Love Me If You Dare

Tagline: Are you game?

So I had this movie in my Netflix instant queue for several months but it had just been sitting there among the countless others. I initially put in on there because it was a foreign romantic comedy starring Marion Cotillard and looked interesting. Last night I found myself clicking on that movie and watching it hoping for something good and did not expect to find this masterpiece I’d never heard of.



The plot is about two life long friends Sophie, Marion Cotillard, and Julien, Guillaume Canet, who form a special bond that revolves around a childhood game they play in which they exchange dares that the other must follow no matter what. As they grow older, the game becomes more serious and involves bigger consequences. Soon they are faced with the inevitable; when do the consequences become too great and what is worth risking everything for?

There are very few movies that I’ve come across that just excel in all aspects of the film. Movies like these give me just this type of unexplainable excitement and feeling that I must share the movie with everyone I know so that they can experience it as well. This was definitely that type of movie, for me at least. I really feel that this movie pulled off everything so well that it made it a great masterpiece, where other great/good films usually excel in one or two areas which make up for whatever it is that they lack.


This plot was simply amazing. Such a great and memorable story. It was fun, fresh, innovative, classic, simple, and honest. I really enjoyed the love story in The Notebook and felt that it was just an awesome love story but it really pales in comparison to this one. The characters were deeply complex but at the same time extremely likeable and flawed. The dialogue was just fantastic and especially Julien’s monologue about when Sophie returns. And this is not just because it’s a French language film, although it does make the dialogue seem even that more appealing.


The movie was beautifully filmed and I love how it transgressed through time. There were some awesome scenes that were just breathtaking and very memorable, with special emphasis of Sophie & Julien’s scene on the car top, the concrete scene, and the gym teacher montage. There was artistry and style in the editing and effects and gave us stylized dramatic interpretations of some pivotal moments in the film without crossing the line into an alternate fantasy realm. I also loved how the only song throughout the movie was ‘La Vie en Rose’ but played by various different artists and various different styles. The set decoration was really just spot on. I’ve also got to note that the wardrobe and makeup were really fantastic in this movie, which is not usually something that sparks my interest but they were able to make these characters really look different during the different stages of their lives instead of just putting them in different clothes and wigs.


That brings us to the performances. We all know that Marion Cotillard is brilliant, and this is a great example of that brilliance. She just exudes charisma and takes on that role and makes it her own. She makes Sophie a very memorable iconic character. I really loved the way she delivered her lines and really made her whole performance just interesting and amazing. Guillaume Canet also did a fantastic job with a complex character. He didn’t just fill a role for Cotillard to play off from, he actually created an equally developed and complex character. His role might have even been tougher because his emotions were shown in different ways than Sophie’s character but he really played a great role. You really ended up just believing them and wanting to see more of these two together on screen.


When I like a movie this much, it sometimes becomes a little difficult for me to see past the awesomeness and look at any negatives. But on the other hand, doesn’t all the awesomeness make up for any possible negativities? It’s a love story at it’s core, but it’s also a coming of age of sorts and very comical. But even though, love stories are not for everyone and I will admit it was a little depressing after the movie was over as a single girl. The movie is fast paced and it’s a French language film which also isn’t for everyone. Other than that, I highly recommend this to anyone who hasn’t yet seen it and I really hope you enjoy it half as much as I did. “Do you believe in love at first sight?” “Yes!” “Naïve. . .” – Love Me if You Dare (Jeux D’enfants).

The Losers

Tagline: Anyone else would be dead by now.

So this week it was between The Joneses or The Losers and we went with The Losers since the other one was playing at a different theater down the road. The trailer looked cool enough and I love me some Chris Evans, okay and Jeffrey Dean Morgan. It looks a little similar to The A Team, which is coming out later this summer, but it seemed like it would be entertaining enough and hopefully not over-the-top. The studio had actually moved the release date around several times before picking this past weekend, which now seems to have been a bad decision as it came in fourth and brought in only $9.4 million. It may be important to note that this past weekend was also one of the worst weekends across the board for this year for movies nationwide.



The plot is loosely based off a comic of the same name and follows a rag-tag military team consisting of five special op agents, including Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Chris Evans. During a mission in Bolivia the team go against orders when they try to save the lives of 25 innocent civilians and end up being framed by ‘Max’, a mysterious sinister war lord, and left for dead. Soon they are approached by a mysterious female, Zoe Saldana, who promises them anything they need if they agree to take down the infamous ‘Max’. The film then sets down a course of action and adventure with different missions, heists, and fight sequences galore.


The plot wasn’t anything special or even very interesting. It revolved around some new devastating bomb and some type of special hard drive with secret information on it, similar to most other action movies of this nature which include new weaponry and/or secret technology. The plot wasn’t very realistic however it was semi-plausible, although this team seemed to have access to endless supplies of money and technology without having real means to have those things. Also the whole matter disintegrating bomb should have been left out, or at least the special effect that showed the actual bomb. It really brought the movie down a notch because it was just ridiculous and unnecessary.With this type of movie however, realism is not very important. I did enjoy the dialogue and banter between the characters. They did not take the situations seriously and created humor in the suspenseful moments. I especially loved Chris Evans’ character and he really provided a lot of the humor and amusement, in my opinion. The characters were somewhat stereotypical but yet likeable. Honestly, the plot could have been about anything and it wouldn’t have affected the movie.


I really loved the editing in this movie. The trailer doesn’t have any indication in it that would allude to this awesome editing. It was my kind of editing with just these great jump cuts, and motion and warp effects. It had great freeze frames with superb slow motion thrown in there at just the right moments. I’m really glad that the director allowed the editors to put style and artistry into the movie instead of just putting the sequences in order and showing the action while pretending that the suspense and plot were interesting. The cinematography was also really great with nice hand-held shots and interesting angles. I actually liked the way the ‘love scene’ was filmed with the motion time warp effects on the cuts. The titling in the movie was also done quite nicely. Again, I didn’t expect to find this in this type of movie since normally the director is trying to get the movie finished as quickly as possible in order to please the studios and really doesn’t focus on the editing or cinematography as anything other than a means to an end. I’ve also got to mention how awesome the soundtrack and sound mixing was in this movie. It worked perfectly and kept us interested in the scenes when the plot was failing. And props to any movie that can put Journey’s ‘Don’t Stop Believing’ during a fight scene and make it seem cool.


I’m going to come out and say that this movie was really carried by Chris Evan’s performance. He was just really comical and entertaining without being annoying or overbearing, in my opinion. The entire scene with him entering the office building as the IT guy was just priceless. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was a pretty good bad-ass leader, even if he did wear the same suit throughout which never seemed to get dirty, although he did wear it quite well. Zoe Saldana again proves that she can play the hot female lead that can kick butt and take names. Jason Patric was different. He bordered on annoying, unbelievable, and metro sexual, but didn’t seem to really cross into those categories but just walked a fine line over them. He gave a different portrayal of the normal villian in most action movies to say the least.


