he was allowed to make after the immense success of Superbad. He calls the movie “too realistic” despite the fact that the amusement park should be an inherent prop for comedy. In fact, he calls the movie unsurprising. Again, Mendleson shares the same problem as Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, “it just wasn’t that funny.”
The lowest rating given to Adventureland was by The Boston Globe which claimed you could “feel the crackle of energy that’s missing from Adventureland which is trying to make emotional noise”. Also, it claims the film “neutralizes life with comedy as opposed to finding comedy in life”.
Adventureland, whether the viewer was expecting a hilarious raunch-fest like in Superbad or something a little more subtle, is a movie more life like than expected. However, it may be a little too real for its own good.

DVD Review: Max Payne

The random plot formed through “Max Payne” prevents any plausible intellectual comprehension. The aspect of the movie that were there to enhance the story were drug out and overly predictable; not to spoilt the ending but it is pretty obvious who creates and administers the drug and who the Payne family murderer is.Any excessive thought to try and organize sporadic events just might cause max pain (in your head)
Payne (Mark Wahlberg) is a depressed detective who’s search for his wife’s and baby’s killer succumbs him to antipathy towards all. The film takes place within a city with scenery just as depressed at Payne. It never stops snowing and every day is gloomy with an eerie grayish darkness. Payne is alienated from the rest of the police force, everyone hates him and suspects him (for what I am not exactly sure). The plot spirals out of control when Payne refuses to sleep with gorgeous Natisha Sax (Olga Kurylenko) who sequentially gets killed leaving his apartment and for some reason has Payne’s wallet; I assume the killer was trying to frame Payne. Natisha is the sister of female Russian assassin Mona Sax (Mila Kunis, Jackie from that 70’s show, but with a machine gun), who sporadically shows up to help Payne find the killer in order to avenge her sister’s death.
The City is faced with an epidemic of drug usage. A blue drug, Valkeryie, is being administered by an underground war lord and was created by a local pharmaceutical company to enhance and perfect a soldier’s capabilities to kill. The drug has an instantaneous addiction rate and causes its users to do anything to get more. Despite turning users into killing machines, the drug has an hallucinate side effect of seeing winged demons and devils that cause the users to go crazy.
I was relieved that the drug was causing the demons on the screen because initially I thought Max Payne was going to have to fight the monsters, which would have made even less sense. The overall story is hindered by an excessive attempt to add a Sin City type film-nior with random Matrix bullet time action scenes. The directing takes away from the story and makes the movie difficult to under stand. All aspects of the film come off overdone; random actions scenes with sexy girls and machine guns while Payne kills everyone in his path. The acting is hallow with little on screen connection wrapped around a dialogue that appeared forced and uncomfortable
Max Payne’s big climax was when Payne decided to take the drug in order to improve his fighting abilities and effectively hunt down the discovered killer. Marky Mark hopped up on a drug that sends him into a wild rage as he kills everyone in his path, shaking off shotgun shells and machine gun bullets that penetrate his body sounds awesome, but not in this movie. Wahlberg needs to find some better roles, The Happening, Max Payne, What’s next, rapping again?

DVD Review: The Reader

Directed by: Stephen Daldry
Written by: David Hare and Bernhard Schlink
Produced by: Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack
Starring: Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Cross

