War Horse

So, I've almost done it. I've watched/reviewed 8 of the 9 films nominated for Best Picture this year. I have purposely stayed away from all media sources and I have not read the list of winners yet before writing this review. Honestly, I did not want to see this movie and would not have done so if not for my attempt to watch all 9 movies. This just looked too predictable for my tastes however it somehow made it's way into a Best Picture nomination. This movie from Steven Spielberg has done quite well bringing in $133 million on a budget of $66 million. 

The movie is about a horse and his owner as they each go through different aspects of the First World War. 

The plot technique of using the horse to tie all of the otherwise random characters together was clever yet highly improbable. The horse served it's purpose well of tying together different aspects of the war. The movie was able to show how it affected civilians and soldiers on both sides of the war without getting to disconnected. I usually enjoy movies about WWI and especially WWII, however I tend to shy away from the movies that romanticize and play down the nitty gritty of these wars, which is what I was afraid of with this film. The movie was mostly romanticized, but it did get into some of the rather unpleasant things as well. Using the horse as a semi-narrator gave you something to hope for in the movie while viewing the different parts of the subject matter. Of course the plot was one where you were longing for the hero to win and persevere through insurmountable odds. While all of the different events were extremely improbable, it almost didn't matter because you were drawn into each of the different acts of the story. 

Most of the battle sequences were shot in perfect frame rate and resolution that I would expect of a war movie. This is with the exception of the eye-sore that was the farmhouse. I can see that Spielberg designed it with a few shots in mind, however it did not look natural and really jumped out at me. Other than these scenes, everything else looked on par with my knowledge of this time period. The score was overdone and tried to evoke too much emotion even though the story was doing a decent job and the score just became overkill. There were many cliches in the movie, including the opening sequence of an Indian wooden flute melody played over rolling shots of the landscape to set up the epic story Spielberg was about to portray. 

I'm quite impressed with the horse work they were able to accomplish in this film. I'm quite serious. There were some large scale animal sequences and it was completed in a wide frame and it was breathtaking. The horse and actors were also in the same frame instead of cutting between the two so that the actors don't have to be near the animals. I'm very impressed with the amount of time spent to get it right although of course there was some CGI at play as well however it was virtually indistinguishable. Each of the actors in all of the little acts of the story, were very likable and really tugged at your heart strings with their individual stories. 

In the end, the film was rather entertaining. It purposefully made things bittersweet just to get at you, which was more or less successful. It was an improbable heart-warming tale that encompassed animal loyalty, war, family bonds, friendship, love, and just basically every other moral imaginable. It was a nicely made big budget blockbuster movie. There was nothing extremely remarkable or unique about this movie that makes me agree with the Best Picture nomination (especially if Drive was nominated). While it was entertaining, it was still exactly as I predicted it would be. "Well, clearly you aren't going to be a jumping horse". 

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

So I had remembered hearing a lot about this movie around the same time as We Need to Talk About Kevin, and sort of lumped both into a dark corner. I'm ashamed of myself that I almost sabotaged myself out of this amazing story. Thank goodness I saw this film as a part of my Oscar Watch pact (which sadly I've only gotten to 7 out of the 9 nominated films and the awards airs tonight). The movie was released last December and has made about $33 million worldwide to date. The movie is brought to us by Stephen Daldry, who is the same director of Billy Elliot (a personal favorite), The Hours, and The Reader.

The plot follows a young boy played by Thomas Horn who is a self proclaimed pacifist, Francophile, inventor, etc. He finds a mysterious key in his father's closet, played by Tom Hanks, about a year after his untimely death in the Sept. 11 tragedy. He sets out on a mission across New York City to find the lock belonging to his key while trying to keep everything hidden from his mother, played by Sandra Bullock.