Overall, I enjoyed this movie because of the editing and Chris Evans. This movie kept me entertained and pleased from the editing and soundtrack and Chris Evans provided the humor and eye candy. The rest was pretty hit or miss and especially the plot was forgettable and actually not that interesting. It was the dialogue and nuances of the way the characters pulled off the actions that was the entertaining part. I actually enjoyed this movie but if you don’t like either bad-ass editing or Chris Evans, then it will most likely be a forgettable action movie that has some funny parts in it. “Did you know that cats can make 1000 different noises and dogs can only make 10? Never trust a cat.” -- The Losers.

New York, I Love You

Tagline: Every moment another story begins.

So, I really wanted to see this movie for numerous reasons; multiple awesome directors, an amazing cast list too long to even list, and short stories based in NYC. What could be better and not to mention it went straight to Netflix's instant releases! I actually haven't seen Paris Je T'aime, the predecessor to this movie, but it's on my list.

The movie is actually made up of 10 short stories focusing on love and set in New York City. The stories very loosely overlap into one another somewhat however all focus on the concept of love, more or less. The cast list is amazing and I can't even list everyone, but to mention a few, Natalie Portman, Cloris Leachman, Ethan Hawke, Shia LeBeouf, Orlando Bloom, Hayden Christenson, James Caan, Andy Garcia, and Julie Christie. Two of the shorts were actually directed by Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen (although Scarlett's was dropped from the release due to the formatting and length requirements ).

I think it's important to know before seeing this movie, that it won't feel like a movie. It does flow nicely together and the pace is surprisingly smooth, for the most part. But it doesn't feel like the kind of movie you're used to, and it's not the average ensemble tale that unrealistically weaves together (i.e. He's Just Not That Into You) but it does give a little bit of overlap in a few segways.

The stories also are not about fantasy love stories, but about the kind of love in every day life, whatever form it may come in. The shorts do have different feels to them and you can tell the direction changes from story to story. That being said, it's refreshing and isn't distractingly different. This movie feels like NYC. If you're missing the city or if you've never been there, this is a good way to feel as though you're there.

The editing is hard to describe because it's done differently in each short, you can tell that someone was putting different pieces together and the fillers had the same style but it's not overwhelming.

The performances were great by all the actors, noticeably Ethan Hawke, Natalie Portman, and Julie Christie. Cloris Leachman and Eli Wallach were priceless as an old married couple and ended the movie perfectly.

It's intersting to know that the directors were given three guidlines; 24 hours to shoot, one week to edit, and they had to give the feel of a particular area of NYC. I would recommend this to anyone who loves New York or anyone who likes short stories with great actors. You don't walk away from this movie with a renewed sense of life or anything earth shattering, but it will stick with you and is unique. "I'm single now, so . . . dinner?" - Orlando Bloom

Paris Je T'aime

Tagline: Stories of love. From the city of love.

I saw this movie out of order you could say, since I saw New York, I Love You first. I enjoyed NY and was looking forward to seeing the predecessor. Paris Je T'aime is a collection of 20 different shorts that all center on the subject of love in the City of Love, Paris. Each short is from an acclaimed director, including Wes Crave, Coen brothers, Gus Van Sant, and Gerard Depardieu to name a few. Some of the notable actors in the film are Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gena Rowlands, Natalie Portman (who also stars and directs in New York), Willem Dafoe, Steve Buscemi, Elijah Wood, and Nick Nolte.

Plot: The stories are genuine and don't just deal with over the top shout at the top of a mountain movie love. They also deal with loss of love, destruction of love, acceptance of love, and so on. The shorts were all well written and there were a couple of nicely unique shorts, (i.e Elijah Wood's short and the son of the mime). Overall, I felt the movie capturing what it was trying to do and wasn't too flagarant.

Picture: This movie was tied together much better than New York, I Love You. Ths split screen editing in the beginning was a nice touch to bring the different stories together. Some of the clips were given full resolution at the end with a few tying in together. This helped to give is a movie feel instead of a documentary of 10 pieces. The filming was nice and props on the single continuous shot for Nick Nolte's piece.

Performance: Everyone does well in this movie and I was actually thouroughly entertained with the Natalie Portman short, I almost felt it could've been made into an entire movie. The movie was cast very well and all of the actors were able to play well off each other, with a notable example of Gena Rowland's short of the divorcing couple. She does a great job with that part.

I would recommend this to anyone who liked New York, I Love You, altough I bet most are not like me and probably saw this one first. I would also recommend to anyone who love Paris, as I think this probably has that feel to it. Its not a typical romance comedy, so don't go into this thinknig that. If you want a movie with a lot of stars and artistic liberty with storlyines which feed into another, then I would reommend this movie.

Lost in Austen

So, once I read the synopsis, I just had to see this movie. I should just go ahead and summarize the plot of this movie: A 21st century feminist, Amanda Price (Jemima Rooper), finds Elizabeth Bennet (Gemma Arteron) in her bathroom after a unromantic proposal from a flaky boyfriend. She then discovers that a secret door in her bathroom leads directly to Longbourn, which for those who don’t know is the household of the Bennet family from the Jane Austen novel Pride & Prejudice. She then unwillingly trades places with Elizabeth and begins to pose as Elizabeth’s friend while she interacts with the characters of the novel. Shortly thereafter does she discover that her actions are beginning to cause seriousl alterations of the classic beloved novel.

Now I think it‘s a little more obvious why I had to see this movie. It sounded so far-fetched I couldn’t wait to see and most likely laugh at this crazy story. I was stunned when I actually enjoyed this movie. After viewing this movie, I learned that it was originally a BBC mini-series which makes much more sense to me now. The premise would have made for a good mini series. Although this movie was good, which was against my expectations, I could see how crazy the pitch would have been to make it a movie.

Plot: The screenplay is actually very witty and cleverly written. There was actual character development past what we already knew about each character. Everyone was given time to develop, even Mary and Kitty Bennet. Several fictitious character developments are revealed such as a different story for Wickham’s behavior and even a different sexual orientation for one of the prominent characters. These changes actually made things more interesting since we’ve all seen the same story time and time again. It was also actually very interesting to see how the events would play out with these differences. It was as if we were living in the book. The dialogue was witty and the characters were very much in context with the book.

Performance: I’m a huge fan of the Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice, I know I just made enemies of the Colin Firth BBC version, so my Mr. Darcy has always been Matthew Macfadyen. But this Darcy was actually very spot-on. He actually conveyed the sense of pride that he exhibits in the novel. In both the BBC and 2005 versions, I think Darcy is prideful yet still oh so dreamy but this Darcy conveys the sense of pride that alienates everyone in the beginning which overshadows his dreaminess. I think that this Darcy ( Eliot Cowan ) did a superb job. The rest of the characters were wonderfully cast, especially Wickham ( Tom Riley ) who gives us a nice complexity to his character. This whole cast was on par with both the BBC version and the 2005. This could have been a serious Pride & Prejudice remake and even thought there was a modern day ‘time traveler’ in the story, it still felt genuine and authentic.