---It’s hard to believe that any movie would be rated higher than the movie “Titanic”; the acting was great, but the cinematography and use of CGI was amazing. Kate Winslet’s affair with Leonardo DiCaprio in the film added a romantic twist to the infamous disaster and some emotional investment for the audience. Using that same equation, 2008’s “The Reader” did the same thing with The Holocaust and a steamy affair between Winslet’s character and a 16 year old boy. Today (April 24), it was released on DVD. Following the theatrical release it was nominated for awards by the Academy and other organizations: was it worth the hype?
---The first main action of the movie is a boy named Michael Berg (David Cross) getting off of a train because he is not feeling well. He goes into an alley and collapses in exhaustion. Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) helps the boy back to his home where he ends up bedridden for three months with scarlet fever. At the decline of his sickness, Michael takes flowers to Hanna and thanks her for her service. Day after day he returns to her house, culminating in a passionate affair for a whole summer. Eventually she disappears leaving Michael to contemplate his experience.
---Years later Michael is attending law school and one of his seminars attends a court case regarding women involved in the Holocaust. Sure enough Hanna is one of the defendants because she was hired by the SS to be a guard in her past. Michael has a key piece of evidence that he learned about Hanna that could make or break the case but sits by in silence. Eventually the case ends with a conviction and Hanna is taken to prison.
---After seeing “The Reader” one should realize that the story is the movie’s biggest strength. It is compelling enough to keep the viewer watching and wanting to know more. Aside from the story nothing makes the movie standout. There are no innovative filming techniques or incredible acting (it was believable but not extraordinary). Occasionally the movie jumps around in time to give a present day-flashback format, probably the ideal format for the way the story unfolds.
---There are specific decisions the producers and director decided to take the film that are relatively disappointing. Certainly there could have been some soft-core shock value when dealing with the Holocaust and Hanna’s crimes. Making the audience grapple with some of history’s most grisly events is never a bad thing, especially when it involves a character that we are emotionally invested in. In addition to this, some of the sex scenes in the beginning are incredibly uncomfortable to watch, most likely because of the forbidden nature of a minor having sex with a person much older than him; and the casual nature in which it is presented.
---Overall the film is quite good but could have been better. Certain aspects of the movie prevent it from becoming a masterpiece but the story is enthralling enough to keep the audience interested. I give the film a 4 out of 5.

Fast And Furious

            One positive effect of the recession is that people have started to flock to movie theaters once again. Movies that were once given the green light based solely on their profit making potential, are slowly being withdrawn or altered. With the release of Fast and Furious, the follow up to The Fast and the Furious released in 2001, movie goers were treated scenes of racing cars, testosterone layered acting and voluptuous woman in bikini tops. Not everyone appreciated the film and based on its overall score of 45 it seems most critics were decidedly mediocre about this film.

            Beginning with the strongest and brightest review, Lisa Schwartzbaum of Entertainment Weekly gave the film an above average “B+” or an 83 based on the metacritic scale. Scwartzbaum pointed out that although the film was all about “dirtied up car racing and bad ass drivers,” the film works with the scope of its intended audience. The indeed audience being of course, males who enjoy fast paced movies with little plotline and place emphasis the action and visuals in the movie rather than the story and character development. Its limited drama leaves more room for loud music and crazy unbelievable plotlines which emphasize the fast paced cars and their drivers.

            Next,   Desson Thomson of the Washington Post gave the movie a 70. Thomson wrote specifically that the movie focuses everything through a “guy-calibrated telephoto lens…a simple world where everything falls into an easy hierarchy is essential.” Once again the overall definition of the film is that mainly centered on men and the macho lifestyle which they live. Specifically, Thompson points to the themes of street racing, cheating death in slow motion and of course the bromance that seems to permeate through all levels of the film. Although the thrills are excellent and the visual explosions are eye popping it’s clear that this movie is no Oscar winner and simply seeks to make a buck using the classic action man fest template.

            Of course not everyone shared the same enthusiasm for thrills that other critics felt. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone calls the film, “idiotic but fun. hate myself for getting off on hot cars, hotter women. bad dialogue enjoyable, also exhausting. two hours of life hijacked. no hope of recovery.” Simply put the film takes advantage of the market that is out there for films like these and the sex appeal of actors like Vin Diesel and the skimpily clad women which overpopulate the film. Travers points out that Diesel is brought back into the films storyline because of his cave like qualities and the brawny manly feel he projects over his films. Of course, this degenerates from any real movie watching experience and instead obliteration, wheelies and plotless thrills ensue.

            Going farther down the list, Nathan Lee of the New York Times warns viewers to be aware of the quality of the film. Once again concentrating the review on Vin Diesel who’s role this critic clearly dislikes in this film, “an inexpressive chunk of man whose actorly range is largely restricted to the occasional furrowing of a brow.” A pop film with diversionary qualities, Lee rated the film a 50 on metacritic summing up his review by telling audiences they will be flabbergasted by the vast excesses seen in this film.

