UP IN THE AIR

Director Jason Reitman's new film, "Up in the Air", is a very different movie for every single person who sees it. Lots of messages can be taken away from it as the film covers many issues. This keeps the brain thinking about the movie days after it is over, which is very hard for a movie to do these days. All of these messages make "Up in the Air" a treat to watch, but when they are all muddled together at the end it stops the film from being an outright masterpiece.

"Up in the Air" is about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). Bingham fires people for a living, he goes to cities all around the U.S. to fire people because the real bosses of the company do not want to. This premise may seem a little funny, but when Ryan's job get jeopardized by a new co-worker at his firm, the audience sees what Ryan's life is really all about. Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), proposes to Ryan's company that firing people over the Internet with an iChat is far more helpful and saves a lot more money than flying all over the country to do it. When Ryan objects, his boss makes him take Natalie on the road with him to see what the job is like.

The film starts off with a very light tone to it, as Ryan shows Natalie the ropes about air travel, firing techniques, and crashing parties. When Ryan meets up with Alex (a female "road warrior" with the exact same job he has) though, his life gets a little more complicated after they sleep together. They keep in touch (literally and figuratively) and Ryan invites her to his sister's wedding. "Up in the Air" takes on a dramatic tone at this point when Ryan realizes how much he has missed his family, and any human connection for that matter. He describes his relationship with Alex as "casual", and still wants to remain in the "cocoon of self-banishment" that he has made for himself (he spent 322 days on "the road" last year). Ryan is a motivational speaker, and his message is to avoid commitment at all costs.

A film with this much story going on has to wander at some points, and it does. Reitman's screenplay (co-written by Sheldon Turner) does not know where to go towards the end. He knows exactly what he is doing in the funny first half of the film, but the entire storyline with the wedding seems forced in. There is no transition from firing people to the wedding, it just cuts to Wisconsin (where the wedding takes place). Reitman also does not seem to know which message to tell, or if he should tell one at all. "Up in the Air" could be a character study of Ryan, or a message about human connection, or commentary about the United States' economic climate. Reitman tries to put these all into one statement, but this results in a muddled and somewhat downer ending. The dialogue itself though is very well written and razor sharp though, making some conversations between Ryan and Natalie is marvel to watch.

The acting in "Up in the Air" is incredible. George Clooney plays Ryan to perfection. He plays him as condescending with no desire for human connection at all. When he falls in love though, he plays Ryan with a rare vulnerability and kindness that is hard to find in a Clooney performance. Kendrick is also fantastic as Natalie, whose naive approach to Ryan's job is not annoying, but rather nice and fun. Vera Farmiga, who plays Alex, is adequate, and J.K. Simmons is a major scene stealer in his five minutes on the screen. The cinematography is very well done, there is an off-putting shift to the hand-held style two-thirds of the way through for no apparent reason, but it is still well done. The editing of the film is perfect, the film is not too long and not too short, and is such a rarity in movies these days. The score is also well done, including the original song for the film, "Help Yourself", by Sad Brad Smith.

"Up in the Air" is a very well done film, and everything is there to make it a masterpiece. The only thing that stops it is the film's inability to fully commit to one storyline/theme/message. Some might find this the strong point of the movie, but because the film does not fully commit to one thing, it never fleshes out all the story lines enough. This provides almost no depth to any of the characters, especially Ryan, whose only depth comes from a beautiful scene in his old high school. This is one of the best movies of the year, just not the best of the year.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

****/***** (4/5 stars)

AVATAR

It has been 12 years since James Cameron's "Titanic", and everyone has been waiting for what movie he will do next. His new film, "Avatar", is anything but "Titanic". It is actually a bigger, more expensive, and more special-effects driven than any movie he has done before, and that's saying something when compared to the other films he has done (The Terminator, T2, The Abyss).

"Avatar" is about a paraplegic marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) who is sent to a far off moon called Pandora. On Pandora, the natives (called the Na'vi) are at war with the the humans. This is because the military have turned into mercenaries, and want to mine the planet for a precious substance that is more valuable than anything on earth (it is never specified why). An avatar is an organism that looks exactly like a Na'vi but is connected to the mind of a human and can be controlled by one (a lot like the Matrix). Jake hooks up to his avatar and tries to negotiate the relocation of the Na'vi because they are sitting on the richest deposit of the substance on Pandora. When the leader of the mercenaries, Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang), gets impatient though and tries to kill the Na'vi for the substance, Sully has to choose which side to fight for.

"Avatar" is an absolute pleasure to watch. It has the best special effects ever put on screen, even better than "Star Trek". The motion capture technology used for filming the Na'vi and avatars is incredible, the faces of them are not blank like in so many movies before this, but are filled with emotion and, maybe, a soul. Neytiri, the Na'vi love interest for Jake, is a marvel to look at. She never looks fake or CGI throughout the entire film, every emotion can be seen on her face from hatred to love. The world of Pandora is just amazing to see, but it really comes alive at night. The ground glows when Jake's avatar puts his feet on the ground, trees glow in the dark, and some really disgusting creatures come out. Nothing ever looks fake, all the creatures, Na'vi, and spaceships look absolutely authentic.