Picture: This movie surprisingly had a nice budget. I was expecting a low budget mockery of Jane Austen that would have her rolling in her grave and the DVD cover art does not help it either. The movie actually had amazing set direction. The costumes and sets were perfect and if you read about this movie, almost every costume used was used on other movies, such as Emma and Pride & Prejudice to name a few. The movie was cut together so that I could not tell it was a mini-series to begin with. I only learned that after the fact. It did seem a little long (almost 3 hours) but I watched it over the span of two nights so I didn’t attribute it to that. There weren’t any extended fade-to-black transitions indicative of a mini-series/tv show made into a movie.

Basically, I was very surprised with this movie, and happy about it. I enjoyed this quite a lot. It was a fun and new way to watch a story I really love. I would recommend this to anyone who loves Pride & Prejudice or any other Jane Austen novel. I think both lovers of the BBC and 2005 versions will enjoy this film. Also if you like witty period pieces with a modern element, you will enjoy. Otherwise, I think it’s really just for the Pride & Prejudice audience. I think the wittiness and humor will be lost on a different audience.

Then She Found Me

Tagline: Life can change in a heartbeat.

So, I had seen this title and it seemed to keep popping up everywhere however I put it at the bottom of my list thinking it would be another sappy unrealistic romantic comedy. After reading more about it and finding out it was Helen Hunt’s directorial debut and Colin Firth was playing one of the leads, I decided to watch it.

This movie was actually ten years in the making for Helen Hunt, adapted from a 1990 novel of the same name by Elinor Lipman. After multiple rejections, she ended up producing the movie herself and co-wrote the screenplay. She also got Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, and Colin Firth to work for scale in this movie! If someone as great as Helen Hunt was so passionate about this movie and even got these great actors on board with basically no pay, I had to see it.

The film is actually a little indie dramedy with a strong female lead, played by Hunt. The plot revolves around Hunt’s character, April Epner, whose husband leaves her randomly one day and then her adoptive mother dies the very next day. She works as a schoolteacher and starts a relationship with a divorced father, Colin Firth, of one of her students. She is then approached by a successful morning talk show host, Better Midler, who claims she is her biological mother and Steve McQueen is the ‘famously dead father’. This all goes on around her while Hunt, who is 39 ½, desperately wants a child of her own.

The screenplay was nicely written. The characters felt so real, especially Hunt and Firth’s characters. They were given great dialogue that actually forged into what felt like a real relationship. There was a lot of dry subtle humor and I would disagree that there was any sitcom humor in this movie. It was not over the top and is nicely categorized as a dramedy. The issues in the movie are real and at the core it focuses on love. It also has a nice religious element but is not overbearing or even dogmatic. I usually don’t like these types of movies that focus on love, family and spousal, but this story was so subtle about it that it was not distracting or unrealistic.

Helen Hunt produced the movie herself so obviously the technical budget is not going to be that big but I don’t think the cinematography was lacking anywhere. This was a story driven movie and therefore the cinematic elements were not needed to move the film along. The lighting, editing, and camerawork were basic but not immature. The performances were captured at the right angles and the pace was smooth throughout the film.

The performances were great, especially with Colin Firth. He did just a fantastic job. We’ve seen him so many times as the humble romantic interest and in many ways he was this character again but we saw his imperfections in this movie. He has a great scene with Hunt towards the end with a great monologue about his true feelings as a divorced father of two with an absent mother of the children. Hunt also did great. She was much more believable as this character than she was in As Good As it Gets, which she won an Oscar for. She is down to earth and has indecisive moments and weaknesses like all of us. Bette Middler is at her best doing a character only she could pull off. She is the perfect peppy tv host who gave up her daughter for adoption 39 years ago. I think Broderick was perfect for this part and really pulled off the grown husband who is still a boy.

I was very happy with this movie. It was touching and real at the same time which is hard to find these days. Most of the indie dramedies that I enjoy are much darker and usually not heartwarming, but this one was really superb. I love the backstory about the passion Hunt had in making this movie which just makes it better for me. I love a movie that is made because it is just a story that has to be told versus a major studio production obviously made just for a profit. I wouldn’t really say this was a typical love story as it really was about the different kinds of love in the main characters life and the need to accept and open herself up to it, and I know how it sounds but it was not over the top sappy. I would recommend this to anyone who likes realistic dramedies or anyone who wants to see an easy laid back movie and real performances with a story-driven plot. Great Quote; “What do you write?” , “Books. . . . Jackets. I write book jackets for other people’s books”.

Paper Heart

Tagline: A story about love that's taking on a life of it's own.

So if you're not a fan of Charlyne Yi or Michael Cera, stay away. They carry the movie. I'm a huge Michael Cera fan so I enjoyed his character. I was very interested to see how the premise was going to pan out with this mockumentary. I think this syoryline/beats were very well written. I think it was pulled off nicely and if you didn't know better, you'd actually believe it all really happened. Yi does well, some nice acting although they probably couldve cast better. Cera is perfect. It was actually super cute (towards the end, as the beginning was a bit slow). It gives us hope that true love may really exist. Sidenote: I'm still not a believer, this was fiction afterall. The ending was priceless!

Public Enemies

Tagline: America's Most Wanted.

So I fell asleep trying to watch this movie after about an hour into it. From that hour after watching the worst cinematography I've seen in a major motion picture in a long time, I could not find the motivation or desire to even finish this movie. Granted, I don't know how the second half of the movie fares and it might even get better during that part, but from what I did see, I was extremely dissappointed. The camera work was so distracting that I couldn't even focus on the performances. The camera was constantly moving which was unneccessary and so distracting. The film was also shot in this super HD which just looked terrible and was the wrong choice for a period piece such as this. Don't get me wrong, I thought I was going to love this movie seeing as Goodfellas and The Departed are on my all time favorite list and I highly respect Johnny Depp as an actor. It might have been because I was so distracted with the technical atrocities, however the plot seemed slow and un-interesting ( in the first half at least ). I know I should've finished the movie to give it a proper review, but time is money and especially with two toddlers running around. Overall, I was extremely dissappointed and I have no inclination to even attempt to finish this movie from what I did see.

Funny People

Tagline: George Simmons was prepared to die, then a funny thing happened.