Alright, I was thinking the same thing; this must be a very whimsical light-hearted adventure tale. I was extremely wrong, and thank goodness. There was only a dash of whimsy in this story and everything was completely genuine and believable by the end of the film. I'll venture to say that this was one of the greatest stories I have been witness to in quite some time. While some movies focus on character studies, tone, or feeling, this movie presented a fantastic story and brought it to life. Not unlike Hugo for the child at heart piece, but much more grounded in reality. The characters were perfectly written. The story amazingly told the events from the perspective of a boy, a very mature boy, without losing any of it's credibility or genuinity (that should be a word). The dialogue was simply fantastic and I would love to have the rhetoric of the father and son in the story. Fantastic dialogue for fellow lovers of wit. The way the story unfolded was pure brilliance and the feelings and emotions brought out would pull at even the coldest heart. I can't praise the plot enough in this review. I'm astonished that this was not nominated for best adapted screenplay. As I have not read the source material, I must assume that the book is even more brilliant.

The editing in the movie was superb and made the non-sequential feel sequential. The story was paced remarkably well and you felt like a companion along for the journey. The camera angles and framing were well thought out and captured the point of the view without subtracting from the story. The score was just right and not overdone. The color was beautiful in all of the scenes.

I'd like to know why Thomas Horn was not nominated for best actor. Granted, I have not seen Demian Bichir, George Clooney, or Gary Oldman's performances but I have seen Brad Pitt and Jean Dujardin's and I would venture to say that this little boy, well at 15 he's not so little, gave a performance in that same league. Tom Hanks was lovable as always in his time on screen. Sandra Bullock gave a very raw performance and captured her character's essence. Max Von Sydow, who's up for best supporting actor, gave a very detailed performance despite not speaking a single word. You could see the emotion dripping from his face.

I was extremely happy with this film. It was about the story and it was a great story. I was a little reluctant given the 9/11 subject matter, but it doesn't make it the real focus of the movie. I know some parts of the plot are a little whimsical and the story doesn't get dragged down into the dark depths of the earth, but the point of view is from a child. I think a lot of the critics who have criticized it for a lack of depth or 'feigned sensitivity' are looking for an adult's perspective of the events. But the story is about loss and is not about the tragedy itself, it's also about a child. I'm very happy with the way it combined realism with a story teller that is also a child. I have seen very few movies that have an adult audience from a child's perspective (that actually worked). I would whole-heartedly recommend this movie to my dearest friends or anyone who enjoys sad/funny/emotional/heartwarming/heartwrenching stories. "As I continued searching I found myself lighter because I was closer to my father. But I was also heavier because I was further away from my mother".

The Artist

So I remember seeing the trailer for this movie earlier last year and was very excited about the potential for the movie. Once it was released I kept hearing rave reviews after another but never got the chance to see it until tonight. Being a mostly silent film it did rather well for itself bringing in over $58 million on a meager budget of only $15 million.

The plot centers around a famous silent film actor George Valentin, played by Oscar nominee Jean Dujardin, who fails to make the difficult transition into the talkies while a former costar, played by fellow Oscar nominee Berenice Bejo, excels and launches a powerful career in the talkies.

I was warned by a close friend that the script was eerily similar to Singin' in the Rain, which is a personal favorite of mine. Lo and behold, it was quite similar down to the famous co-stars who hate each other, accidental meeting of a fan turned movie star turned love interest, almost identical tap dance sequence, leading man that looks like the twin of Gene Kelly, etc. The movie started off with the almost identical premise of Singin' except Donald O'Connor had been replaced by a super cute terrier. While both movies started exactly the same, The Artist took a different path to arrive at their mutual ending. There were still similarities between the two but at least the second half of the film was not an exact replica. Quite obviously, I'm not in agreement with the best original screenplay nomination as this story obviously isn't very original. The characters were written with interesting yet one-dimensional dynamics between each other, obviously being mostly silent anything more complex would've been quite difficult.