            Finally, Roger Ebert finishes this list of critics with the worst review of all handing Fast and Furious one and a half stars for being a pop movie with cheap thrills and few quality characteristics. Sticking to the template of the film series Fast and the Furious releases an expertly made action film in which the special effects are good but the acting is extremely basic. It is amusing to see that most of the older critics Ebert included simply loathe the films excesses and harshly criticize the fact that the film spends so much gas and destroys cars as if these things came off trees. Summing up the film Ebert notes, the film was made simply to turn a profit, what a waste.

A Haunting in Connecticut

Rajvi Vora

A Haunting in Connecticut

With barely passing reviews, the movie A Haunting in Connecticut has received an overall rating of thirty-three percent on Metacritic. The highest rating, at only sixty-three percent, was given by Roger Moore of the Charlotte Observer. The story involves Matt (Kyle Gallner) who is a cancer patient and in an experimental program to see if his cancer can get cured. His mother (Virginia Madsen) rents a house for them to live in while dad (Martin Donovan) goes along with his wife’s decisions. Matt sleeps in the basement and starts to see dead people. His family thinks it’s the treatments that are making him see things, but it’s the house that’s the problem. There are many creepy moments which are made just to scare the audience. Moore says the movie “has plenty of creep-you-out” potential for kids but isn’t extremely scary for “hard-core gore fans.”
Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune has given the film a fifty percent rating. He says the scares are “low grade” and “scary face in the mirror” type of scares. They are all living in a former mortuary and Matt is the only one that sees the dead bodies that used to belong there. Soon, everyone living there starts to sense the horrors that went on in the house years ago. Elias Koteas tries to come in and save the day as a reverend who wants to help rid the house of all of the ghosts and spirits in it. The movie is low grade but the actors help it from sinking down further than it already has.
Mark Olsen from the Los Angeles Times gave the movie a forty percent rating. Olsen feels the actors are randomly put together. Virginia Madsen and Martin Donovan are seen as extremely unlikely as a married couple, and don’t mesh well together on screen. Olsen says that “the less Matt speaks, the better” showing that the main character did not hold the film well. Olsen finds it unbelievable and poor choice to see that Matt chooses the basement as his room. Unlikely and stupid, the film gets worse as the family continues to stay in the house when it is realized that something is wrong with it. The film is not very scary and does not hold itself well.
Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail (Toronto) gives the movie a 25 percent rating. Groen says the film is a usual scary film and that the family is full of “slow learners or don’t get out to the movies much” when referring to them staying in the house despite all of the eerie things that happen. The film tries to be metaphorical with Matt’s cancer along with the creepy house making his symptoms worse. The film could be deeper but does not focus on what can make it decent. There are scary rooms with sepia photos and scary instruments, very predictable. And finally, when a reverend is called to save the day, he suggests praying, boring the audience and once again, showing how predictable the film is.
Mark Savlov from the Austin Chronicle has given the movie its worse review yet, eleven percent. Savlov says that although Cornwell’s film is “based on a true story,” it is more based on other films that have preceded it. It is similar to The Amityville Horror, The Others, and Beyond. What’s worse is that the dialogue wasn’t anything worth noting. The film is way too predictable. Knowing when things are getting out of hand in their house, the family (of course) decided to call the reverend to perform an exorcism and make their lives better again. A mediocre film, A Haunting in Connecticut is likely and predictable.
Metacritic.com

Critic Watch: Sunshine Cleaning

Sunshine Cleaning tells the story of two sisters, Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, who have failed in life and are struggling to get back on their feet. They sign up for a job that involves cleaning of crimes scenes like murder, which seems almost ridiculous. When we go to see this movie, one would expect to see the growing comedic relationship between the two sisters. But could what we actually see unfold on screen be different?


The highest rating given to this movie was an 80 out of 100. Stina Chyn of Film Threat focuses on the relationship that develops between the two sister main characters and the relationships between the sisters and the grieving families. It seems to be a movie about learning to understand themselves and understanding others. It is a journey of self reflection that could get audiences to rethink about their own lives.