Like all James Cameron films though, his script is somewhat lacking in character development and the film gets very preachy at times (aliens good, humans bad!). This little complaint is no match for the rest of the movie though. The 3D cinematography is a wonder to look at, as are the computer generated locations in the film (the cryo ship that Jake arrives to Pandora in, the base on Pandora, and the giant tree the Na'vi live in). James Horner's score is good, as it works in Native American-like chanting and singing, as well as a 1930's-sounding over-score. "Avatar" is a very long movie, running at 2 hours and 42 minutes. The only slow parts though are the action sequences toward the end of the film. The 30 minute long climax is too epic for its own good, and stretches believability beyond the breaking point.

You will not want to look away from the screen when watching "Avatar". You will be looking at the screen with an open mouth when seeing the awe-inspiring visuals, just make sure to wipe your drool away every once and a while.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

****.5/ ***** (4.5/5 STARS)

ME AND ORSON WELLES

"I AM ORSON WELLES," shouts Christian McKay at the top of his voice to his stage crew. McKay (who plays Welles) is the man, he looks acts, and sounds just like him. He is a marvel to watch, hypnotic, and electrifying. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is not.

"Me and Orson Welles" is about Richard Samuels (played by Zac Efron), a teenager who is cast in Welles' production of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar". While discovering the ins and outs of the stage, he becomes acquainted with Welles, the crew, and Sonya (Claire Danes), a pretty secretary. A romance ensues between Richard and Sonya while Welles is trying to put on "Caesar" in a very limited amount of time (a week).

The movie is fun to watch when Welles is on screen. McKay brings just the right amount of arrogance, genius, and kindness to Welles so the audience looks at him in disdain, but are also wowed by his knowledge. The main story is not about Welles though, it is about Richard and his affair with Sonya. The writers who adapted this from the book did not seem to know where they were going with it though. There is no clear path as to who the main characters are, why conflict arises, and why the audience should care. If a movie has no plot, it usually means the film is a character study. The writers did not know which character to study though, and this is why the film simply does not work.

Every time McKay is off the screen, "Me and Orson Welles" just gets bogged down by a boring sub-plot involving Richard and another girl named Gretta, or just a boring sub-plot involving Richard. Every scene without McKay seems way too long, and director Ricard Linklater seems to not know what to do without him. The film is not even two hours long, but the editor could have cut out 15 minutes of the movie anyway. The costumes, sets, and make-up are very well done though, all reflecting 1937 (the year the film takes place). The best technical aspect of the film is the score though, the big band sounding score really transports the film to 1937 more than anything else.

The film is enjoyable enough, McKay, good humor, and a very intricate look at how a play is created keep the film afloat. Until the last third of the film. Linklater and the writers tried to come up with a conflict to keep "Me and Orson Welles" going, but it makes the film sink like a stone. A love triangle ensues after Richard has fallen in love, and the climax is very, well, anti-climactic. The ending is such a downer, so sad, and so long, that it decreases any joy that was had during the first 2/3 of the film. The ending is the worst that can be done, it just puts the audience right back to where the film started, like nothing happened. See this film for McKay only, he is the perfect Orson Welles. His performance will hypnotize anyone who even glances at him, if only the rest of "Me and Orson Welles" was like that too.

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

**/***** (2/5 stars)

BROTHERS

In one of the previews for director Jim Sheridan's new film, "Brothers", Tobey Maguire's daughter blurts out to him, "You're just mad because mommy would rather sleep with Uncle Tommy than you!" This line might seem very laughable when read, but works well and is very dramatic when said on screen, this is a reason why "Brothers" works as a film.

The plot of the film is that U.S. Marine Capt. Sam Cahill (played marvelously by Magurie) is sent over to Afghanistan, presumed dead, and then his brother Tommy (Jake Gylenhaal) helps Sam's wife (Natalie Portman) and her two daughters cope. Then Sam comes back, and all hell breaks loose. Sam is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder after surviving some brutal torture and does not feel at home in his own town, or anywhere. The torture Sam goes through is very hard for the audience to buy, especially towards the end of his stay as a P.O.W. to al-Qaeda. When he comes back however, Maguire puts on his best performance to date.

Magurie literally puts fear into the heart of the audience, and every scene he is in there is a sense that he is just about to explode. When he does though, it is completely believable. There are no chuckling moments when he goes crazy, it is just an intense, real scene, and surprisingly sad as well. Maguire definitely deserves an Oscar nomination for best actor, he is so scary, sad, easy to relate to, and sympathetic that it is just heartbreaking.

