Prometheus Review

Where did life originate? Is there a god? Can faith and science coexist? Should you wear a helmet? These are just some of the many questions we ask ourselves in life, and Prometheus is no different. Although, it really only adequately answers the helmet question (with a resounding "Yes! Quit taking your helmets off!"), while the rest of the questions are left with muddy, forgettable, mindlessly silly answers. Don't go into this movie expecting to have an interesting philosophical discussion with friends afterwards. You may leave the theater initially thinking that such a discussion would be fun, but you'll quickly realize that the only things worth talking about in the movie are the scenes themselves. And wow are they fantastic.

From the opening landscape flyovers of Earth, to the final shot of the movie, I could barely take my eyes off of the screen (except when I felt the need to cover my face with my hands entirely). As much as I would prefer to avoid words like "gorgeous," "stunning," or "mesmerizing,"  the visuals in this movie truly do inspire awe. I was transported to another world, a world I believed could exist, and a world I never want to visit. The entire movie is a visual masterpiece. It's a lesson to all other movie cinematography for how to do their job right. I could go back and watch the Prometheus landing sequence at the beginning of the movie a dozen times and not get bored. The same goes for just about every other sequence in the movie. It rips you out of your current life and makes you believe you are somewhere else entirely.

It's not just the looks that won me over. This movie is intense. It's dang intense. This isn't some super hero movie where you know everyone is going to make it out okay. You quickly realize that things are likely not going to end well for everyone, and the ride to the finish to see how people do make it out of their various dire situations makes for exhausting entertainment. There's a particular medical sequence that I won't spoil, but it was one of the most cringe-worthy, brilliantly paced, incredibly acted sequences that has ever been in a sci-fi movie.

This is Ridley Scott's third foray into Science Fiction, a genre he hasn't dipped his toes in since 1982 with Blade Runner, and before that the original Alien movie in 1979. Many people will describe or have mentioned that Prometheus is a "prequel" to the Alien franchise, but it doesn't quite fit into that category. Prometheus does not directly tie in to the first Alien movie, although it does set up events that lead you to realize that there are connections. What left me the most amused was how Ridley Scott appeared to intentionally give the finger to the Alien vs. Predator movies by setting up a timeline that without a doubt proves that they no way take place in the same universe. Alien vs. Predator is to the Alien Universe as Super Smash Brothers is to the Zelda Universe. Now you know.

I can't wait to see if Ridley Scott stays in the sci-fi genre for a little while. I would love him to, as we don't have enough big sci-fi movies. After seeing Prometheus, I can safely say that he still has the skill in him to do it. That being said, Prometheus isn't without its flaws. I failed to notice while watching the movie (because of how engrossed and entertained I was), but the story is messy and borderline nonsensical. The motivations that certain main characters have are ludicrous, and most of the movies' obstacles could have been avoided if the android, David (played unbelievably well by Michael Fassbender), hadn't done one terribly unnecessary thing to one of the other characters. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed all of the obstacles in the movie and would not have enjoyed the movie were it not without conflict, but I would greatly prefer if Prometheus provided me with at least somewhat plausible reasons for why people do certain things. Again though, I barely payed any attention to these issues and stupid character choices while watching the movie because of how entertained I was.

I can't wait to see Prometheus again, probably on bluray when I get an extended version, and I'd recommend anyone who loves action, sci-fi, or thrillers to see it, despite its flaws. 

If you can, go see it in IMAX 3D. This is one of those few instances where I'm in favor of 3D, mostly because Ridley Scott actually filmed it and intended it to be in 3D. It's great looking, subtle enough, not distracting, and adds to the mood. Additionally, the size and sound of IMAX makes the already great visuals and mood that much more effective. If you have the opportunity to see it in IMAX, pay the extra $5 and do it.

Prometheus: 9/10

The Hunger Games [Book Review]

After well over a year of hearing about The Hunger Games trilogy in podcasts, from friends, from random people, etc, I finally gave it a shot. Admittedly, I was a little bit wary because of it's categorization as "young adult" fiction. However, with the movie coming out soon and everything, I decided I couldn't delay much longer. Thus, I broke down and read it.

Not gonna say a whole lot on it really except to say that the hype holds up. It's genuinely a very entertaining good read, and it goes places I really didn't expect it to go at all (especially in relation to the games). From the very first chapter or two my predictions started completely falling flat. The games themselves were enormously entertaining to read through, and took up a much larger portion of the book than I anticipated.

The only thing I really didn't like (and it is a huge thing) was the main character. Katniss. She was okay at the beginning, and I definitely understand her motivations and thought processes... but I was constantly annoyed with her, especially once the games started. She was so so clueless about how she was affecting other people for almost the whole book. That wasn't fun to read. It was annoying. It made me angry at her character. From the moment Gale entered the scene, I understood his perspective and where he was coming from. From the moment Peeta entered the scene, I understood his perspective and where he was coming from. I feel like at some point or another I've been in both of their positions. Katniss though? She had no freaking clue about anything. Everything with her felt extremely selfishly motivated and uncaring towards others' emotions. I couldn't handle it.

At this point, I'm debating whether I even want to read the 2nd book. All the end of the 1st book did was set up team Edward/Jacob situation that I don't care about at all. If there's a genuinely exciting plot with cool stuff going on, I'll read it, but I definitely don't feel like it's going there at this point.

It's strange. I'd still recommend the book to most people, and I genuinely did really really like it... so it's odd that I'm saying so much negative stuff. Maybe it's just a male thing. Maybe females really understand the conflicts that Katniss deals with. I think she deals with those conflicts in the poorest ways possible. She never cares about anyones' emotions except for her own and what the audience might be feeling. It's painful to even read.

What do y'all think? Am I just coming at things from the male perspective? Should I still move on to book 2, or is it exactly what I fear it will be?

The Hunger Games: 8/10

Reviews - Karate (?), Toys, and Inception

Haven't written anything in a while, sorry about that! I was planning on doing full length reviews for all of the movies below, but alas, I don't see myself getting to that. Ever. Thus, something is better than nothing!! So here goes.


This is one of those movies I had no intention of seeing. I have no real emotional connection to the original Karate Kid (though I did see it when I was younger), so the remake idea didn't appeal to me. However, I'm a sucker for popular opinion and once I saw that the reviews were in the positive, my interest was peaked.

The Karate Kid is all about Kung Fu, not Karate at all. Strike one against it. The cinematography is great... admittedly it mostly only shows the toursity side of China, but even still it's gorgeous. I loved that they actually did show old people on exercise machines outside and people dancing in the streets. I became emotionally involved in the movie the moment the plane started taking off for Beijing. The time-lapse of a 15 hour flight was awesome.

Overall this is a fun movie. It has some heart and I was genuinely interested in Dre's and Mr. Han's character arcs. Dre's little middle school relationship however was completely silly. I'd recommend most people watch this movie. Maybe rent it once it comes out, or if you have kids you should 100% watch it with them. It's a great great movie to take boys to, especially when very little live-action cinema is targeting them. The martial arts sequences are fun, the tournament is very exciting, and by the end of the movie you may even stand up and cheer like the lady in front of me in the theater did.