I very much enjoyed the throwback to the old days of Hollywood. The aspect ratio, frame rate, lenses, lighting, set design, everything was the way it was back then and it made it work today. It almost crossed the line into becoming just a gimmick several times, but for the most part it was endearing. Was it necessary to get the point across? Probably not, vintage and contemporary could most likely have been intertwined to tell the story. However the director stuck to it and did it well. The story was effective and entertaining. The use of silence helped to illustrate the world they lived in at least. I must say that the film was much choppier than I was expecting.

Best actor and best supporting actress? Well, perhaps. It took an extreme amount of dedication and skill to pull of a believable silent film. The performances were out shined by the silent aspect of the movie unfortunately.

Before watching the film, I had placed my bet on this as the winner of Best Picture, which it still may do because of the 'innovative' route it took. As I stated earlier, if it hadn't used the silent film technique the whole time, it might have been able to stand on it's own merit. The way it is now, it's all about the uniqueness of the silent aspect. It overshadows everything else in the movie. It's the only thing everyone talks about. Nobody mentions the extensive score going on and on, or the studio sets that seem to have been replicated from every film of that era or the work it took to film the movie with the same style as it's predecessors. At least it did the silent thing well. "I'm blackmailing you, don't you see".

Moneyball

So I watched this movie also as a part of my pact to attempt to watch all nine movies nominated for Best Picture this year. Originally when it was released I didn't really have any desire to see it. I had heard that it was good but I'm very iffy when it comes to sports movies. I'm not exactly sure why I usually do not like sports movies but it's most likely because they are usually all riddled with cliches. The movie did rather well for itself bringing in about $108 million worldwide with a budget of only $50 million. Oh and it's been nominated for best actor, best supporting actor, best picture, best editing, best sound mixing, and best adapted screenplay.

The movie is about the 2002 Oakland Athletics baseball team and it's general manager Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt. Their team has one of the lowest budgets in the league and have just lost three major players to the Yankees. With the help of a Yale graduate with a degree in economics, played by Jonah Hill, Bean comes up with a new way of recruiting players and putting together a team based on the statistics of on-base-percentage instead of chasing expensive big name players.

The plot was surprisingly good and refreshing. It was apparently based on a book, but this screenplay was very nicely adapted. I've got a good working knowledge of baseball so I understood the lingo and nuances in the movie but I believe even a layperson would understand as well without it feeling watered down. The story was not very romanticized and only had a few cliches in it, i.e. a news montage to recap the season and the pinnacle/climactic/dramatic single game where everything is on the line. The minimal amount of cliches were subtle and didn't overpower the power of the script. The dynamics between the characters were very well written and the story was told effectively. Coming from what I imagine would have been a very technical book, the nomination for best screenplay is very well deserved.

The film and camera used gave the movie a contemporary yet vintage feel, if that makes any sense at all. The editing was smooth and effortless. While the sound mixing was nicely done with crisp bat cracks throughout, I'm not convinced it was the best out there.

Brad Pitt did a great job and really embodied this character. His scenes with the character's daughter in the film was also surprisingly convincing. I have yet to see the other four performances nominated, but I think Pitt did a decent job and may have a shot. Jonah Hill gave a performance similar to that of Cyrus. Not a bad thing since he left his usual schtick behind and played it straight, but I'm not in agreement with the best supporting actor nomination. His character was more of a plot device than anything else. He played the role so straight that there wasn't much of a change from the character in the beginning to the end. Philip Seymour Hoffman played a very believable manager and was the sympathetic antagonist somehow. I also personally loved that Chris Pratt had an important role in the film (Parks and Recration, for the win). He showed that he is a very underrated actor.