Wow, so I thought this movie was really great. The beginning of the movie flowed so well with the score, soundtrack, camera moves, lighting, and editing. It was actually pretty beautiful in the begnning. The performances were so stellar that as it progressed, I was seriously so into the story, I focused less on the cinematography which I normally don't do. This is probably Judd Apatow's best work in my opinion, however I'm a die hard dramedy lover. I think the problem with a lot of people's reaction to this movie, is they came in expecting Knocked Up or Superbad etc. I think it was a nice realistic Knocked Up. The stand-up bits sprinkled throughout were great and there was some hilarious awkward dry humor bits thrown in throughout. The movie was cast great and everyone did so awesome. I was very pleased with this movie. I was afraid this was going to be an over the top drama like Reign Over Me which I did not really enjoy but I think it was a movie with a lot of smart dry humor which unfortunately falls short with a lot of people. This movie was pretty long (2hrs 16 min) but it didn't drag on and kept the plot flowing evenly throughout. The trailer of this movie is very misleading. How they were able to pull some of the scenes off without laughing is amazing right there. I'd highly recommend to anyone who loves dramedies and/or tons of sarcastic, dry, awkward humor from any of the numerous hilarious people in here.

Cutlass

Tagline: Sometimes parenthood comes with a hefty price tag.

So I've read some harsh words about Kate's project here but it's Kate Hudson's directorial debut of a lighthearted 16 minute short that's just filled to the brim with talent! Kurt Russell was great. I'm already a Kristen Stewart fan but I do think she did a great job and really pulled off a character unlike any of the others she's done. Dakota Fanning: Wow! She's becoming a great actress and so well versed. The cinematography and editing was a little lacking but again it's a 16 minute short, so it was more than I would have normally hoped for. I don't think her message was you can buy happiness, but rather to support your children's dreams; "what makes you happy, makes me happier". It was obviously a project of passion for Kate to get started behind the camera and came out quite nice I'd say. The format was perfect as this probably wouldn't have worked well as a feature, but maybe could have.

Watch the movie here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyluTTt9avA

Hounddog

Tagline: Every heart has an awakening. Every soul needs a song.

Well I thought this movie was much better than everyone was giving it credit for. People may just expect to much out of these lower budget indie dramas, but I was pleased with the film overall. Although, the only thing that held this movie was Dakota's performance no doubt. If not already, this role solidifies her position and immense talent for any actress at any age. This does definitely help to age her but then again when wouldn't the portrayal of and abused rape victim? I thought some of the other performances were very static and the over the top symbolism was awful. One thing they did get right was the nat. sound track that sounded exactly like the south with the constant locust buzzes. Without Dakota, this movie would be very immature and clumsy, but it's definitely worth it to see how great she is.

Fierce People

Tagline: Every family tree has it's nuts.

I assumed I would love this movie seeing as it was an ensemble indie dramedy and for the most part I did. It's a nice coming of age of sorts when Anton Yelchin moves with his drug dependent massage therapist mother, Diane Lane, to live on the estate of the 7th richest man in America, Donald Sutherland. He meets some great characters in high society and not so high society. The characters are very believable and not too cliche'. It was very believable and the performances were great throughout, especially with Lane, Sutherland, and Yelchin. It was definitely a nice quirky indie drama, but very professionally done. I liked Kristen Stewart in the movie, she did a good job bringing a little bit of depth to her character. The movie took a turn for the dark about 3/4 of the way in which I was not prepared for at all. It really felt organic because there wasn't any over the top foreshadowing like most movies have. I think that if this part of the movie was played up then it would come across as a dark drama but in reality its a light fun look into society for the most part of the movie. Chris Evans does well with his character although I don't think they gave him enough time at the end to really give it substance. It wasn't as dark as the Ice Storm and actually flowed more along the lines of Charlie Barlett or Garden State, in my opinion.

Conversation(s) With Other Women

Tagline: There are two sides to every love story.

So I really wanted to see this movie to see if the director (Hans Canosa) was going to be able to pull off the split screen sequences throughout the whole movie. I love movies with risky editing. The movie takes place between a nameless man, Aaron Eckhart, and woman, Helena Bonham Carter, as they meet at a wedding and slowly we learn they have a long history together. The movie is shot with split screen the whole time and it works! One critic said its 'technique with a metaphor' and that really does sum it up. The split screen is very useful to show flashbacks, alternate realities and the actions/reactions of the two characters. Eckhart and Carter really have a great chemistry which is a must for a movie pretty much centered on two characters only. The movie was about 120 minutes but really could've been cut down to about 100. It was brilliantly done with the editing which was not distracting and you started to even forget you were watching a split screen movie.Overall, I loved it for the editing and innovativess however if it was done like every other two character movie, it probably wouldn't have been as interesting. Priceless quote, "It's so ****ing hard to be happy".

Undertow

So, I wanted to see this movie because it was recommended for me and it was an indie drama which boasted a well rounded cast. The plot centers around two sons, Jamie Bell and Devon Alan, who are on the run after their uncle, Josh Lucas, whom they've never met before comes to live with them and actually ends up murdering their father, Dermot Mulroney. They meet lots of fascinating characters along the way and the storyline is reminiscent of Tom Sawyer only much darker. I'm on the fence with the editing in this one. I can see that they used freeze frames very liberaly in order to acheive the look they wanted for the time period. Even though that sort of editing does match to the time period, it still looks amateurish and distracting. I think they could have found a more subtle way to convey the feeling of the movie. Editing aside, the cinematography was beautiful, especially during the chase sequences. The natural beauty of the geography was really captured in this movie. Jamie Bell gives a really great performance and really carries quite a bit of the movie by himself. Devon Alan, playing his younger brother, is a genius and very well versed for his age. There is an entire sequence which was completed ad-libed by the 11 year old actor which speaks for itself. Josh Lucas does really great portraying this very hard dynamic character of a brother scorned who wants to do right on the surface but can't help to revert to his own ways and instant self-satisying gratification. Demot gives a good performance and is really believable as a southern farm worker although there wasn't enough time really spent on his character to give us much more. It was overall a good drama with a nostalgic feel. It was less about the action and suspense than it was about the characters and their relationships. Sidenote, this was filmed in only 30 days which is amazing. Great quote, "Sometimes, it's the strange things that stick with you".

The Motorcycle Diaries

Tagline: Before he changed the world the world changed him.

So, I wanted to see this movie because the cinematography looked amazing and the trailer promised an exciting adventure following the real memoirs of Che Guevara. The plot follows Che Guevara (Gael Garcia Bernal) and Alberto Granado (Rodrigo de la Serna) as they travel across 1950's Central America on a motorcycle in order to see the country and interact with the people. The movie is based on the actual events that ocurred over a century ago and does a very nice job of not focusing on the politics much, beside the blatant gap between the campesinos and elite. The movie mainly focuses on how this trip changed both of their lives forever and gave a great background and insight to Guevara's later history. The cinematography was beautiful in this movie and the plot did actually flow very nicely as if it was an original screenplay. Gael does an amazing job and really give depth to his character. Even though Rodrigo was more of the comic relief and used to contrast Guevara's character, he really does an outstanding job and is so genuine and really helps the plot out greatly which makes the movie very entertaining even for those who are not Guevara fans or history buffs. I'm usually drawn to the Latin foreign films and this was probably the best Latin period movie I've seen. This movie was produced by Robert Redford and they actually had the real Alberto Granado as a technical advisor on the film. I would recommend this movie for anyone who enjoys beatiful foreign movies about humanity, a Che Guevara fan, or a Gael Garcia Bernal fan. Great quote, "You gotta fight for every breath and tell death to go to Hell".