Potential based on Preview: 6/10
Overall Score: 7.5/10



Pixar does it again! Does this even need a review? It's Pixar's most famous property and we all know they have the golden touch. The same is true here. Toy Story 3 is incredibly good. Rather than really review it, I'll just say why it has a special place in my heart...

To start, it came out when I was about the same age as the main character, Andy. Given that my name is Andrew, we could relate. At the end of Toy Story 1, Andy gets a small dog named Buster. I have a small dog named Buster. In Toy Story 2, Woody meets a cowgirl whose owner's name is Emily. My sister's name is Emily. Basically as each new Toy Story came out, it borderline perfectly matched my age and point in life at the time. Is all of this a reason to love the films? No not really, but the fact that they hold up so well and were some of my favorite movies growing up give them a special spot in my heart.

Toy Story 3 is a perfect ending to a near perfect trilogy. It could even be the best film trilogy in existence. Toy Story 3 is emotionally satisfying, being both sad and happy at the same time. It has a great action/suspense sequence in the middle, it delves into very deep human emotions and even some philosophical issues... but it's still able to keep all of that together with one cohesive narrative. The characters stay true to themselves and everything ends exactly how it should. Exactly. I mean to the last frame you see on the screen, which references the very beginning of the first movie. Brilliant.

Potential based on Preview: 9/10
Overall Score: 9/10



Inception was easily my #1 most anticipated movie of the whole year. It's the 7th feature length movie from Christopher Nolan (Following, Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight)... basically he's awesome. Lucky for me, Inception is just another notch in his list of awesome movies.

First off, let me say that this movie is absolutely non-stop information for the first hour and a half and non-stop crazy rollercoaster for the last hour. If you leave the theater for any reason or any length of time during the movie, you WILL miss something relatively important. Another consequence of this is that even if you stay in the theater the whole time, you have to be focused on the movie. That's not to say the plot is confusing. In fact, I think the plot is really really simple, more so than most movies these days. But the rules required for the plot and the manner in which the sequences occur can be jarring and trick people into thinking it is a confusing movie. Inception is not a confusing movie.

Just to say how much I like his movie, it's currently tied for #1 as my favorite movie of the year (if you read this blog ever you can guess my #1). The set pieces are mind blowing. The use of practical effects still confuses me... clearly the floaty-scenes were not CG, but how did they do it!? Mind has been boggled. Joseph Gorden Levitt steals the whole movie with his action-centric role. The love story between DiCaprio and his wife effects me every time. I can find very very few faults in Inception. The only major flaw is that the first hour and a half is not very re-watchable. Having seen Inception 3 times now, I'd now just like to fast forward to when the characters get in the 747. That's not to say the first hour and a half is bad, it just doesn't hold up to multiple viewings, and truly genius films should hold up all the way through.

Bottom line though, if you only see one movie this summer, make it Inception!! Actually you should probably see Scott Pilgrim vs. The World too, but it isn't out yet so you can't.

Potential based on Preview: 10/10
Overall Score: 9.5/10

Movie Quickies!

So I've seen a number of movies the past few weeks, many of them a bit older, some newer. Here are some quick reviews/opinions of them!


From Paris With Love - Fairly standard little action movie. Best thing about it was that it wasn't very long. Not very good but not entirely atrocious either. It had some funny moments.
Overall Score: 5/10

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly - A big "list of shame movie." And by that, I mean it's one of those movies I feel bad never having seen. Really good film too. Great acting, great story. It moves pretty slowly but even still I wouldn't have considered turning it off. Total classic.
Overall Score: 9/10

Kick Ass - The most recent release on here by far, Kick Ass only came out a few weeks ago and is still in theaters. I've seen it twice now so I must like it. It's fun, it's bloody, and it's mature, but it's also hilarious and is quite the interesting take on the super hero genre. It is not for kids even though it appears to be marketed for kids... kind of annoying because that means the target audience, guys my age, isn't going to see it. And if they did see it, they would LOVE it.
Overall Score: 9/10

12 Monkeys - I've been hearing cool things about this movie for a little while now and I must say, people are correct. A guy from the future is sent back to the past in order to fix the future, but he keeps being thrown back to the wrong time. This is another one of those that asks questions, namely "can we really change the past or are our futures already written?"
Overall Score: 8/10

Rear Window - Another "list of shame" movie. It's actually the first Alfred Hitchcock movie I'd ever seen. I really really loved this one. It clearly holds up well with time. It honestly felt more like a present day indie-movie considering its themes and smaller scale. Definitely an impressive work.
Overall Score: 10/10

My Kid Could Paint That - Random and interesting documentary about a 5 year old girl who paints abstract art and sells it for tens of thousands of dollars. Is this proof that abstract art is pointless? Was she the real artist? What's the nature of storytelling and is it all just one big lie? Very unique documentary with a lot of questions and very few answers.
Overall Score: 8/10

Moon - I actually saw this last summer when it came to Huntsville. I thought I reviewed it but apparently I didn't, or at least I can't find the review anywhere. This is a small sci-fi movie from a first time director starring primarily only one person, Sam Rockwell. The themes are awesome and the technological questions it raises are insightful. Sam Rockwell has one of the best performances I've ever seen. I get something new out of this movie each time I see it.
Overall Score: 9.5/10

Review - Iron Man 2

I'll start by saying that I don't want people to get the wrong idea about Iron Man 2 when reading this review. It is not a bad movie. I enjoyed watching it. It was fun seeing it opening night and the company was good (though the crowd was a bit rowdy, which is to be expected I suppose). Iron Man 2 is an acceptable sequel and does a lot of things okay. It also does a lot of things not-okay.

Iron Man 2 is plagued by excessiveness, in a bad way. It has too much of everything. It has too much humor, and all of it felt forced. It repeats many of the same jokes from the first movie without making them any more interesting (yes, we get it, you have a stupid robot that knocks stuff over). Most of the laughs are cheap, predictable, and cater to the lowest common denominator. Tony Stark's narcissism is so overblown from the first film that it stops being funny and just becomes obnoxious. There are too many characters that we are supposed to care about, and I found myself not caring about any of them. The movie just has so much going on that it can't dedicate the time necessary to actually make me care and connect.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I didn't like the action either. Once again, it was "too much." By that I don't mean there was too much action in the movie. In fact, large portions of the movie had zero action. Instead, I mean the action that was present was so busy with so many enemies and so much going on that I could barely follow it. Iron Man 1's action was incredible. It was simple. It had a "wow" factor with every moment. Iron man would fly in, land, quickly disable like 8 people, smoothly take out a tank like it was nothing... there was never all that much going on, but every single moment just screamed "cool." It never gave me too much and always left me wanting a little bit more. Iron Man 2 completely fails in this area. I couldn't wait for the action scenes to end. Also, I'm really bored by Iron Man fighting other Iron Men. The worst scene in Iron Man 1 was when he faced off with Obadiah. This movie was that scene blown to more epic proportions. Yes, we get it, Tony fights other guys in metal suits that are trying to copy him. Give me something interesting! Batman had Ras Al Ghul, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Penguin. Spider Man had Green Goblin, Dr. Oc, Sandman, Venom. Iron Man has Big Iron Man, Friend Iron Man, Lots of Iron Men, and Iron Man With Electricity. It's stupid. Finally, my last complaint about the action has to do with Black Widow. Her scenes were terrible. T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. Whenever she did cool fighting moves it looked like frames were skipping and she was either CG or her stunt double was doing stuff. Then, it would show a close up of Scarlett's face looking awesome. Then back to a long shot of choppiness, CG, and stunt doubles. Then back to a close up of her face to create the illusion that she did that. Once again, stupid.