In the end I actually enjoyed the movie. It was informative in that I hadn't known about this groundbreaking season before and it was entertaining. It also supports my opinion that (some) professional athletes and ridiculously overpaid without deserving half of it. The story and screenplay were just fantastic and Brad Pitt completely owned the character. It wasn't the normal cliched sports movie about playing the game with heart and giving it your all, etc. While it's not one of my favorite sports movies, it was quite entertaining. "I'm just a little bit caught in the middle. Life is a maze and life is a riddle"

The Tree of Life

So I saw this film as part of my pact to watch and review all nine films nominated for best picture this year from director Terrence Malick. When this movie originally came out I had wanted to see it until I heard more and more about the extreme non-linear narrative in this film and then I sort of lost interest in it. The movie did end up bringing in about $54 million while being produced on a $32 million budget, despite the numerous news stories about moviegoers demanding their money back from the theaters.

The story follows the life of a man, played by Sean Penn, who grew up in 1950's Texas with a very strict father, Brad Pitt, and gentler mother, Jessica Chastain. Penn's character deals with existentialist angst following the death of his beloved brother and the loss of innocence in his life.

The narrative in this film is very small and just a minor sidenote to the overall focus of the film. The story is pieced together with various clips and fragments of the main character's memory. Even with small little bursts of narrative, we still get a real feeling for who these characters are and their dynamics with each other which is quite impressive given the extreme style of the movie. The characters were written very well and quite complex as they each had different dynamics with the other characters. If Malick had decided to shift the focus to the narrative portion of the film, it would've played out as a very well written plot.

Obviously things were very non-linear in this film. This was not about the story or the characters even, it was about provoking a feeling to it's audience. Actually 'provoking' isn't quite right, it was about forcing a feeling on it's audience. Malick used extreme amounts of imagery to get his point across and make you feel the existentialism of the film. I'm talking about 17 minutes of non-stop imagery and by imagery I'm talking about; stars, waves, dinosaurs, volcanos, clouds, fire, etc. It was almost as if there was a discovery channel documentary spliced into the middle of the film. I get it, it's about creation, nature vs. faith, etc. I just don't like being beaten over the head about it. It felt very pretentious. I'm all for imagery and thinking outside of the box to provoke a feeling or a tone for the movie, but not forcing it upon you with a sort of self gratuitous feeling to it. While I'm not a fan of the extreme chopped up editing and imagery, I will say that the cinematography was breathtaking. At least I wasn't subjected to 120 minutes of an ugly movie. Malick used only natural lighting for almost every frame of the movie which was simply stunning. He also employed the use of uncommon camera work and cut out all of the normal pans and tilts and opted instead for handheld vertical movements. It gave interesting angles and perspectives to the film which I feel closely mirror how memories work. But beautiful cinematography aside, the editing choice in this film just completely detached me from this film.

Unfortunately Malick's decision to not focus on the narrative or give us much more than a feeling for the characters, the actors didn't get a chance to really shine. Sean Penn gave an interview harshly criticizing Malick for not telling him what he was going to do with the editing and Penn stated that he didn't even know why he was in the film with regards to the way it was finally edited. I can see where Penn is coming from. Especially with his character, who maybe has six lines of on screen dialogue and his clips are shown so sporadically throughout the film, who could've been played with a much cheaper actor. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain were given the most spotlight in the film and were able to really develop their characters. The boys in the film were also fantastic.

I was not pleased with this film as I've mentioned because of the choices Malick made with the narrative and editing. It really feels like a pretentious film and I can already hear the voices of the fans of this movie saying, 'you just don't get it'. Maybe I don't, but I think I do. We all have existential questions and could relate to this film if told in a different manner. I think that the only people who will connect with this are people who are in the same spot at Malick in their search for their role/purpose in life. And again, the 17 minutes of imagery, it was almost a test Malick through in there to weed out the truly dedicated audience. I read somewhere that an Italian cinema had actually gotten the first two reels of the film mixed up and nobody could tell a difference for two weeks. "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by"

Hugo

So I had wanted to see this movie ever since hearing Chloe Moretz talk about it in an interview for Let Me In. I had high hopes. When I saw the trailer for the movie, I was less than impressed but regained a little more faith once I heard everyone raving about how great it was. I found myself in LA the other week and could think of nothing better than to catch this movie in all of it's 3D glory in beautiful Century City. Surprisingly the movie has only brought in about $97 million compared to it's estimated $170 million budget.