Dana Stevens of Slate gave the movie a 70 out of 100. She comments on the fact that even though the two stars are not in any way related to each other, their acting makes the audience that they really are siblings. It is with this kind of acting ability that makes the audience watch the screen at all times so as to not miss a moment. Even though movies like this have been made before, like Little Miss Sunshine, the movie is so well made that it doesn't matter that they may be similar.

Ty Burr from the Boston Globe gave he movie a 63 out of 100 immediately pointing out that Sunshine Cleaning is very similar to Little Miss Sunshine. They are so similar to the point that the names are almost same. Despite having a light-hearted name, the movie is far from it. Burr also comments on the two sisters saying that their characters were well played and can be compared to other sibling type movies such as The Savages. Although all the actors play their roles well, Burr says that there are times when their acting seems to be out of place and could have been better.

From the Village Voice, Robert Wilonsky gave the movie a 50 out of 100. The movie is nothing new from a typical Hollywood movie. It tries too hard o be little Little Miss Sunshine when they cast Alan Arkin for the role of the grandpa. His review is short and doesn't really have anything good to say about it. Overall, the movie could have been made better if there was a little more effort put into it.

Dan Zak of the Washington Post gave the film a 40 out of 100. The only good thing about the movie was the two sisters. How says that although their acting was believable, their story goes nowhere and it becomes boring quickly. Not much else is said about the other actors in the movie. If it were not for Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, the movie would not have done as well as it did.

Overall, there are some mixed feelings for this particular movie. The only thing all the critics could agree on was the acting of the sisters, Adams and Blunt. Depending on the person, the similarities between Little Miss Sunshine and Sunshine Cleaning could either be a annoyance or indifference.

Critic Watch; I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man
Starring: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Andy Samberg
Written by: Larry Levin (& story) John Hamburg
Directed by: John Hamburg

I Love You, Man is another comedy brought brought forth by John Hamburg, previously known for his movies Meet the Parents, Zoolander, and Along Come Polly. This film follows Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), a real estate agent who has recently become engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones). While planning for his upcoming wedding, Klaven realizes he has no close male best friends to fill that all important role of best man. So Klaven embarchs on a series of man-dates, where he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel). The two become friends but the closer they become, the more Klaven and Zooey's relationship suffers.

Peter Hartlaub of the "San Francisco Chronicle" gave the film the highes score possible, a perfect 100 out of 100 on Megacritic. Hartlaub praises the film as one of the best comedies of the year. He makes a referece to the movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin, explaining that the funniest parts of that film were the interractions between Steve Carrell and his male friends, not the actual love story. In Hartlaub's opinion, that is the main strength of I Love You, Man: the focus is between the man love, and the relationship between Klaven and Zooey takes a back seat. Hartlaub gives directer Hamburg credit for making the satire seem fresh and new, even though we have seen the jokes before. In addition to this, Hartlaub also highlights the supporting characters who, even though they are not the main players, never fail to disappoint.

Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun-Times" gives the film a very respectable 88 out of 100. Ebert calls the film truly funny and will leave the viewer feeling good from watching the movie. Ebert touches on the character of Sydney (Segel) as a real highlight of the film, and his entrance as the place where the film stops being predictable. He also praises Pau Rudd's acting, which really conveys the slight awkwardness that follows around his character. Ebert says that yes it has the obligatory dumb, physical humor, but also has witty dialogue and observations that are truly funny.

Michael Phillips of the "Chicago Tribune" gives the film a 75 out 100, a pretty good score. Describes of the film as missing director Judd Apatow, but definitely influenced by him. Not as good as previous films such as Knocked Up, Superbad, or Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the film is a notable mention. Most of the jokes he describes as being redundant, almost like a "been there done that" sort of feel. For him, the real comedy is in the dialogue for the characters, things that have no importances whatsoever for the plot of the story. He closes his review by saying if only one of these movies could feature an interesting female lead, then it would be great.

Kyle Smith of the "New York Post" gave this film a 50 out of 50. His main argument is, why do I care if this guy has a best man? In fact, why won't he do what most guys do and use his brother? There is far too much time spent on Rudd's character going on his "man -dates" using tired jokes. There are some funny scenes, but the majority are not. Segel's character is supposed to be the man's man, but his "enlivened" speeches are the complete opposite of what men really feel or care about. Smith compares this film as to asking Michael Jackson what real men are like.