I'm usually not one to nitpick about things being unrealistic in movies, especially super hero movies, but I was really bothered by a lot of little stupid occurrences in the movie. For instance, Tony's creation of a new element was probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a movie all year. It made zero sense. He shot a laser onto a triangle and created a new element. What!? At least the ridiculous science of the first movie I could somewhat grasp. Another scene that really bugged me was when Whiplash first encounters Tony at the race track. He perfectly aimed his slashes cutting cars in half, dodging rubble, etc... it was awesome. Then he gets right next to the car trying to protect Tony and about all he can do is slash the doors and mirrors off. Watching him slash at the car made me think that he actually wanted everyone in that scenario to survive and he was just trying to scare them... which makes no sense and isn't what was intended. Sure, you could argue that he was just hit by a car and is less capable, but he seemed more than capable fighting Iron Man after all of that. Also, I think Tony Stark's driver must be a super hero too. How else could he drive the opposite direction on a Formula 1 track while cars are still racing and never get hit? And after huge explosions and cars being obliterated, why was the race continuing? Shouldn't the guys in radios have told them to stop? Maybe? Then there was Tony's party when he was dressed in the Iron Man suit. There were people all around him, borderline crowding him, and he was blowing up wine bottles, glasses, windows, etc, while all of them cheered. Glass was falling ALL OVER THEM. Yet they just stood there and beg for more. WHAT!? REALLY?

Not only did I not like the action and find a lot of stupidly distracting scenarios, but I thought the flow of the movie was quite bad. I think this has to do with the impromptu nature of the script, where actors would really decide on the fly what to say a lot of times. It caused many of the scenes to transition oddly. The huge cast and multi-story-line structure also really caused each scene to connect poorly to the following scenes, really disrupting flow. It made Iron Man 2 feel very long. At 2 hours and 5 minutes, it already wouldn't be considered a short movie, but it felt longer to me because of the poor flow. Finally, I felt like the atmosphere in the movie was really off. Iron Man 1 was bright and big. It had cool flights in the clouds on a sunny day, the scale felt large as he traveled all around the middle east, in LA, etc. Iron Man 2 is either at the Stark Expo in NYC or at Tony's house. It just felt small, especially for the amount of things going on. On top of that, it was night time in all the big fight scenes (not counting race track). The best fight scenes of the first Iron Man were in the day where you could really see everything and get an epic sense of scale. Here, it was all at night making it hard to follow and much less visually interesting. The cool factor Iron Man really has is that he's in a suit that can fly. Putting that suit in the dark takes away a lot of the crowd pleasing eye candy and flight scenes.

There. I got that out of my system. Now for the positive. All of the actors were really good. Mickey Rourke did a great job as a Russian, Sam Rockwell played a fantastic Iron Man wannabe jerk, Scarlett Johansson did a good job as a secretive and shadowy operative, Robert Downey Jr was his hilarious self as usual, and Gwyneth Paltrow... well, she was okay, I never find her to be too impressive in anything she is in. Don Cheadle did an acceptable job replacing Terrance Howard as Rhody.

I also really enjoyed how Iron Man 2 connected itself to other movies in the Marvel lineup. The subtle lines indicating that SHIELD was going after The Hulk, the old Captain America shield, Thor's hammer... most people watching the movie won't catch all the references, but I think Marvel is doing a very good job bringing the films together for the eventual Avenger movie. That should be great fun. And hopefully it'll be more fun than Iron Man 2. It better be!

In short, Iron Man 2 was about what I expected after watching the trailer. I was not disappointed by it mainly because my expectations were a bit iffy to begin with. It's not a bad movie, but it definitely isn't great. It's an acceptable addition to Marvel's lineup and should transition well into their next movies. If you enjoyed the first movie, like summer blockbusters in general, and can turn your mind off a bit, you probably won't be disappointed by Iron Man 2. You may even like it. But Iron Man 1 is a better movie.

Potential based on Preview: 6/10
Actual movie: 6/10

Review - How to Train Your Dragon

I'll be honest. I had absolutely no plans on seeing this movie. I thought the name sounded kind of lame and childish. I didn't hear much buzz leading up to it. To top that off, it's a Dreamworks Animation movie. I am not a fan of Dreamworks Animation or anything they put out. Pixar blows them out of the water every single time. Check out this graphic as proof. No, seriously, click that and read it. You back yet? Okay, tell me that you're looking forward to a Dreamworks Animation movie. Correct. You aren't. And you probably shouldn't be. Do I make myself clear? Anyways, I felt all of these things until I read an article on my favorite film site, slashfilm.com, begging everyone to go out and see it. I still doubted. I then checked out rottentomatoes.com and noticed it had a 97% rating with 108 reviews. With all these signs piling on, I decided I had to see it.

This movie absolutely made my day. It is fantastic. Absolutely everything about it is fantastic. From the opening scenes to the end, a smile barely left my face. To briefly explain what you're getting into when you see the movie, the main character's name is Hiccup and is the son of the head of a group of vikings. Hiccup is the opposite of everything a viking should be and is often informed of this. Other vikings are overweight, burly, brutish, and all of them have killed a dragon. Hiccup rightly thinks that the only way he will ever be accepted by his father, his community, and a certain girl is if he is able to kill a dragon, thus begins his quest. However, things are not always as they seem in the world of dragons... and yes, that is how I'm ending my description of the plot haha.

The plot is heartwarming, exhilarating, and though many events are easily predictable, that does not take away from their enjoyment. The characters are all hilarious. Vikings are portrayed in a really comical way that never gets old, and their lines, even the ones you can barely hear in the background, are all great. The real treat however is Hiccup's in interactions with a dragon that doesn't talk back. It is up to the animators to make that relationship real, and here they definitely succeed.

My favorite part of the whole experience is the cinematography. The use of the camera (or fake camera in the case of animation) is what makes the movie soar, and the 3D only helps to enhance the experience. I'm not a believer in 3D but I enjoyed the 3D in this more than I did Avatar or Up. A few shots really gave you an awesome sense of flying. The camera sweeps around characters, takes a 3rd person person video-game-like perspective in some flying sequences, locks on to side views of characters where they don't move but the background does... I could go on and on. It actually felt like a ride. Not only was I being entertained by an engrossing story, but I was having fun. Fun! I don't remember the last time I could say that I had a really fun time in the movie theater... maybe Fantastic Mr. Fox? Not that these movies are similar but still.

If you have kids or knows anyone with kids, you absolutely 100% have to take them to go see this movie or tell other people that they have to go. If you're like me, a 20-something single who feels weird going into a matinee of a childrens movie, suck it up and go with some people. And see it in 3D. You will not be disappointed. There is no possible way you will be disappointed. This movie is great. How to Train Your Dragon definitely deserves the highest score I've given to a movie that was released this year. And you know what else? Pixar finally might actually have some competition for best animated feature this upcoming year! Crazy!