The movie is about a small orphaned boy named Hugo, played by Asa Butterfield, who lives inside of the clock rooms at a train station in 1930's Paris. He is soon befriended by the daughter, played by Chloe Moretz, of a local shopkeeper, played by Ben Kingsly. They soon set off on 'an adventure' to unlock the secret of an automaton (steampunk robot type thing) that Hugo and his late father had been working on. Their adventure soon leads them to discoveries about their families.

Without giving away too much with my horrible synopsis above, the plot was fantastic. The trailer was highly misleading as the movie was not the run-of-the-mill fantasy adventure story. Everything was very much grounded in reality. The characters were so robust and colorful it didn't matter if they were complex or not. The way the characters and the plot tied in together was just incredible and highly believable. There is not a movie-lover out there who would not enjoy the story of this film. That may be a slight hyperbole, but I don't care because the plot was that good.

I am anti-3D for sure and almost always opt for the 2D version when possible. That being said, I was told this was the best 3D movie yet and that even James Cameron himself complimented Scorsese on the way he used 3D in this film. I will say that the 3D in this movie was amazing. The shots and angles were filmed to make the most of the 3D instead of it being an afterthought or bonus as in most movies out there. The 3D was an integral part of the movie and made such a fantastic experience. I hope that will be captured on the DVD so more can enjoy this amazing feat of technology. Ok, enough about the 3D. The cinematography of this movie was simply beautiful from the color correction to the camera movements and angles. Just breathtaking. The first sequence of the movie had to have been computer generated due to the extremely long rolling shot in and out of the inner working of the clock. If it wasn't computer generated, I want to see an anatomy of that scene. Scorsese did not cut any corners in this movie and it really paid off.

The kid in the movie, Asa Butterfield, did a really great job. He was very genuine and likable on screen and has a pair of the most amazing eyes ever. Chloe Moretz, who is one of my favorite up and coming actresses, did a very nice job as well. Her character was more of a plot device in most situations but she still pulled it off brilliantly. Ben Kingsly, I mean, Sir Ben Kingsly did great, as always. His character was the most fascinating character in the movie and was so great watching him in the second half. Sacha Baron Cohen came out of nowhere in this film. He was unrecognizable and so much larger than life, it was quite entertaining.

It was an experience watching this movie. You were transported into the story. I will assume the same effect will be produced in 2D as the cinematography was simply beautiful. I think the marketing of this movie was way off because they marketed it as a kid's movie and while there are children as the main characters, this was no means a children's film per se. It's really a movie 'for the child in all of us'. The story and beauty of the film are very universal across all ages. There are very exciting and fast paced sequences which will appeal to children no doubt but the message and tone are directed toward movie lovers of all ages. Shutter Island had shaken my faith in Scorsese and this film totally makes up for it. I know I've gone on and on about how great this movie is, so let me see if I can see some downsides. Nope, there aren't any. Although there are some audiences out there who don't enjoy such clean-cut movies with good morals and themes and this movie probably wouldn't suit them. "Machines never come with extra parts, you know. They always come with the exact amount they need. So I figured that if the whole world is one big machine, I couldn't be an extra part. I had to be here for a reason."

The Help

So I had some interest in seeing this movie since I heard the premise and learned that Emma Stone was starring in it. Before watching, it did look like it was going to be a little too wholesome for me but still thought I'd give it a chance, and this was before it was nominated for a best picture Oscar. The movie did a fantastic job as is raked in over $205 million worldwide with a budget of only $25 million, plus it had everybody talking about it non-stop during it's release. 

The movie is set in 1960's Mississippi and revolves around a privileged white girl, Emma Stone, who sets out to further her own civil rights activism by writing a book about the 'colored' help, from their perspective. It also includes Allison Janney, Viola Davis, Jessica Chastain, Octavia Spencer, and Bryce Dallas Howard in it's eclectic cast. 