Johs Rosenblatt of the "Austin Chronicle" gave the film the worst rating of the bunch, a 40 out of 100. He says that in ten years when critics look back at the Bromance genre, they may look at I Love You, Man as the tipping point when films went from being inventive to being mechanical. Rosenblatt says that most of the jokes are written in becuase it is felt as if they have to be there. Everything is safe and Rashida Jones' character is compared to a black hole, a faceless force of gravity. He feels as if everything in the film is predictable.

Over all, I Love You, Man did very well, recieving an average score of 71 on Megacritic. Most feel as if it is a very funny movie, even if it panders to a specific audience in a specific age group.

Critic Watch: Monsters vs. Aliens

---Ever since 1995 the film world hasn’t been the same; that was the year that Disney released their international blockbuster “Toy Story.” Once that hurdle was jumped, this sub-genre of animation went to the spotlight. Disney is pretty much the leader in computer generated kids films, but DreamWorks makes a decent attempt to snatch the silver screen from its counterpart. Their big hits are “Ice Age”, “Shrek”, and “Kung Fu Panda”; on March 27, they released “Monsters vs. Aliens.” Expecting a film to compete with the likes of “Monster’s, Inc.”, Disney’s monster film, and to at least hold a candle to their own film “Kung Fu Panda”, critics seem to be disappointed.
---Michael Phillips of the “Chicago Tribune” claims that the film forgot two main things: good jokes and a purpose to the 3D portions. He even goes as far to say “… (it) is pure marketing without anything to market.” Regardless of the all star voice crew, including Seth Rogen, Stephen Colbert, and Reese Witherspoon, the writing is too poor to even showcase their talents. There is some spectacle involved in the movie that makes it somewhat desirable, such as the scene where a monster destroys the Golden Gate Bridge. Phillips didn’t like it, however, and says it was just “loud.”
---“The Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow inadvertently agrees with everything that Phillips says. They say the same thing about how the script is a lame attempt at trying to create a surefire epic film. He wants to know where some of the creativity went when writing this film. Even the 3D parts wear out their welcome, according to Sragow, due to the lack of imagination.
---Bob Mondello from National Public Radio notices how most DreamWorks movies focus on and try to sell some sort of gimmick, and this particular film tries to sell 3D animation. There are some moments of wit, and the movie should technically appeal to every age level, but the film’s repeated attempts at 3D spectacle lead to predictability, thereby ruining the movie.
---Continuing this somewhat dismal and repetitious string of reviews, Ann Hornaday from “The Washington Post” echoes the sentiments of the other reviewers. There is a worn out idea of the 3D animation aspect that the movie so forcefully hits on. She also feels the writing lacks a story, which could have propelled the movie to at least something worth remembering. Instead it will fade to the back of the audience’s mind.
---“The Philly Inquirer” has one of the few reviewers with something even remotely decent to say. Steven Rea actually liked the film, even though he didn’t see it in 3D (or perhaps because he didn’t see it as such.) He enjoyed the plot of how a glowing bride becomes a literal glowing bride due to a meteor and gets shipped to a government holding facility for monsters and mutants. Rea also enjoys the characters’ wisecracks and all around weirdness.
---Earning an average of 56 out of 100 on metacritic.com, this film is pitted for being another average animation film. A little more writing probably would have gone a long way. Fortunately or unfortunately for the audience: Disney still comes out on top because of DreamWorks’ lack of success.

Critic Watch: Fast & Furious

In “Fast & Furious”, Brian O’Conner is tracking down a drug dealer and reunites with ex-pal Dom Toretto to go after a common enemy. With the lack of a good plot to make the story have more depth, it falls on the action which hasn’t changed. On Metacritic.com, this film was given a rating of 45 out of 100, with ratings varying from 20 to 83.

Lisa Schwarzbaum of the Entertainment Weekly gave this film one of the highest score with 83 out of 100. She talks about the long history of this film going back to the first released film eight years ago and the global tour that the franchise has gone. She says “that The Fast and the Furious celebrated great music, cars, and minimally clothed chicks cast as extras” and it is this that was great to watch but that it is no Point Break. She talks about the film briefly, stating that the plot is weak but the old gang is back for one more ride.

Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times gave this film 70 out of 100. Sharkey talks about how the films use of speed and flashy thrills makes it interesting to who ever likes cars. Going into a little detail of what is happening in the story, Sharkey explains that the films real star is back, Vin Diesel, after 2 sub par films have not shown the hype compared to the original. Without his character, the film wouldn’t have been as good even with the lack of plot.

David Hiltbrand of the Philadelphia Inquirer gave this film 63 out of 100. He says that the car-fetish franchise is back in its fourth film, Fast & Furious. The original gangs returns as well but not much else has changed. This film is just like the rest, a gleaming display of chrome pornography set to race. He goes into the plot of this four film and talks about the events that lead up to this part. He says that this film only succeeds because of the supercharged action comparing it The Road Warrior and due partly to Diesel’s character.

Nathan Lee of The New York Times gave this film one of its most given scores with 50 out of 100. He attacks this film by talking about its tagline, “New Model. Original Parts”, which the parts part is referring to the crew that had reunited for another B-movie. He goes after Vin Diesels acting in this film, making him out to be a bad actor that has little acting skills. He talks about the plot and says finally that the script is primitive at best and that the film could lose 20 minutes to better suit its truncated title. On a final note of the rating PG-13 for the film, he says that it was given this due to the outrageous moving violations and tough-guy talk.

Todd McCarthy of Variety gave this film the lowest score on Metacritic.com with 20 out of 100. He says that the film tried to bring back some memories and start up the engine one more time but unfortunately, it fall ways short of all the films in the franchise. He finishes his review says that it is time for everyone to just move on.

Critic Watch: Duplicity

Directed by: Tony Gilroy
Written by: Tony Gilroy
Produced by: Laure Bickford and Jennifer Fox
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Paul Giamatti

Julia Roberts and Clive Owen star in Duplicity, a "twisty romantic thriller," that has most critics raving. Duplicity follows CIA officer Claire Stenwick (Roberts) and MI6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) on their quest to secure a secret formula for their respective companies. Each uses intelligence tactics in an effort to outsmart the other and to achieve victory. As their game gets trickier and dirtier, one thing they didn't expect stands in their way, their growing attraction for each other.

Giving the movie the highest possible rating, 100 out of 100, was Lou Lumenick of The New York Post. Lumenick references many movies throughout his review. He states there is a direct comparison to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and that Duplicity's intricate plot makes Ocean's 11 look like child's play. He also comments on the film's lack of violence and that its IQ is closer to the movie Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Overall he feels the movie is a smart and funny film, topped off with the excellent chemistry between Owen and Roberts.

Giving a good score of 80 out of 100 is Dan Kois of The Washington Post. Kois' first bit of criticism also involves the lack of violence in the film, comparing it to its opposite, the Bourne series. His main complaint with the movie is that Julia Roberts isn't given enough room to "strut her stuff." Other than that he seems to like the movie quite a bit, calling it smart and funny, if only for adults.

Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal give the movie an average score of 60 out of 100. Morgenstern agrees with his fellow critics in saying that the film is indeed of a higher caliber when it comes to intelligence. He feels the plot intricacy is too much, however, and that it takes away from any emotional value the film could have had. He also has a problem with the acting. While the lines are cleverly written, the deliveries of Owen and Roberts leave a lot to be desired. Owen's performance is uninteresting and Roberts, as a result, seems bored.

Kimberly Jones of The Austin Chronicle gives the movie a score of 50 out of 100. The film's opening scene, which contains the only violent scene the other reviews talked about, is one of the problems. The scene, she says, goes on for too long and "turns lumbering." Jones also feels Owen was not at his best here, and that his chemistry with Roberts is essentially nonexistent.

Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film a terrible score of 25 out of 100. He says that, "As a caper film, "Duplicity" is a fizzle. As a mystery, it's a cheat." He says that Gilroy does all the wrong things when it comes to corporate espionage. The only pleasures the movie has are incidental, Robert's eyes, Owen in a dark suit, and Paul Giamatti, who plays a corporate owner, at his comedic best. The movie's main problem is its lack of a good script or good direction.