My Summer of Love

Tagline: The most dangerous thing to want is more.

So, this movie was recommended for me saying it was a British indie drama about a coming of age story of two young girls. I wasn't expecting it to be a love story between the two leads and I probably wouldn't recommend this movie unless you are an Emily Blunt fan. The story follows Tamsin (Emily Blunt) and Mona (Natlie Press), two young girls from opposite sides of the economic spectrium, as they meet and strike up a friendship that leads to a passionate love affair and ultimately unravels. I liked the religious undertones and positions on the social structure in England. There were two instances in the movie where it couldv'e taken a turn for the darker side, however luckily it didn't. It wasn't an overly lesbian/gay pride movie and it was more about the girls connection to each other rather than the love affair. That being said, it was nice at best. The cinematography was standard BBC and average. Ther performances were actually pretty great although I'm personally awed by those accents and it makes everything sound better and more genuine regardless of the dialogue. It was a watchable movie although nothing extraordinary.Again, I don't think I would recommend this movie unless you are an Emily Blunt fan, which she really did a great job in. It was also interesting to a see a different, grittier, side of the English country/society.

Zombieland

Tagline: This place is so dead.

I had really wanted to see this in the theaters but couldn't. The story is about four unlikely survivors in a post-apocalyptic zombie-infested world about two months after 'patient zero' took the fateful bite of the infected burger. This was the directorial debut for Ruben Fleischer and was actually first written as a tv pilot that was never picked up. Its stars Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin, with a priceless cameo from Bill Murray, and the whole ensemble was cast perfectly. Its really a comedic horror, or horredy (?); not a straight zombie movie but yet not a complete farce, i.e. Shaun of the Dead. Its more like a matter-of-fact look at the way life would really be with a bit of humor thrown into the mix.I really debated with myself on going with the perfect five stars. I must start off by saying that it had the BEST title sequencing I've seen a long time, or even ever. The warp effects were amazing and very evident of the amount of time it took to create plus it completely helped with the overall feel and tone of the movie. It was genuis! This movie has been getting mixed reviews, and I think its due to the poor marketing for this movie and a lot of people were going in expecting something completely different than what it was. It was an amazingly witty script and very quotable. The humor was so genuine and not gratuitous that it made the dialogue perfect. All of the actors have amazing comedic timing. I really enjoyed the cinematography and again the title sequences. It was reminiscent of Tarantino type titles yet more smooth, consistent, fun, and ungratuitous. I found myself laughing out loud at several points in the movie and if you really pay attention, some of the funniest lines are the not so obvious ones. I was actually surprised by this movie, as I didn't know I would like it this much. I am certain I will be purchasing this movie. This movie had a long list of great quotes to choose from but one of the best, 'I'm not great at farewells, so . . . that'll do pig.' ' That's the worst goodbye I've ever heard, and you stole it from a movie'.

Love Happens

Tagline: Sometimes when you least expect it . . .

I'm a die hard Friends fan and will support any of the actors when they make a movie so naturally I wanted to see this movie which was marketed as this amazing funny love story between these two unlikely people who meet at a grief seminar. It follows Aaron Eckhart who becomes a self-help guru through the success of his book he writes following his wife's death and the love interest, Jennifer Aniston, he meets while giving a seminar in Seattle. First I must say that I am baffled at how this movie even got green-light. I don't even see where they saw potential. Even more baffling, is how they got Aniston and Eckhart to sign on! The story is full of flaws and stereotypes. Most of the plot points would just never happen in real life. Nobody takes a date on top of a powerline bucket truck to watch a concert, or takes someone you've been dating for less than two days to confront the parents of his widowed wife. The story is just unbelievable, not to mention that the lead character has a life-changing breakdown where he reveals his secrets . . .on stage. . . at the end of the seminar . . . in front of the corporate execs that just came at that part . . . and then his father in law walks in at just the right moment of his breakdown monologue. The story also had a subplot with a character in the seminar coping with the loss of his son and It was completely arrogant and again unrealistic to portray that all of these people's grief could be overcome by an act of healing, be it a trip to a hardware store or the releasing of a domestic bird into the while. So not only did it fail on the love side of the story but also on the grief as well. It was just a ridiculous script and dragged on making the movie feel much longer than its actual runtime. Its also very unrealistic that these two characters would even have such a deep connection after only a few days, althought the seminar appeared to last for months on end giving the slow pace of the movie. So the script was boring and extremely unrealistic, but also there was no chemsitry between Aniston and Eckhart. They both gave good performances, I will say that. Although, that doesn't pre-designate that chemistry will ensue. I think this is a problem for a lot of studios who assume they can just throw two good actors together and they will automatically have chemistry. I believe this is why there is such a thing as a screen test. I wasn't impressed with the editing either. There were a couple of montages early in the movie which did not fit or make sense with the rest of the movie. It looked amateur as if it was thrown in to be thrown in there. The actors did give good performances, however even Meryl Streep wouldn't have been able to save this movie. Although, Eckhart goes playing the likeable single male again and Aniston proves why she keeps being type-cast as the quirky love interest. I think this was a terrible decision on both of their parts as this movie would barely even belong on the Hallmark channel. I will say the music mix was good with good song choices. I usually can find something I like about all the movies I see, however I found little to nothing, besides the main actors in this movie. Quote: "you can't move forward when you have your eyes stuck on the rear-view mirro'.

An Education

I wanted to see this movie because I decided to go to the movies alone and see something that looked good. This movie was getting such great reviews and Peter Sarsgaard was also a plus. Its a sort of coming of age movie about a young girl, Carey Mulligan, who meets and falls for an older playboy, Sarsgaard, in post-war Engladn in the 1960's. I did like this movie, althought I don't see exactly where the rave reviews are coming from nor do I think this is a worhty Oscar contender. The plot reminded me much of the Feminins Mystique and I think greatly captures the role and opportunities for women of this era and the social pressures they were dealing with at the time. When you think it was only about 50 years ago, you can see how far we've come. I wasn't expecting a feminist theme however when I went in, althought the movie is based from memoirs of the lead characted. The story really captured the era at that time if anything. I do belive there are some flaws with the plot, and really only with the resolution of the movie. The exposition and rising action are very believable and genuine, however once we get to know Mulligan's character, we will question her choices near the end of the movie. Carey Mulligan proves herself as a great actress and I think will do well. Sarsgaard does well and it seems as though the part was written for him. Also Rosamund Pike ( think Pride & Prejudice ) did good with her comedic role. I would have like to seen Emma Thompsons' role expanded, as you would have thought it was a cameo with the little amount of screentime for her character. The movie is shot beautifully and the script is well written. Also noteable is that the costumes were just beautiful in this movie. The movie was overall, very nicely done. I think the end could have used some work and there should have been more insight to Sarsgaard's character. Also the foreshadowing couldv'e been more subtle so it didn't taint the movie in the begin and let the audience form their own opinion. Its also interesting to know that Mulligan is actually 22 although she portrays an innocent 16 year old. Great Quote; 'Knowing a famous author is better than being one; it shows you're connected'.