Potential based on Preview: 7/10
Actual Movie: 10/10

Reviews - Annie Hall and Pride and Prejudice

Annie Hall is one of Woody Allen's highest praised and least watched movies. I've been meaning to watch it for the past year but have never been able to find it, and I don't want to buy a movie I've never seen. Honestly, it's the primary reason I started doing Netflix. Once I saw it on there, I realized I had to make the leap. That's fairly strange considering it's taken me about 10 movies from Netflix before I actually watched it.

Annie Hall is 1977's (500) Days of Summer. Or maybe that should be reversed. Semantics. If I'm comparing it to (500) Days, you probably already know that's a pretty good complement. In fact, I'm pretty sure (500) Days grabbed a lot of its techniques from Annie! It starts out after a breakup and goes back in time to re-live how it all happened. Woody Allen plays Alvy while his love interest, Annie, is played by Diane Keaton. Every scene has a different flow and way of expressing what is going on. One has text-over-vid declaring what the characters are actually thinking when they say things. Another does split screen between his parents eating dinner and hers eating dinner, comparing their families. Other scenes break the 4th wall and have Wooden Allen start narrating to the camera about what's going on around him. Annie Hall is extremely creative in these ways, especially for its time. It feels like what we would now consider an "indie" movie, when the '70s didn't really have an indie movie scene.

The two main characters are likely barely relate-able to any person I've ever met, so it was more an interesting window into the lives of two people I've never in my life met anyone like. The characters are both funny and honest. Annie Hall is well directed and has an amazing script. I find myself not liking it as much as I originally wanted to though. Don't get me wrong, I did like it a lot, but sometimes I struggle with being able to watch "older" movies without being fairly bored. The further back in time movies go, the less I can actually connect to anything going on, and the more detached from the screen I become. Some movies are more actual windows into the period of time they were filmed in. If that is the case, I don't have the same problem. I felt it slightly with Annie though. It definitely holds up over time and is a good movie. If you're easily offended or don't like some of the drugs/sex stuff that came out of the '60s, you may not like it a lot though... there's definitely some of that.

Overall Score: 8/10


Everyone knows the story; it's a confusing, convoluted, contrived soap opera from the 1800s. The vast majority of males cringe at the name, while the majority of females glow at the mere hint of a reference to it. The original book came out in 1813. As many as 11 movies have been made based off of it, along with 1 overly watched television series. So which one am I talking about now? The 2005 version with Keira Knightley directed by Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist).

I'll make this short because I'm actually fairly embarrassed that I willingly chose to watch it, and even more ashamed that I liked it. Then again, I probably shouldn't be... most people first decide what entertainment they like based off of the social norms of the people around them. If you're like me and consider yourself a fan of an entire medium of entertainment, it wouldn't be irregular to find yourself also stepping outside of the social norms of what people around you like. Thus, it's okay that I liked it. There, I feel better.

So why would I break norms by liking this movie? There are numerous reasons. I'll start with the musical score. It fits the movie like a glove and improves every scene. The score accentuates the best parts of the film as the camera and characters themselves move along with the score. Joe Wright really knows what he's doing with music in his films. The score in Pride and Prejudice flows the same wonderful way that it moved in Atonement. The cinematography for Pride and Prejudice is also incredible. It's the same way for every scene: the frame can be paused, a still can be taken, then framed, and hung on the wall. Not to mention the incredible camera work! Some of the long takes were incredible (even when they were tricks). The biggest surprise of all for me was the pacing. It kept me interested in a story I never took any pleasure in before. Throw on top of that some great performances, and you have yourself a good movie. Those things are what makes a movie good. Doesn't mean you have to like it though - I'm talking you all you males out there.

Overall Score: 9/10

Review - Shutter Island

Shutter Island comes to us from acclaimed and academy award winning director Martin Scorsese (The Departed, Goodfellas, The Aviator, many more). Shutter Island is a mystery thriller starring Leonardo Dicaprio as a U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels. Teddy and a fellow marshal have taken a job on Shutter Island, an island with a hospital for dangerous and mentally unstable criminals, where they are tasked to find out about a missing patient. As you can probably expect from the previews, things are not quite as they seem. I will caution you however and note that the previews are misleading. It is not a horror movie. It has some scary parts, but it is NOT a horror movie. Some people are going into it wanting that, which is why I warn.

From the outset, the audience is put in the position of mystery solving. We are presented with situations that just aren't "right," we see things that can't possibly be, unanswerable questions are everywhere, and all authority figures are reluctant to divulge anything. We are meant to be both confused and curious. It is an extremely effective technique that keeps the audience guessing and not-quite-sure, always waiting for the inevitable reveal.

I'm not going to spoil anything, so don't worry. There is a special place in hell for people that spoil movies that are based around a reveal. It's not too much to say that your questions while watching Shutter Island will in fact be answered - basically every single one of them. I will say this though... there is a second "twist" moment that most people I saw the movie with didn't catch or understand. If you catch it, in my mind it is better than the main reveal. It makes the movie. So keep your ears open for one specific line of dialogue near the end. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Scorsese's direction of Shutter Island is incredible. The shots are extremely well framed. A special mention needs to be made for his dream sequences though. They are beyond great. I was completely taken by them. The dreams are absolutely stunningly gorgeous and disturbing, with amazing imagery, tension, and general creepiness. There were no other times in the movie that I was as glued to the screen as I was during the dream sequences.

The score for the movie was also top-notch. I would never choose to play it while I study or write blogs or anything; it isn't that kind of a score. It's perfect for Shutter Island and not much beyond that. It is tension inducing and nerve frying, yet filled with beauty and love in just the right moments.

It goes without saying that the acting is also great. When your cast includes the likes of Leonardo Dicaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Jackie Earle Haley, and Ben Kingsly, not much can go wrong. Thus, I shall move on to the negatives. Most of the special effects were fantastic, but one shot in both the trailer and movie continues to bug me. There's an overhead shot showing the old Civil War part of the hospital that just looks entirely computer generated. There's a chance that it isn't even computer generated, but it sure looks that way. Also, there was a sequence in a cave that I was completely bored by. It was way too long and had way too much exposition, so much so that I didn't even know what the characters were talking about by the end of it. Finally, I thought the main reveal lasted a little too long. I'm glad all questions were answered, but it took a lot of time to answer each one. Having said that, I think the reveal was less for the audience in that moment as it was for the characters involved in the reveal. Even though the audience already knew the reveal, the length of the sequence was probably because the characters actually needed time to deal with that reveal. Seeing how they dealt with it was in fact interesting.

So. Shutter Island. Should you see it? Yes. Instead of asking who this movie is for, I'm going to switch it up and say who it isn't for. It is not for people that dislike movies filled with dialogue, dislike having to give complete focus to a movie, dislike being unnerved/creeped out, or dislike movies with people suffering from mental illnesses. At 2 hours and 18 minutes, it is also a commitment to sit through, though it is shorter than Avatar, and that movie did phenomenally well with the public so run-time may not actually be a factor with most people. If you are none of those things, then you should see Shutter Island. And remember what I said... pay attention at the very end.