Overall the reviews for this movie are about average. Its total rating is 69 out of 100, which isn't bad, but it also isn't the best movie out there. Certain points critics rave about in some reviews are the subject of disapproval in others. The reviews are so mixed that perhaps the best idea is to jugde it for yourself.

Blog Review: Monsters Vs. Aliens

Monsters Vs. Aliens
Directed by: Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon
Written by: Maya Forbes and Wallace Wolodarsky
Produced by: Jill Hopper, Latifa Ouaou, and Lisa Stewart
Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, and Will Arnett

Monsters Vs. Aliens, another film by Dreamworks, contains a familiar concept, human mutants who were once outcasts must now fight to save the world. While the movie won't have an overall appeal like the X-Men movies did, it will appeal to its target audience, children.

The movie begins with a young woman named Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), who initially seems to have the perfect life. She has a supportive family and fiancee who has a good job and who seems to absolutely adore her. Life for Susan doesn't remain so happy for long. A few minutes before her wedding, she struck by what seems to be a meteorite from space. After being found and cleaned off by her mother, the wedding begins as planned. Things seem to be going fine until Susan beings to glow a bright green. In a matter of seconds, she grows to the size of the room and beyond. The military already knew about the meteorite and were outside of the church, ready to attack. They quickly bring Susan down.

When Susan wakes up, she is in unfamiliar territory. Shortly after she meets her unlikely comrades, Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), B.O.B. (Seth Rogen), and The Missing Link (Will Arnett). Accompanying them is their pet-like friend Insectosaurus. She soon learns that, like her, these creatures were once normal humans as well. She also learns that now she is a gigantic "monster," the government intends to keep her in confinement the rest of her life. The government soon changes their decision, however, when they are attacked by a giant alien robot. Susan and her friends must now go from prisoners to heroes.

Considering this movie is aimed towards children, it is very well done. The jokes and sight gags are enough to keep the children and also the adults entertained for its 90 minute running time. The characters are likable and very funny, specifically the dumb and innocent B.O.B. The writers even insert a touch of drama when Susan's fiancee breaks up with her because she was stealing his thunder. Overall the movie balances action, comedy and drama very well.

The only problem, which in part is due to its genre, is its plot. While its basic idea seems somewhat new and interesting, it fails in execution. Despite its quirky and lovable characters, the plot is very predictable. Any adult member of the audience could guess its outcome fairly early on. The movie is indeed a kids movie however, which means plot progression might have taken a back seat to the comedy aspect. The movie is still entertaining and it ended the way it had to in order to be a successful children's story.

Monsters Vs. Aliens is a children's movie that is very well done. It has great visuals, jokes that appeal to any age, and lovable characters. While its plot is somewhat predictable, it still has a high entertainment factor. This movie is definitely recommended, especially for children and their families.

Blog (DVD Review): More Than Vampires in Twilight

Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke
Novel by: Stephenie Mayer
Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg
Produced by: Marty Bowen and WyckGodfrey
Starring: Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson

Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Boy can't have girl because of some social or personal limitation. Boy falls in love with girl anyway. Sounds exactly like a classic love story. In the case of Twilight, the word classic doesn't really describe it correctly. Based off of a novel series by Stephenie Mayer, Twilight combines romance with horror, desires with responsibility. Just like Edward and Bella's romance, the movie leaves the audience wanting a little bit more.

Bella (played by Kristen Stewart) has just moved in with her father and must attend a new school. Relocating to a new school mid-year is hard enough for anyone, but it's even harder when you're a loner. Bella makes a few acquaintances fairly quickly however, including the odd and elusive Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson). Edward and his family are a close knit group and rarely interact with the rest of the students. Bella however, seems to be an exception with Edward. Soon the two become close, contrary to Edward's wishes. Edward loves Bella, but he has a problem. He is a vampire and the scent of her blood entices him unlike any other. Eventually he is able to overcome the scent for the most part, and discovers that his love for her exceeds his need for blood.