Peter and Vandy

Tagline: A love story in disorder.

So, I wanted to see this movie because it’s an indie romance which I’m always drawn to. Not to mention Jason Ritter is in it who is one of my favorite indie leading men. The story follows a tumultuous relationship between Peter and Vandy ( Jess Weixler ) from when they meet one day while eating from the same New York City Chinese food vendor to their break-ups and make-ups during their relationship. The story is not linear and weaves throughout the story much like 500 Days of Summer.







The story is sweet and shows what relationships are really like, contrary to what the major studios would have us believe. These two characters are completely believable and the entire movie is devoted to their relationship, nonetheless we find deep character development. The story goes back and forth throughout different parts of the relationship to contrast what we know about them as couple and I don’t the story would have been as genuine or even interesting if it was told in a linear fashion. This is probably one of the most accurate accounts of a real life relationship with its beautiful sweet moments and ugly moments as well. There was a lot of smart humor in this movie. I even found myself laughing during the PB&J scene which contained probably the worst fight of their relationship due to the subtle humor in everyday life that was written into the script.






The two leads were cast perfect for each other. Jason Ritter was perfect and embodied the role of Peter. He showed us his weaknesses and flaws. Even at his worst we understood where he was coming from and empathized. I’m beginning to think there is nothing Jason Ritter can do. He flies below the radar but I think he’s amazing and I hope he stays in the indie arena because he’s so versatile and I’m excited to see what he’s going to do next. Jesse Weixler was also great for the role of Vandy. She did a good job of showing us her strong independence yet her softer vulnerable side at the same time. She looks so recognizable and I don’t think I’ve seen her in anything else. It may just be that she reminds me of a younger Winona Ryder with the same chemistry and passion. These characters were complex and very hard to pull off but I really think the leads were cast very well and they did carry the entire movie.






The movie was cut perfectly. A script with this many jumps in time is hard to keep in cohesion with the script but it was done perfectly to not create confusion, or too much at least. We learned what we needed to know at the right moments and elements were brought back in and juxtaposed at the right time as well. I really enjoyed the editing. I think it was a mixture of the script and the great editing that kept the cohesion in place.






With that being said, this movie does feel like the lower budget simpler version of 500 Days of Summer. It doesn’t have the quirkiness, fun, or pace of 500 Days of Summer, but the basic elements are there. I would actually put this movie somewhere in-between 500 Days and Flannel Pajamas. This movie was written and directed by Jay DiPietro, and to top it off this was his first film. I think he did a great job. I enjoyed the movie but I would not say it’s better or even on the same level of 500 Days. It simply is reminiscent of that movie. I don’t think everyone who liked 500 Days will like this movie as it is quite a bit slower and less suspenseful. I would recommend to anyone who enjoys quirky romances and especially movies that center on one relationship with two main leads that carry the movie. I should also mention that the soundtrack is great but that seems to be a requirement for a quirky indie these days.

The Blind Side

Tagline: Based on the extraordinary true story.

So, I honestly did not have any inclination to see this movie. It looked like a feel good sports movie with a predictable storyline. I started to hear good things about the movie however and then was shocked when the list of the 2010 Oscar nominations came out and this movie was up for best picture. I decided to see this movie since after a little bit of investigation, I was relieved to find out that this wasn’t just another heartwarming sports movie.















The film, written and directed by John Lee Hancock ( The Alamo and The Rookie), follows the true life story of a mixed family of five. The main character, played by Sandra Bullock, is a successful interior decorator and mother of two in a prestigious area of Memphis , Leigh Anne Tuohy . They soon encounter a large boy Michael Oher who is a ward of the state and newly enrolled into the affluent private school they attend. The Tuohys soon take him in when they learn he has no home or family of his own. He soon becomes a part of the family and struggles to achieve his dreams and place ultimately as a 23rd round NFL draft pick for the Baltimore Ravens.














Plot/Story: I was happily surprised with the character development in this movie. The main characters were much more complex than I would expect in a movie like this. I wouldn’t go as far to say it was deep character development that mimicked their real life counterparts, but it was deep enough for this type of movie to set it apart from the rest. I enjoyed how the sports aspect of the story was used symbolically to represent his growth into their family and as a person and was not the main focus of the film, like we see in most other ones similar to this. There was also enough screen time given to most of the family members which provided enough development supplemented with the, with the exception of the father who could have used more development. The dialogue was prolific but not clichéd and the accents were well done all around. Its interesting to note that in real life Michael Oher was already an experienced football player by the time he met the Tuohys however in the film it depicts a very inexperienced Oher who needs the help of several of the Tuohys before he finds his talent. If this aspect had been kept true to the real life story, I think it would have made their relationships more complex and therefore more believable. With the way the story goes in the film, it is more of a very helpful family who takes in this boy and gives him everything he has. This was a story driven movie and it did carry the movie slightly above the clichéd sports movies of the past.














Picture: The movie was filmed beautifully especially with contrast between the Tuohy’s side of town and the Hurt Village projects. The set direction was superb and the sets created beautiful environments for the story to unfold. The soft filter of the movie gave it a warm glow which is in keeping of the core values of the movie. I enjoyed the score and the soundtrack to this movie as it was in keeping with the tone and feel of the movie and didn’t use over the top inspirational songs or music that is typical of other movies like this. I noticed that the sound director was Carter Burwell, most notably known for his work on many movies such as Fargo and even Twilight. Also if you paid close attention, Collins is watching Twilight on tv when Michael first arrives at the Tuohy household. The costume direction was also nicely done with unique looks for each of the characters.














Performances: I agree with the nomination of best actress for Sandra Bullock. She owned this character. I don’t know if I’d put money on a win, but she at least deserved the nomination. This performance was eerily similar to that of Erin Brockovich played by Julia Roberts. Actually, the part was first offered to Roberts who turned it down. Rightly so since she would have instantly been compared to her role in that movie and I think the point of this movie would have been lost in the instant comparisons. On a sidenote, Bullock looked amazing in this movie. Tim McGraw did well and really proves he can be an okay actor and he really seemed to play well off of Bullock. Quinton Aaron, who plays Oher, did a good job with the character. I think his strength was the physical portrayal of this character rather than verbal. With the few lines he did have, he was mostly believable. Kathy Bates was great in a role that was perfect for her. I would dare to say that the movie would not have been as above average as it was without Bullock. She really gave life to the film which helped all the other parts come together.