The plot obviously was going to deal with some heavy issues however it kept things light-hearted for the most part. Instead of getting deep into the harsh realities of this time period, it kept things in line with it's PG13 rating. Hopefully that decision will resonate with the younger audience who are getting detached from this part of our history. The main character was quite likable although some of her attempted development in the plot fell short in my eyes, I think the focus should have been spent on just the book and dropped her other subplots. Some of the other characters blended into each other and honestly I got Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain, and Anna Camp's characters mixed up throughout the whole time. Perhaps I was very tired when watching or maybe the characters were too similar. The time the plot spent with the help characters was the best parts of the plot. The plot seemed to reinforce the idea that the upper class characters were in fact the less civilized too much that it became redundant. There were some nice anecdotes and some touchy subjects that the plot brought up however again it kept a wholesome and light-hearted tone throughout. Unfortunately most of the characters were one-dimensional and not very complex. 

Obviously the set design, wardrobe, and makeup were paramount in this film. The movie had the glowy picture perfect feeling of the (early) 1960's. It was definitely a romanticized movie and the cinematography matched that. 

Viola Davis fully deserves her leading actress nomination. She did a fantastic job of playing this dichotomy of subservient in one setting and powerful in another. You could feel the emotion just oozing out of the screen during the scenes where she talks about her son. It was a great performance. Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer have also been nominated for their roles as supporting actresses in this. They both provided much of the comic relief in the movie. By the second half of the movie, I could distinguish Chastain from the others. She was definitely believable in her role and was a refreshing break from rest of the upper class characters. Spencer also provided much of the comic relief on the other side of the plot and was much more ferocious than Davis, but she pales in comparison because her character didn't have as much moving material to work with. I think both of these ladies did nice jobs with their roles. Emma Stone was really great in her role as well. It was nice to see her in something a little different although she still was the Emma Stone we've come to know and love. I think it was a great decision for her to take on this film. 

In the end, it still felt a little too wholesome and light-hearted even though it dealt with some heavy issues. It just didn't get too deep into those issues. I enjoyed the movie as it was entertaining, even if the characters weren't too complex, except for maybe Davis'. I think perhaps my feeling about the wholesomeness of the movie could be related to the fact that I took several courses and read numerous books about this subject that dove head first into the heavy issues. Perhaps someone who has a working knowledge of this time period would find this a deeper movie, such as the younger PG13 audience.  Also I may be overlooking the fact that the goal of the movie was to provide this type of look into the past. "Pay to the order: Two Slice Hilly". 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

So, I had no inclinations to see this movie at all when it came out. Only after hearing for the millionth time about how Andy Serkis deserved an Oscar nod and other general praise for the movie, I decided to bite the bullet and watch it. Perhaps I'm still holding a grudge from the Mark Wahlberg version, which was one of the worst movies in history, but I'm not a fan of this franchise in particular. I don't believe I have seen any of the other versions. In any event, it looks like this movie did extremely well as it not only generated serious Oscar buzz, it's brought in almost $481 million worldwide with a budget of only $93 million.

The plot is what I assume a prequel to the franchise, or at least the last movie (please forgive my ignorance on the ape franchise). It follows James Franco as he manipulates genetic codes in order to save his father, played by John Lithgow, from Alzheimers. The apes that he tests on become highly intelligent which ultimately leads to their demise at the lab he works for, save one tiny little baby with a super I.Q. Franco's character takes him home and raises him. The aptly named Caesar, finds himself imprisoned in a brutal ape sanctuary and ultimately leads a revolt against those damn dirty humans.

I will say that the script was fresh and original. Apparently there were also tons of little hat-tips to the other movies, but in a smart and realistic way. The characters were unfortunately riddled with cliches and stereotypes, except for maybe Caesar, but again that's only to be expected in an action movie. The dialogue was predictable and simple.