Potential based on Preview: 7/10
Actual Movie: 9/10

Reviews - An Education and The Lives of Others

I saw An Education a few weeks ago in my ongoing mission to watch all of the nominees for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year. I did the same thing last year when there were only 5 movies to watch, and I only saw 4 of them (never caught Frost/Nixon). This year there are 10 nominees. I've seen 8. Still have Precious and A Serious Man remaining. We'll see if I end up seeing those. Anyways, I'm completely off subject on what a review should be.

An Education is about a 16 year old girl, Jenny, in Britain in the 60s at an all girls school. Jenny wants adventure and she doesn't see any point in the things they are teaching her in school. She's obsessed with the French language, art, classical music, fashion, etc. She's basically similar to what we would now call a hipster. She ends up finding this adventure in a man in his 30s, David. Like The Lives of Others below, this movie is about the transformation of a character. It's primarily a love story, but it's so much more as well. It's about being realistic, the necessity of schooling, what it means to grow older, and finding purpose in life. I really enjoyed this movie. I wouldn't rank it above some of the other Oscar nominees out there, but it's still very good. It also manages to get its story across while not moving past PG-13 content, so that goes in its favor in my book too. That definitely makes it a more accessible film anyways.


Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 8.5/10



The Lives of Others takes place in East Germany in 1984. It's about the "stasi," the people that are constantly monitoring and surveying suspects that oppose the government. More specifically, it's about one member of the group, Wiesler, who has to monitor a famous writer. Wiseler is an extremely dynamic and round character, consistently being presented with situations that change him and his philosophies about his role and the government's role in the citizens lives.

This is a very very good movie. For one, it is a subject that I find incredibly interesting and thought provoking. Surveillance is still commonplace in many countries across the world, and it has had an effect on countless lives over the years. More than just having an interesting subject, The Lives of Others succeeds greatly as a film. The tension in the drama is spot on. The characters are all believable, from being realistically despicable to lovable. And the ending... I won't give anything away, but the ending is awesome. The ending made the slightly slower middle portion of the movie totally worth it. I was dissapointed in 2007 when Pan's Labyrinth lost the Best Foreign Language Film to The Lives of Others. I still think I prefer Pan's Labyrinth, but I can completely see why this movie ended up taking the Oscar.

So who is this movie for? It is subtitled so that might turn some people off. Also, you can imagine the kind of content a movie has when it is based around being able to have video and audio surveillance in someone's house. It deservedly gets an R rating. That may also come from its European creators. Knowing those things, decide for yourself if it's for you or not.


Potential based on Preview: 9/10
Actual Movie: 9/10

Reviews - 3 okay flicks, 1 great movie

The Blind Side is a very well made feel-good movie. I enjoyed it. I'm sure everyone who was going to see it has probably seen it by now, so I don't feel the need to praise it any more than it has been praised in those areas.

Personally, I enjoyed the first half of the movie a lot more than the second half. I found Michael's story pre-highschool-football to be much more compelling than everything that happened to him once he got good at the sport. That's not to say the second half of the movie was bad. My interest in the story just began to wane. I really did not care in the least which college football team he chose to play for, and that was the primary focus of the second half.

I guess the only other thing I disliked about the film was the predictability. Yes, I know that it is a true story, and yes I did know before going into the movie that he was going to join the NFL. It's about the journey, not the destination. I went into the movie knowing virtually nothing about the journey, but I was consistently 2 or 3 steps ahead of where it was going at all times. The situations were predictable, and I could say some lines before they even came out of peoples' mouths. I like not knowing those kinds' of things. Not knowing keeps me on my toes, engaged, and not bored. That's purely the fault of a loose script, not the actual true story. As I said though, it is a good movie and I'd recommend it to just about anyone, unless you don't have a heart to begin with. I suppose if you don't have a heart to begin with, maybe you should see it just to find out what your missing.

Potential based on Preview: 4/10
Actual Movie: 7/10



Rushmore is the second film by Wes Anderson, director of such movies as The Royal Tenenbaums and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I loved both of those movies so I decided to give one of his earlier ones a go. Rushmore is a really good movie, but I like some of his other movies better. It's a funny movie, it's got a creative story, and the characters are all very hilarious, but something about the pacing kept me detached. By the halfway point I was ready for it to reach its finale even though it clearly wasn't in a place where it could do that. My opinion on the film may be affected by a few things though. The DVD quality is absolutely terrible, and I believe other than VHS that's the only way the movie can be seen. It's a widescreen DVD made for a 3:4 television, meaning if you play it on a 16:9/16:10 TV it stretches everything. I ended up watching it on my computer monitor, which kept it at the right aspect ratio, but that experience is never as good as a TV. When I watch movies on my computer, I'm always distracted. Hence why this review doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Uh. Yeah.

Overall Score: 6.5/10

Dark City is clearly a movie of the 1990s. However, it's themes feel like they came from the 2000s. Here's what I mean by that.

The whole movie feels like it was filmed on a backlot or in a warehouse. It tries to create a large city, but due to the technological limitations of the 90s, the scale is hard to perceive and each set piece feels like it was made of styrofoam, which it probably was. The 90s was when CGI began to take off, but it was still very lacking, and you can tell it from this movie. Most of the special effects are cheesy and borderline laughable.

The story is straight out of the 2000s. Not until then did we really begin seeing a lot of crazy, mindbending, unique stories. Most people say it started with The Matrix is 1999, but I'd argue that this hit those things first in 1998. After that we started getting movies like Memento, Eternal Sunshine, Donnie Darko... movies that are all about our perception of the world around us and how things somehow become twisted. This is that. And it's great. It's very sci-fi and unbelievable, but still quite cool. Don't let the 90s feel put you off.

Overall Score: 7.5/10



Two things: I really really really liked this movie. A lot of people will really really really not like this movie. There. Review done. Okay, I'll say a bit more. There Will Be Blood is a historical epic that takes place in the very early 20th century focused on 30 years of a guy in the oil business in Texas. The closest thing I can compare it to is The Godfather. It's very long, very slow, very detailed, and not very bloody at all. Normally those would be negatives for me, but the story is too incredible for me to be put off. I've heard this movie being compared to No Country For Old Men. That only makes sense for three reasons: It takes place out west, it's really slow, and both movies were nominated for Best Picture during the same year. Other than that, they are completely different. I hated No Country for Old Men.

What really intrigues me about There Will Be Blood are the characters. Almost no one is likable. The main character and oil entrepreneur, Daniel Plainview, is almost completely unlikable. He's all about business, he takes advantage of people, he lies, and he's extremely greedy. The pastor of the local church, Eli Sunday, contrasts Daniel's dis-likability by being completely unlikable himself. He's all about furthering himself, he uses God to gain power, he lies, and he takes advantage of situations. Both Daniel and Eli hide behind a facade of goodness, but from the start of the movie you realize there is very little goodness in either person. What I found interesting is that at one point in the movie, Daniel says, "There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking." I feel like the director/writer of There Will Be Blood takes that line and tries to give us that same view, seeing nothing good in anyone. It is both a compelling and a disturbing experience to watch this movie.

Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 9.5/10

Review - The Book of Eli

I didn't expect much from this movie. It looked like a lame action movie set in an exact replica of the Fallout 3 environment (see below). To top that off, Rotten Tomatoes only gave it a 45% (based off of an average of positive vs. negative reviews throughout the internet/world). Not only that, but I had personal conversations with people who said it was bad, dissapointing, and not worth watching. Then, all of a sudden, a few people said it was good and worth checking out... specifically Wes and Seth, two people that I often clash and disagree with when it comes to movies they like. So to be honest, I'm not sure why I went to go see it today during my very large break. I did go see it though, and I'm glad I did. Their taste was spot on. I may have liked it for different reasons though.

The Book of Eli has been very falsely advertised. It is not an action movie. It has some action, is definitely violent and fairly mature, but most of the movie is completely action-less. My favorite part about the movie is that it takes its themes and its story so seriously, and does a great job of it in the process.

In my review of To Save a Life, I mentioned that I really wish Christianity was brought into Hollywood more often, rather than Christians staying on the outside making their own flicks. This movie was made in Hollywood, and it clearly has Christian themes (though it does water stuff down). I don't think it's spoiling anything to say what the book is, so I'll go ahead and say it... the book is The Bible. I think it's actually better knowing what the book is going into it. The movie takes The Bible extremely seriously. It gives God power, it gives The Bible power, and it shows the true power of faith. As a Christian, I really appreciated how it handled those things. On top of that, it was about human power on Earth and our desire to misuse God and His creation. I could see a non-Christian walking away from the movie still believing that The Bible is a tool to lead the ignorant in order to gain power for oneself. That message is there, to a point. As a Christian, I walk away from The Book of Eli recognizing that God can be twisted around for ugly and upsetting purposes, but if a person truly follows after God, the power of the Bible is so much greater and more meaningful.. It was pretty powerful.

There were some negative things about the movie. I thought that most of the hillbilly characters were laughably acted. Also, some of the scene transitions were pretty gimmicky. At first I thought they were cool transitions, and then I became distracted by the technique. Some of the violence was very over the top. That's not to say I dislike violence in movies; I just thought that some of it didn't fit and was purely there for thrills. The good definitely outweighed the bad in The Book of Eli. I won't spoil anything, but I really really liked the end of the movie. I admit that I saw what was coming before it came, and I was in fact pretty close, but I definitely missed something big. Now you're curious.

So who is this movie for? Not everyone. I'll be the first to admit that. There is a lot of cursing in it, and the few action scenes are all pretty violent. Outside of those action scenes, the movie moves pretty slowly. I loved the pacing, but if you like faster paced films, I think you could be bored. If you enjoy very bleak and not very uplifting post-apocalyptic movies and are interested in seeing how Hollywood handles a movie about the significance of The Bible, go see it. Don't hesitate. But I can't stress this last thing enough... this is not an action movie!

Potential based on Preview: 6/10
Actual Movie: 8.5/10

Review - To Save a Life

Before starting the actual review, I have to set something up that some of you may or may not disagree with. I believe that Christian movies need to be compared to "secular" movies, not to other Christian movies. I feel the same way about music. A Christian band might be great compared to other Christian bands, but if it isn't good when compared to a secular band, then who cares?? So many people throw around the term "Christian" with relation to media as if it is a genre. It is NOT a genre. It is a theme. WAY-FM plays a ton of different genres (rock, r&b, acoustic, rap, pop, alternative) all with the same theme of being Christian. That's one reason I don't like it; when I turn on the radio, I'm in the mood for a specific genre, not a random collection of music with the same theme. But that's another subject. The point is that Christian-themed movies need to be compared to other movies in their respective genres. To Save a Life should be compared to any and all movies that are dramas. That does actually include other Christian-themed dramas like Fireproof, which I'm sure I'll compare it to a lot.

Okay, review. I'm going to start with the negatives because I enjoy pointing out negatives more than I do positives. That's kind of twisted of me, but whatever. If you want the positives, skip past this point.

To put it plainly, To Save a Life has too much going on. Each of the individual stories that are affecting the main character, Jake, are interesting in and of themselves, but there are just too many of them. Specifically, I didn't feel like the story involving his parents' was necessary. That could have been a movie by itself, and it was effective by itself, but it felt like clutter. The most important stories that really boosted the movie's theme involved Jake, his girlfriend, the outcasts, and a youth group. They were what the movie was about. The parents were just something else to throw in to make Jake's situation that much more dramatic. I felt it was too much.

In addition to the parents, I felt like the pastor's kid (PK) plot was way too over the top. All it did was make me angry. That's not to say I don't think a kid like that could really exist, but I felt like it was an extreme example of cruelty and maliciousness. Yes, we all know PKs are typically kind of bad, but this guy was another level of bad. I'm not talking about some of the troubled things he does, I'm talking about his passion to sabotage Christianity. To Save a Life uses other extreme situations to get points across, but I felt like they worked. Even if they are rare in real life (some of them are rare, some of them definitely are not rare), they do in fact happen and people do have to deal with them. I'm not against extreme scenarios, but the PK caused To Save a Life to lose some believability.

To end my list of negatives, I'll say that the main characters, specifically Jake and Amy, looked far too old for their ages. That didn't matter so much in their time as seniors, but when they were freshmen it was glaring and very distracting. They made Amy look younger by giving her pigtails and made Jake look younger by giving him a baseball cap. Really??

Those are my negatives. Now to the positives.

To Save a Life is the best Christian-themed movie I've ever seen. Easily. It blows Fireproof and Facing the Giants out of the water. They shouldn't even be put in the same category. They are horrible, awful, badly written, badly acted, badly directed, and poorly realized movies. To Save a Life is none of those things.

According to Box Office Mojo, To Save a Life cost $500,000 to make. Just to check, Fireproof cost the exact same amount. They cost the same, yet Fireproof looks like a $10,000 movie while To Save a Life looks like it has a budget. Visually it's great. The cinematography is good, the sets are good, the costume design is good. The world felt real. Maybe some of the high school stuff was exaggerated, but I can't speak to that because I've never experienced California close-to-the-beach schools. To Save a Life used it's budget really really well.

The acting was surprisingly good. I don't know if those were real actors or not (as opposed to church members like in Fireproof), but they did a very good job. Award worthy? No, not really, but good enough that I never thought, "wow, that's poor acting!" They were believable. The script is really great as well. The script very rarely sounds stilted or unrealistic, which is more than even movies like Avatar can say. Not only that, but the story is effective. I was emotionally attached to the movie from beginning to end. I saw where some scenes were going (not always a bad thing), while many others were very unpredictable.

I can't talk about this movie without talking about how it handles Christianity. There were a lot of times that I felt uncomfortable and was even frustrated at what the movie was making Christians do on screen. It was lame. It was annoying. It was typical. And then the movie begins to attack itself and attack those annoying Christians! I was borderline shocked and slightly elated. I thought the movie was being hypocritical, then all of a sudden it points out the hypocrisy in Christians. Not only does To Save a Life hit all the Christian-movie-requirements (salvation scene, deep-in-prayer scene, watching a pastor preach scene) better than I've seen, but it also completely goes against the grain of the Christian culture that annoys me so much. It's a PG13 movie with cursing, blood, drugs, drinking, and even implied-sex. Finally! We have a Christian movie that doesn't dumb down real life to such an extreme that it is no longer real.