Overall this film was above average. The fact that it’s a true story makes it even better and gives it credibility. The film did focus a little too much on the events in the story and could have shifted more to the emotions. This was a great platform for Bullock to reinforce why she is an A list actor in light of her recent lighter roles and to give her an Oscar nomination which she more or less deserves for her performance. I would not agree that this film deserves the best picture nomination however. It was very nicely done and was above average from other films of this nature, but I would not even place it in the same category as Inglorious Basterds. I would much have rather seen 500 Days of Summer nominated over this film. I would recommend this film to families, church groups, or lovers of feel-good sports movies and inspirational films alike.

Up in the Air

Tagline: The story of a man ready to make a connection.

So, I saw this movie as a part of my dedicated Oscar week in which to view all of the films nominated for best picture. I had wanted to see this movie when it came out but didn’t have the chance. It’s directed and co-written by Jason Reitman, who directed Juno and also directed/co-wrote Thank You For Smoking, which are two great films and was the main reason behind my desire to see this film. The movie is also nominated for best actor, best supporting actress ( both for Kendrick and Farmiga,), best director, and best adapted screenplay.



The plot follows Ryan Bingham, played by George Clooney, who works as a traveling ‘termination engineer’ who is hired by various companies across the nation to fire their employees. He spends 340 days out of the year traveling and has come to embrace and covet his lifestyle and all the travel perks associated with it. Soon he encounters his female counterpart, played by Vera Farmiga, and one thing leads to another and they end up syncing their outlook travel calendars. Not too soon after does he meet a new executive of his company fresh out of graduate school at the ripe age of 23, played by Anna Kendrick, who is set on revolutionizing their company and conduct the terminations via the internet and webcam, thus ‘grounding’ all of the traveling workers. As a result of Binghams’ effort to stay in the field, Kendrick’s character, Natalie Keener is sent with him to observe at the insistence of their mutual boss, played by Jason Bateman.


The script was adapted from a novel written by Walter Kirn. Reitman first began working on the screenplay in 2002 when the economy was booming but had to push it to the backburner in order to work on Juno and Thank You For Smoking. He then revisited the script in the now current recession which gave it a different tone all together. The dialogue is witty and contains lots of dry humor. We get insight and development from the leads, Clooney and Kendrick. The characters are complex and well written. The story is captivating yet subtle. I really enjoyed the symbolism of the virtual firing advocated by Kendrick’s character and how this mimicked the empty isolated life led by Clooney’s character. They both fought against each other’s ideas without realizing they were embracing the same ideologies. Overall this was a really smart script.


The cinematography was beautiful and the editing superb. There were many mini-montages that worked beautifully with the music to artistically mirror the repetitive motions of Bingham’s life up in the air. I would have really liked to see this film nominated for best editing. The film had a nice blue filter which was in keeping with the tone and bleakness of the message. The camera angles were nicely done and went above the basic master and close up shots. The pace of the movie was smooth and subtle. Even though the story was not action-packed it didn’t seem to lag.


Anna Kendrick deserves the nomination for best supporting actress. She became that character. It was written with her in mind however Ellen Page and Emily Blunt were initially considered for the role. This character would have not been as genuine or sympathetic if either of those actresses taken on the role. The whole tone of the movie most likely would have shifted with Pages’ dry sarcastic delivery. I will make a bold statement and say that Clooney was not the perfect match for this role. He did a great job and pulls of the smugness and confident parts of the character with ease. The problem with him is that George Clooney cannot pull of vulnerability. There were some scenes in which he should have appeared semi-vulnerable and open, but he just misses the mark. George Clooney is George Clooney, how could anyone hurt him? This character was not that far off from his Ocean’s Eleven character. I would actually have to say that I would not have considered him for best actor for this role simply because he did quite pull off the intended semi-vulnerability the part called for and this role is nothing new for him. I’m not entirely sure who I would have like to have seen cast, but possibly a Steve Martin or Colin Firth type actor. I liked Farmiga’s performance better in The Departed but her character was given more development in that movie compared to this one. I think she encompassed this role and was believable but didn’t make enough of an impact as Kendrick did to garner the nomination. I think it was an amazing decision to use real life people who had recently been terminated from a job as the people who are getting fired in the movie. That was such an awesome direction and gave the movie real credibility and would actually give substance to the current situation in our nation today and the impersonal tone many businesses have begin to embrace.


I agree with the best director, adapted screenplay, supporting actress (for Kendrick), and possibly the best film nominations. I enjoyed this film as it had an indie feel with great performances, superb editing, and a quirky dryly subtle script. I would recommend to anyone who would enjoy a subtly humorous outlook on life in our world today. This movie was very quotable; “Would you like the cancer?”, “The what” “ Would you like the can, sir?”

The Hurt Locker

Tagline: You'll know when you're in it.

So, I saw this movie also as a part of my dedicated Oscar’s week of the films nominated for best picture, although I did attempt to watch this months earlier and fell asleep in the first few scenes of the movie. After that, I really had no desire to finish this movie. It has however been creating some serious buzz and racked up numerous awards at the BAFTAs earlier this year. This movie is also potentially the vehicle to bring us our first female director to win an Oscar for best director, who is also the ex-wife of James Cameron, whose picture is also nominated.







This movie follows an elite bomb squad and it’s team leader William James, played by Jeremy Renner, during a rotation in war-torn Iraq. During the course of the movie, the team goes on several different missions as the first responders to evaluate and disarm numerous suspected bombs of all sorts of fashion.






The plot definitely had a bit of a drag in the beginning. Honestly if this wasn’t a part of my Oscar week, I don’t think I would’ve attempted it again as my first attempt did such a great job of putting me right to sleep. I will say that the ‘plot’ picks up in the latter half of the movie. I say ‘plot’ because there was no real story line and more of a sequence of events. I actually enjoyed this plot as it felt real. This movie had an almost documentary type feel to it but nothing like a mockumentary. It felt as if we were truly just following this bomb battalion during their normal duties while on rotation in Iraq. The plot didn’t have an agenda or a message about war, it was simply just about war. I imagine this is how life feels to a soldier over there; no political agendas or huge conspiracies, simply a job that must be done.






The camera work fit perfectly with the feel of the movie, with up close hand held film cameras. It really felt like we were watching raw footage from the field. The editing was excellent and well thought out. There were close up shots and unique camera angles thrown in there which really kept the balance of the different filming styles and reminded us that we were watching a movie and not live footage from Iraq. The sound editing was amazing, like most of the best war movies are. A war movie really relies heavily on the realistic sound and this one had it. It wasn’t anything ground-breaking but it was on par with other great war movies. The movie used the different camera styles and great balanced editing to provide us with something more than the run of the mill war movie where the camera just follows the action where it goes.