I was quite disappointed with the CGI. Don't get me wrong, the faces were beautifully done and far superior to most other movies with CGI creatures. That being said, the way their bodies moved and the lighting and interlacing with the film was just really off. I'm not anything close to being a special effects guru, but it seems as though all of the time was spent on the faces of the apes instead of making them look like they were actually there. The lighting didn't even match the backgrounds in some shots. And I don't want to even mention the body-dragging sequence after Malfoy's character was knocked out. Although, I do have to hand it to them since almost every single frame contained a CGI character in it. I'm surprised it only cost $93 million. As far as the other cinematic elements, obviously the majority of the budget was in the special effects department as there was run-of-the-mill camera work, score, etc.

James Franco is such a Renaissance Man and he did fine in this role. Malfoy, a.k.a. Tom Felton, did pretty well, plus it was fun watching him without his accent. I will admit that Andy Serkis did an amazing job with his motion capture acting. He conveyed so much through his face it was unreal.

In the end, I was disappointed. Most likely this is due to the supersized ultra overrated non-stop hyping of the movie going on. Other than the exquisitely done ape faces, the CGI was way below par. The plot was interesting enough to keep me from hating the movie but still falls in the mediocre realm. "Ape alone, weak. Apes together, strong."

50/50

So I had been wanting to see this for forever but honestly I'd been kind of dreading it because I didn't want to think about the existential ideas in the movie. Alas, I caved and finally saw it and thank goodness I did. The movie has made about $39 million so far on a budget of about $8 million.

The movie is about a young twenty-something guy who is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer and it's inspired from the real-life events of screenwriter, Wil Reiser. Joseph-Gordon Levitt plays the main character and Seth Rogan plays his best friend. Bryce Dallas Howard plays his girlfriend, Angelica Huston is the mother, and Anna Kendrick is the worst therapist in the world.

This was an extremely well written script. It found humor in such a tragic setting. Even with all of the improvisation on set, the dialogue and script are just fantastic. You really feel like you're a part of the secret cancer society that you don't think much about until your life is affected by it. I think that when dealing with such a touchy subject matter, it can either come out fantastic or just horrible. Luckily, it was awesome in this case. The characters were very well written and displayed different emotions and dynamics all around.

The cinematography and film used on this movie were superb. The scenes were framed and colored beautifully. The soundtrack was perfect and in the right spots. The characters were given time to develop and interact with each other. This is the way movies should be made (I'm referring to the $8 million budget). When you spend the focus on cinematography, scripts, and actors you get a much better result and you don't need multi million dollar budgets, but I digress.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was simply awesome (as always). They actually had first cast James McAvoy, whom I also adore, but I really think JGL was perfect for the role. I especially loved the scenes with Anna Kendrick and JGL. They were awkwardly funny and I enjoyed their dynamic. Seth Rogen was Seth Rogen. I would've liked to see some dramatic scenes from him, but I'm just being picky now. Angelica Huston was very great but I wouldn't have expected any less. Bryce Dallas Howard is proving to be a pretty good character actress. I definitely had my doubts from her Victoria portrayal but when you compare it with her character in The Help, she's really becoming these different characters.

In the end, this was a great movie. It gives you a great outlook on life. I'd recommend watching this movie once you've settled down for the evening. It's one of those that makes you reflect afterwards. I'm not a fan of illness or sick children movies, but I did great with this one. "Nobody is going to f*** me, I look like Voldemort".

What's Your Number

So, sometimes I like these fluffy romantic comedies, I am a girl. I had thought the premise of this movie looked cute and I have loved Anna Farris ever since Smiley Face. The movie has made about $30 million with a tiny profit given it's $20 million budget. It's from director Mark Mylod who seems to be most well known as a tv director of Shameless and Entourage.