I came into To Save a Life with a really critical attitude. I wanted to see a movie with a Christian theme that was done well just as much as I wanted to have another reason to bash the annoyance of Christian culture. That's a messed up way of thinking and there is something wrong with it, but honestly I'm really glad the first thing happened so that I didn't have to do the second. To Save a Life is a genuinely good movie. Will it be effective for non-Christians? Most of me says no, but that's only because I don't think non-Christians will see it. Also, this movie still is a Christian production with Christian labeled all over it, and I don't think that will ever be as effective as a Christian movie made within the Hollywood system of business. That's sad, but true. Unless non-Christians are really searching or unless they want to seek out more reasons to pick on Christians, they won't see this movie.

Let me end by saying that To Save a Life desperately needs more marketing. Tell your church about it, tell your youth ministers about it, and spread the word that they need to see it. I would hate for the only good Christian-themed and produced movie to do poorly when compared to crapfests like Fireproof. Go see it. Tell others' to see it. Normally I wouldn't support marketing so much, but I want Christian culture to recognize that being real matters and is more important than conforming to your base and old ways of thinking. The only way that message will be sent is if this makes more money than dogpiles like Fireproof. Right now it's at over $2,000,000 (a profit), but Fireproof made $33,000,000. Shameful.

To Save a Life is not without fault, but none of those faults are debilitating. It remains a very solid piece of film, and I believe that it is genuinely good. Is it the best movie I've seen this year? Well, hah, if we're talking about 2010 releases, then quite possibly it is. But it doesn't appear to be the type of title that will hold that throne very long. The score below is when I compare it to all of film. If I were to simply compare it to other Christian-themed movies, it would easily get a 10/10.

Potential based on Preview: 4/10 (I found the preview to be borderline incomprehensible and completely overstuffed)
Actual Movie: 8/10

Review - Lady in the Water

Lady in the Water was M. Night Shyamalan's last movie before he gave up on making good films entirely. For now. The Last Airbender actually could be pretty cool... maybe. Hopefully. Anyways, back to Lady in the Water.

Lady in the Water is a film that desperately wants to be good, and has a lot of things going for it, but I never felt like it went "all-in" with what it was trying to accomplish. Instead, it just skirts the edges of what it would be like if a fairytale was real.

The biggest thing I disliked about Lady in the Water is that it never successfully brought me into the world. At no point in time did I believe these were real people. All of the characters felt like stereotypes and exaggerations. I didn't didn't buy them in the least, except for the main character Cleveland. It was as if Shyamalan thought the audience wouldn't be able to handle the weirdness of a fairyale coming to life in a real world, so he had to create this off-kilter world, and that ultimately just put me off.

On the same note, I really didn't like the comedy in the movie. That's not to say it wasn't funny. It was funny. But that's the problem. Lady in the Water has a somewhat serious story, and all of the comedy feels very forced. It's as if I'm in a serious situation and one of the people around me can't handle being serious, so they make a joke, ruining any semblance of seriousness and taking me out of the situation. There are 3 main examples I can think of here in which the comedy was funny, but took me out of the movie: Any time the Asian college student was around, any time Reggie was around (big arm dude), and the scene in which the movie critic has something... well, unfortunate happen to him. The only comedy that actually kept me in the world was the lady who would tell us everything about her husband. Everything. It was realistic. It was humorous. It wasn't forced. On top of that, it fit very nicely into how things wrapped up at the end.

Okay, now onto the things I liked. The score for the movie is amazing. Shyamalan definitely knows how to grab good composers and get them to fit into his movie perfectly. Not only that, but the score successfully amplifies so many scenes that would have only been lame to mediocre otherwise. Also, the story is really good. I love when fantasy and reality intertwine. For some people, that's off-putting and they can't wrap their minds around it enough to enjoy those stories, but for me, I love it. Paul Giamatti does an amazing job in the lead role of Cleveland, and I really wish he would get more lead roles. Finally, the cinematography is fantastic. I absolutely loved some of the shots that Shyamalan pulled off. The perspective, the angles, the lighting... it all worked so well. I especially loved the shots from underwater looking up into our world. They were creative and powerful. The last scene would have had a completely different feel if it was shot outside of the water and you actually saw what was happening. Having the camera in the water gave it a strong sense of reality and emotion, and probably saved some CGI money as well.

All in all, Lady in the Water is an "ok" movie. It's not bad (though if you can't get past the seemingly unreal story you probably won't like it at all), but it's not really good either. It's full of good and great things, but Shymalan's biggest mistake in this movie is in not making the world real enough to actually believe. That's a shame, because the movie completely grounds itself in the fact that you will believe in what is happening on screen. Shyamalan panders to a wider audience through the use of comic relief and unbelievable characters. If not for that, I could have really loved this movie, but because of that, I can't. Believing in a world and being a part of a world for 2 hours is why I watch movies, and I didn't believe in Lady in the Water.

What this movie wanted desperately to do, Pan's Labyrinth did. If you want an amazing movie where a fairytale world and the real world come together, and you don't mind subtitles, watch Pan's Labyrinth.

Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 6.5/10

Reviews - Big Fan/Imaginarium/Smoking

Big Fan stars Patton Oswalt as an obsessed fan of the New York Giants. The movie follows his fanatacism with the team and the star quarterback, and his dealings with an Eagles fan that borderline torments him. It's a very unique movie with a story that keeps you going through the whole thing, and even has a few surprises. Big Fan is written by the same guy that wrote The Wrestler, so that should give you some idea of what kind of a movie it is. Also, it's definitely a straight up indie drama, so don't expect anything mainstream here... not that you would expect that from me anyways. For what it is, it's a good movie, and the only reason I didn't rate it any higher is because I personally wasn't as grabbed by it as I have been other movies. The topic was an interesting view into the world of a crazy football fan, which I definitely can't relate to, but is intriguing nonetheless.

Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 7.5/10

This movie is crazy. Absolutely nuts. Also, it is Heath Ledger's last movie, which if you're a big fan of his this should be reason enough to see it. He died during the filming of this one. After watching it, maybe you'll see why. It's a visual druggy trip. The story is decent, although it isn't anything too special and I really wasn't too wrapped into it. The acting is good, as is the set design and costume work. Most of the points I gave for this one is for the visuals alone... it's gorgeous, strange, artistic... imagine going into the imagination of the guy that made all of the Monty Python stuff, and this is what you would get. Because that's who made this movie - except for the fact that it's nothing like Monty Python.

Potential based on Preview: 9/10
Actual Movie: 6/10

Thank You for Smoking (2005) comes from Jason Reitman, the guy who brought us Juno and my almost-1st-place movie of last year, Up in the Air. It was his first major release, and since getting Netflix (hence all of these reviews), I decided it was time to check it out. I'm glad I did. It's a really good movie, highly comedic, and it makes a lot of good points about our society as well, from multiple sides of the issue.