The performances were good and believable. This was an action driven movie and we weren’t given much character development, with the slight exception of Renner’s character. There was several short supporting characters played by Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, and David Morse. Jeremy Renner did great with his character and everyone made their characters unique instead of playing the generic soldier-type. Everybody was believable and as the movie was mainly centered around the action/plot, there really isn’t much more to say.






The movie didn’t really have a normal storyline with an exposition, rising/falling action, and conclusion. It was more of a deep look into the life of a bomb squad in modern day Iraq. It left the viewer to draw our own opinions, without any political overtones or propagandic agendas. It was unique from most other war movies in which a centralized storyline develops however war is not really like that and therefore this movie felt like a much better account of real life. The film was made on location in Jordan which just gives such credibility to the movie and all of the crew that worked on it. I understand why this film is being revered for its uniqueness and credibility but I’m not sure if I really see where the best picture nomination came from. I think the people who really will enjoy this film, will be very narrow. I think it will be a great iconic movie for future generations which captured the feel of this war or as James Cameron said it, ‘the Platoon of the Iraq War’. I would really only recommend this to war movie fans who will enjoy a raw dirty look of modern day warfare. This movie is obviously not for everyone and I believe those who don’t enjoy this type of movie, will find it boring and hard to follow.

A Serious Man

Tagline: The new film by Joel and Ethan Coen.

So I saw this movie as a part of my dedicated Oscar week in which I viewed all ten movies nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award. I have never heard of this movie and would never had seen it if it hadn’t been nominated. After reading about it and learning it was written and directed by the Coen brothers, I was actually excited to see this movie as they were marketing it as a dark dramedy.







The movie follows Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Stuhlbarg, who is a father of two and a professor at Midwestern Universtiry in 1970. The story follows his life as it unravels when his wife calmly tells him she want a divorce in order to marry Sy Ableman, played by Fred Melamed, who is also his personal family physician. He then moves out of the house with his unemployed brother to live in a seedy motel, the Jolly Roger. He then faces different obstacles; debt collectors, bribes, auto accidents, and deaths among other things.






The plot was horribly boring and plagued with inside Jewish humor I think only was amusing to the Coen brothers themselves. The whole movie felt entirely self indulgent and was full of biblical allusions that made it all that much more confusing. The plot moved along with an awkward pace and was devoid of any real humor or suspense right up to the open ended conclusion. The end of the movie left it up to the viewer to figure it out for themselves. With a movie this slow and uninteresting, I had no desire to sit and ponder about the ending and the message they were trying to get across. The characters were bland and very stereotypical and had no complexity or depth written to them.






Surprisingly so, the movie was shot beautifully. The film was vibrant and colorful and really showed the experience of the art director. The cinematography proved to be the only thing well executed in the movie. The sets were beautiful and the camera angles smooth and unique. If the movie had a different screenplay and director, it might have been a beautiful experience. The soundtrack was also great and featured the Jefferson Airplane song, ‘Somebody to Love’ in several parts.






The performances were on par with a dry TV sitcom. The characters were so stereotypical that it was hard for them to break through and give us a real performance. I don’t think this was a product of bad acting but rather from a bad screenplay and equally bad direction. Michael Stuhlbarg showed real potential and I would like to see him in a better movie because he just wasn’t able to compensated for the terrible direction this time.






I was very disappointed in this movie especially seeing as this is from the same duo that gave us Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and Burn After Reading to mention a few. It really seemed like a self-indulgent project that only the Coen brothers could relate to and find interesting. There was so much Jewish humor and stereotypes thrown in there with the Biblical allusions that it made it too confusing and I don’t think it will transcend culturally. It’s as if there were trying to throw in too many things in there which resulted in this boring and uninteresting movie. I am extremely baffled at how this movie was nominated for best picture?! There weren’t any elements or reasons for this movie to even be close to the same level as the other nominees even. “The uncertainty Principle; It proves we can’t ever really know what’s going on. So it shouldn’t bother you. Not being able to figure anything out. Although, you will be responsible for this on the mid-term”.

Valentine's Day

Tagline: A love story. More or less.

So who didn’t want to see this star-studded movie? I had wanted to see it in the theater but after hearing just terrible things, I was not as motivated but did finally gather up the motivation and saw the movie. Here’s a list of the main headliners: Ashton Kutcher, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner, Patrick Dempsey, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Biel, Taylor Swift, Taylor Lautner, Shirley McLane, Hector Elizondo, Queen Latifah, Anne Hathaway, Topher Grace, Eric Dane, George Lopez, Kathy Bates, Bradley Cooper, and Julia Roberts. And this is why most of America wanted to see this movie.







The movie follows the make-ups and break-ups of several different couples over the course of one Valentine’s Day and all the stories intertwine in some way or another. The plot loosely follows the story of Ashton Kutcher, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner, and Patrick Dempsey’s characters or at least give us an opening and closure to the movie. We also find a young high school couple, an old married couple, a newly dating young professional couple, and a determined bachelorette who throws a yearly ‘I hate Valentines’ party.






The plot follows nicely even with the segmented storyline and most of the characters get equal time in the movie. The connectedness of the characters is believable but implausible. The plot was light, heart-warming, and entertaining. It was not however a deep look into the dynamics of a relationship, i.e Love Actually. This was more of a optimistic He’s Just Not That Into You. I would say that most of the characters were fun and had a place in the movie. A few of the characters were a little bit quirky but pretty much just normal clichéd characters. The plot was basically about the different things you can do on Valentines Day and how different people embrace the day.






The movie flowed well between the different arches and was easy to follow. With a movie like this, it would be very hard to lose the audience in confusion and not space out the arches well enough so the editing was well thought out and sequenced nicely. The filming was high quality and on par with this type of movie since it was character-driven.






The performances were nicely done. I would say that the shining performance was from Anne Hathaway who really did great with her character, which was probably the most fun character in the movie. Everyone else was pretty much a normal person in the movie. Taylor Swift makes her acting debut and did an okay job. At first it looked like a performance I saw when she did Saturday Night Live, but towards the end it got a little better. She just seemed a little too eager to play the part but again she’s a singer and not an actress. Jessica Biels’ character felt the most faked and especially her interactions with Jamie Foxx’ character. I really enjoyed Bradley Cooper and Julia Roberts in the movie, although they were pretty much secluded from the rest.






Overall, it was a cute and entertaining movie despite what I had heard going into this. I think knowing from the beginning that this wasn’t going to be anywhere close to Love Actually, helped. Although this was one of those movies that made you feel lonely watching it alone late at night, just for a couple of minutes. I really think these are the best kinds of movies for these actors to do since you really can’t blame one person for a flop, they get paid well, and the parts are super easy. I would recommend this movie to couples and anyone who wants to watch a cute lovey-dovey movie.