The movie is about a girl living in the big city who comes to the realization that she's slept with 19 men in her lifetime and vows that the next man she takes to bed will be 'the one'. When she 'accidentally' sleeps with number 20, she then goes on a mission to find all of her ex-lovers to see if she can re-kindle the romance and therefore not increasing her number. She uses the help of her super hot neighbor, Chris Evans, who has an investigation background.

Ok, so obviously this is going to be a predictable plot. Also it's yet another movie about finding 'the one' perfect guy and making everything right in your life, etc. I also found it interesting how it reflects on our culture that the average number of sexual partners a girl has is 10.5. Just imagine if this same movie was made 50 years ago. Anyway, it was fairly comical, mostly thanks to Faris. There were a lot of potentially hilarious scenes that only came away with small chuckles.

The soundtrack was pretty rockin'. I looked up a couple of the songs I didn't already know, so props on that. The main characters were amazingly sharp dressers, although they seemed to make Faris' clothes skimpier and skimpier as it went along, well Evans' too. There were a few different camera angles so the whole movie wasn't just close and wide shots.

Anna Faris did the best and carried the movie. She had help from Evans who was comical at times, don't forget his breakthrough performance from my beloved Not Another Teen Movie. There were bit parts scattered throughout from Faris' own husband, Andy Samberg, Martin Freeman, to name a few, but they didn't really get enough time to really make a comical impact.

In the end, it was a pretty, light-hearted, sometimes comical, ultra predictable chick flick. Sometimes that's not a bad thing since it really didn't claim to be much else. I do like how they kept it rated R or it most likely would have lost all of it's comedy. "Step-cousins, mom. It's like we're not even really related".

Sylvia

So this is a little BBC movie from 2003 starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig about the rise and fall of Sylvia Plath via her relationship with Ted Hughes. Netflix recommended this movie to me, possibly because I was one of the few that laughed at the Plath joke in Easy A? Or possibly because Netflix thinks I'm depressed? Either way, the movie looked interesting enough for me to watch since I really didn't know much about Plath past her infamous ending and that she wrote the Bell Jar.

The movie is directed by Christine Jeffs, who would later direct the quirkily awesome Sunshine Cleaning.  The movie follows the 1960's poet Sylvia Plath, played by Paltrow, who is plagued with insecurities and suicidal tendencies through her relationship with fellow poet Ted Hughes, played by Craig. His philandering doesn't help matters any in this moody period piece.

Obviously, this is a feel good movie that will warm your heart. Aside from the fact that we all know how this will end, the plot was rather interesting. Now, I'm no Plath expert but I did do a little research on the subject and apparently there are some differing opinions on Hughes himself, although everyone else seems to love Plath. They chose to show Hughes in an equivalent light instead of painting him in a darker role. I like that choice since it's all really conjecture anyway. The movie could have benefited from showing Plath at an earlier age, but at least she described her experiences.

It was a BBC film and the cinematography was exactly as you'd expect. The movie could've used some non cliche'd elevator music and better lenses and film quality. There was really nothing in this part of the movie that was worth mentioning. Wait, that's not entirely true. The wardrobe, makeup, and set design deserves some credit as it did have the feel of 1960's England.

Gwyneth Paltrow did a good job I thought. She did these almost unnoticeable little body movements, such a wringing her hands or clenching her dress, just to add to the insecurities Plath had about herself. I really don't know if she captured her or not because I have to admit that I've never read any of her poetry, but she seemed to capture the persona of a unmedicated manic depressive at least. Craig did a nice job, especially when he was reciting poetry or taking his shirt off. Unfortunately his character just reinforced the idea that all men suck.

I'd really only recommend this to Plath fans or fans of depressive movies, unless you have suicidal tendencies, then don't watch! In any event, the actors did a nice job and I learned a little bit more about her history, other than that the movie was somewhat forgettable. "Sometimes I feel like I'm not, solid. I'm hollow. There's nothing behind my eyes. I'm a negative of a person" -- Sylvia.