The movie is about a lawyer for the tobacco industry whose purpose is to make the industry look good, guard them from unwanted lawsuits, and make cigarettes look acceptable in the public eye. He's a definite anti-hero who you want to dislike, but for some reason you just can't. One of the most interesting things I noticed in the movie is that I didn't see anyone smoking once. Not once. I'm sure this was highly intentional (and somewhat self referential - which you'll understand after watching it). The movie is definitely not pro-smoking; however I wouldn't call it an hour and a half long anti-smoking ad either. It just tells it like it is, in hilariously clever ways.

Potential based on Preview: 9/10
Actual Movie: 8.5/10

Reviews - 5 Different Movies

Wasn't expecting much from this movie, but I got slightly more than I expected. It's fun, though predictable. I suppose I just dislike the action side of Sherlock Holmes and I wish it had been more detective/mystery. They did a really good job with the action, and it was enjoyable, but that wasn't the side of the story I wanted to see.

Also, though Robert Downey Jr. was amazing, I never once saw him as Sherlock Holmes. I just kept seeing him as Downey (how the HECK did he win the Golden Globe?). That kept my mind of out of the experience, and being engaged in a film is a really big thing for me. It's an okay flick though. I'd watch it again if someone was doing a house party or something with it on, but that's about it. Fun in the moment, but very forgettable over time.

Potential based on Preview: 6/10
Actual Movie: 6.5/10

This movie had one of my favorite previews of 2009, thus I was highly looking forward to it. Then the reviews came, and I decided to not even bother - until it came to the $1 theater. In retrospect, I should have seen it when it came out, because the $1 theater was awful and I could barely hear half the characters' lines. So the score could be one point higher if I actually understood stuff.

The movie is extremely well made and I absolutely loved the art style it took. It was a faithful adaptation to a book with no story to begin with. I loved how the movie treated being a child. It wasn't a romanticized view and it wasn't an overly dark view; it was real. I could at least relate to it anyways. It is pretty odd though and I have a feeling most general audiences would come out of it with a huge question mark on their faces. Also, it's not a kids' movie. It should never have been marketed like that. This is a movie about childhood for adults.

Potential based on Preview: 10/10

Actual Movie: 7/10

Thirst is the vampire love story movie that all Twilight fans should see. It will completely destroy their lives and they will yell at me if they actually do end up seeing it, but whatever. It portrays the classical vampire in the most realistic way I have ever seen. What would it really be like? How would you eat? How would a relationship actually work with someone who isn't a vampire? What kind of crazy stuff would you actually have to bring yourself down to do? The movie addresses all of these questions in an extremely disturbing manner. This movie is not for the easily faint. Example: There's one scene where the vampire (who doesn't want to kill humans) literally unplugs the end of an IV attached to the machine from a guy in a coma, and proceeds to suck the blood out of the guy. Disturbing.

The story is good though. The images stay with you and there are some really artistic shots. However, I felt like the movie dragged on and I really wasn't in to it until over halfway through. It's a foreign film so I can't really comment on the acting, but it annoyed me how the subtitles consistently said "cuz" instead of "because" or "cause." Weird. Finally, I didn't see the preview before seeing the movie, so that section is blank.

Potential based on Preview: ?/10
Actual Movie: 7.5/10

Once is a indie musical set in Ireland. I use the term "musical" very very loosely. The movie is entirely based on a guy and girl's musical talents and how they work together and how music brings them together. Thus, 70% of the movie is them singing songs or playing guitar or recording tracks.

There's a lot to like about this movie. I loved the story, the acting was great, the script was very original, the actual music was my kind of thing (acoustic and piano stuff), and I genuinely felt for the characters. It's one of those kind of movies that doesn't take you down a road you've ever seen before on the big screen. It ask questions. It feels more like real life - the ending especially. And that's not to say it's a sad movie. Parts of it are kind of sad, but I wouldn't say it is a sad movie at all. It really just breaks all the formula rules and makes you think. Great movie.

Potential based on Preview: ?/10
Actual Movie: 9/10

The first thing I noticed in this movie that I loved was character interaction. The couple has such a unique way of interacting. Some would say it has clever dialogue, and they may not be wrong, but it's more clever interaction. It feels as if the couple in the movie really is in love and have their own way of expressing it that they have created over years and years of knowing each other. It's really entertaining and touching.

The story is pretty simple, but that isn't bad. This movie isn't about story. It's about characters, life, growing older, and whether you are making the right decisions or not. Is this really where we should be in life right now? Isn't there something more? Did we mess up somewhere? It's a couples' journey answering these questions by going across the country and visiting friends to find a new city to move to. It's hilarious, moving, cute, and very entertaining. It's definitely an R-rated film though, so yeah, if you're offended by that sort of stuff...

Potential based on Preview: 8/10
Actual Movie: 8.5/10

Review - Up in the Air

This will likely be one of my shorter reviews, so be happy. The more I have to criticize about a movie, or the more I feel the need to defend a movie, the more I write. Hence shorter.

As the picture above quite clearly says, Up in the Air is brought to us from Jason Reitman (and based on the book of the same name by Walter Kirn), the director behind Juno and Thank You for Smoking. I haven't seen the latter, but word of mouth is good, and I really enjoyed Juno (even Diablo Cody's dialogue, which a lot of people had a problem with). Thus, I was very curious to see what his third major film would bring to the table. It lives up to his past work.

In Up in the Air, George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a road warrior whose job is to fire people for companies that are too afraid to do it themselves. He lives his entire life out of a suitcase and considers the airport to be his home. Anna Kendrick (sadly best known for Twilight at the moment) plays Natalie Keener, a young out of college female who is ready to change the way the world is run. The basis of the movie surrounds Ryan taking Natalie to teach her the ropes of the way he does things, so as to convince her that her fresh philosophies are not any good. On the way, he ends up struggling with some of his own philosophies and how he lives his life. Sounds interesting, right? It is incredibly interesting, and it is incredibly engaging.

The acting in Up in the Air is phenomenal. It really really is great. The script is fantastic. The cinematography is is great. The soundtrack is worth purchasing (in fact, I probably will buy it tomorrow). The opening sequence alone, an aerial tour of the united states while a remake of "This Land is Your Land" plays in the background, is almost worth the price of admission.

I have nothing negative to say about this movie. Honestly, nothing. It's philosophical, thought provoking, witty, hilarious, sad, moving, and fun. They say "fuck" pretty often, so I suppose that's a negative... but if you're getting fired you might be in a cursing mood. There's a semi-nude scene near the beginning, but it's not a sex scene and only lasts about 4 seconds. So that could be a negative for some people. It's not necessarily an incredibly uplifting movie... so for some people that could be a negative. But like I said, none of those things hurt the movie for me. I like realistic. I don't like things sugar coated. If it's not real, then it isn't as moving, and if it isn't moving, then it is unsuccessful film making. This is extremely successful film making. Jason Reitman makes me happy, and I can't wait to see what he has up his sleeves next.

Up in the Air is now in the running for being my favorite movie of the year. We'll see though. That'll probably be my next post... giving you that list. That's what I get for rating two movies 10/10. I should be harsher.

But first, here's the teaser trailer for Up in the Air. I actually like it better than the main trailer. It makes me want to go see the movie again right now. Bummer I don't have the money to spend on multiple viewings!



Potential based on Preview: 10/10
Actual Movie: 10/10