Initially, I was quite hesitant to see this movie. I haven't read the books, but anything that causes hoards of fourteen year old girls to crowd a Walmart two hours before its DVD release doesn't sound like something I would be interested in. I was actually quite surprised. I've heard from avid fans of the book that the plot differs from the book too much, so I was glad that I saw the movie first. The plot seemed to progress well, and if you can overcome that fact that the film is a hopeless love story, it can be very enjoyable. Dreary, rainy settings helped to create a less romantic, more sinister tone. The acting was fairly good and the characters were believable.

The movie isn't flawless though. One problem I had was with certain areas of the script. At times it seemed a bit too corny for my tastes, but such is to be expected from the type of love story it is. Nevertheless, the statements made seemed cheesey, even for two teenagers in love. Another issue I had was with the make-up jobs given to certain characters. Edward and his father were too pale. Granted they are supposed to be vampires, but they also live in a society surrounded by humans. They would find it nearly impossible to go unnoticed with such an appearance.

Canon aside, Twilight is a well done movie. Quality acting and some nice visuals prevent the questionable script and love-soaked storyline from bringing it down. The movie, however, will never be judged solely on its own merits. The viewer will have some type of bias going into it, whether it be love of the book or fear of its fan girl popularity. In order to enjoy (or not enjoy) the movie to its fullest, the viewers must clear their minds of any preconceived ideas, and only then can they make an unbiased judgment.

DVD Review: Bolt

Directed By: Byron Howard and Chris Williams
Screenplay By: Dan Fogelman and Chris Williams
Produced By: Clark Spencer
Starring: John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman and Mark Walton


Every weekend, millions of families take a trip to go see a movie. Most prefer to see a fun-filled, laughter inducing movie that will make the children happy. From directors Byron Howard and Chris Williams comes thrills and adventures filled with stunts and silliness. Bolt is a movie that takes the most unlikeliest set of animals and throws them together.

Bolt (John Travolta) is a genetically altered super dog that protects his human, Penny (Miley Cyrus). From the opening scene, we follow Bolt and Penny as they dodge evil henchman after evil henchman to save Penny's father. As a member of the audience, we are made to believe this is going to be an action-packed movie with a lot of thrills and nail-biting close calls. We closely watch as Bolt assists Penny hoping that they will make it out unharmed while knowing that the heroes could never be injured. This is what we expect from years and years of watching our favorite superheroes.

When Bolt and Penny finally beat all the henchman, we think Penny will be able to save her father. That is until she she steps into her trailer. All the excitement up to this point was shot purposefully for a television show. In the back of our minds we're thinking, "What?" We don't expect to be fooled in this way. Although we know the truth now, there is someone who still believes this is all real: Bolt. Bolt is kept on the set at all times to ensure that he believes that it is real. He knows nothing of the truth. So when Penny gets kidnapped for the show, Bolt believes Penny really is kidnapped. Angry, Bolt escapes from his trailer.

After some mishaps, Bolt ends up on the other side of the country. Knowing he'll need help to get back to Penny, Bolt enlists the help of the enemy of all dogs, a cat named Mittens (Susie Essman). Still refusing to believe reality, Bolt drags Mittens along for the ride. During their road trip across America, they meet a hamster in a ball looking for excitement, Rhino (Mark Walton). With the addition of a new team member comes more laughter. Rhino serves as comedic relief. No matter what it is Rhino does, it will be sure to entice laughs from anyone. His laughter becomes contagious and with it comes a warm-fuzzy feeling. You can't help but to fall in love with Rhino.

Aside from all the comedy, there is also a seriousness when Bolt finally decides to accept reality and when we learn of Mittens' past. In both instances, there is no laughter as we watch both characters desperately searching for answers. But with each other's help, Bolt and Mittens find exactly what they want. From here, their relationship develops from bitter rivals to good friends. Their development can be summed up in one word: awww. This is also the feeling we get when we watch the ending scenes.

Bolt is a movie that has a wide audience range. Although it is targeted mostly towards a younger audience, anyone can enjoy it. Filled with thrills, laughter and heart-wrenching scenes, we come out with smiles upon our faces. We can't help watching just how each character will turn out in the end: better or worse. As we follow their adventures, we hope for the former.