The rest of the movie seems to fall flat though. Portman, who plays Grace (Magurie's wife), is very good, but seems miscast. It is a little hard to believe that a woman as small and petite as Portman can be the mother of two daughters. She pulls it off decently enough though, but her performance is nothing special. Gylenhaal (who plays Maguire's brother) is very believable. He plays the opposite of Maguire, he is not a Marine, but a low level ex-convict who is trying to get his life back on track. When he has to mature and take care of Grace though, he is up to the task and becomes a surprisingly good father-figure for his nieces. Portman's two daughters, Isabelle and Maggie, are both played very well. Bailee Madison, who plays Isabelle, is outstanding and a complete scene stealer. She is so intense and so mature in her role that she can take on anyone in the film. Sam Shepard is also good as Magurie and Gylenhaal's father, a recovering alcoholic.

The thing that really makes "Brothers" not as good as it could be is that everything is revealed. There is also almost no humor at all. In the last half of the film, when Maguire comes back, Portman is trying to figure out what happened to him over there to make him become a shell of his former self. The audience already knows everything, and just gets upset after a while when Maguire keeps refusing to spill his guts to her. There is no mystery at all in the film, it is told so literally that it is almost and insult to the audience. The lack of humor is also hard to take, with such an intense subject matter the film can come off over-bearing at times and seem hard to watch.

The directing is adequate enough, the cinematography is very well done (with some beautiful shots of evergreens in the snow), and the editing can use some work. The film is too long, mostly because the audience already knows everything, and would have worked better if it was unknown what happened to Maguire until the end. This would have been a more satisfying ending than the one in the film. Not enough actually happens in the ending, after being through this intense hour and 40 minutes, the audience deserves more than what is delivered. There are also too many characters with unfinished stories, including Gylenhaal, Shepard, Isabelle, and Maggie.

The films does work though, very well at times. The acting is tremendous and Maguire has never been better. This film is very intense though, you are sucked into the film, and it never lets you go.

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

***.5/***** (3.5/5 stars)

INVICTUS

Matt Damon's bleach-blond hair in "Invictus" is enough reason for anyone to go see this movie, but is it really worth the money? Director Clint Eastwood's new film about Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) trying to bond a nation by pushing the national rugby team to win the world cup is worthy, but very flawed.

The true story on which the film is based is nothing less than extraordinary, but "Invictus" fails to show the gravity of the game, or how important the rugby team actually is. Freeman is incredible, not for one minute is he Morgan Freeman, he is Mandela through and through. Damon is also very good as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the rugby team. Eastwood tries to focus on both of these characters, but this results in almost no depth for either one of them. Mandela has a very intriguing story about his wife and daughter, but nothing is ever really revealed. Pienaar has a back story that involves his relationship with his Mandela-hating parents and black maid, but nothing really materializes out of this story either. What happened between Mandela and his family? Why does his daughter hate him? Did Pienaar's parents change their ways? I do not know, and neither did the writers I guess.

Unlike "The Blind Side", this film is not a complete failure with an enduring story. It has heart, is well directed and well acted. Eastwood's directing is very well done (when is it not?) and the rugby scenes are just brutal. The slow motion at the end of the film is not cheesy at all during the final rugby match. It works quite well actually, and makes the anticipation for what happens next very high. The editing during these scenes is amazing, but the film's 134 minute run time is way too long. With no depth for either character, it is hard to sit through a movie this long and not have a wandering mind. The rugby matches make up for the slow pace though, and they are an absolute treat to watch.

The cinematography during the rugby matches is absolutely stunning, the sped up "Saving Private Ryan" style and the slow motion camera work makes it very difficult to look away from the screen. It is also well done during the rest of the film, with some great shots of South Africa from the slums to the mansions in the country. The score of the film is just brilliant. It includes very dramatic and tear-stirring stings mixed in with tribal chants and other great moments.

The film is technically very well done, but there seems to be a lot missing from it. "Invictus" just ends up being another sports movie, with some back story on the country's turmoil. This does not stop the film from being enjoyable though. "Invictus" is a feel-good movie, it will pick you up off your feet, and then set you back down again. The film will make you feel great, but nothing really happens with the characters in the film. Nothing gets resolved between Mandela and his country, or Pienaar and his family. The screenplay is lacking too much for this to be one of the best films of 2009. There is just no real story that goes through the film, it is just one rugby match after another. If that is what you are looking for though, this is the movie for you.

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

***/***** (3/5 stars)

NINJA ASSASSIN

The plot of "Ninja Assassin" is, well, who cares there's a whole lot of action! This martial arts flick is way more fun than it should be and rightfully so, there is only about 20 minutes without action and the action has an aquarium-full of blood in it.

"Ninja Assassin" stars pop singer/sensation Rain as Raizo, an orphan who grew up in a ninja/kung-fu community and was taught to be a ninja from when he was born. When the leader (or "father" as he likes to be called) kills Raizo's love after she tries to run away, Raizo leaves and is hunted by his fellow ninja friends. This somehow gets an attractive researcher and every government in the world involved in trying to find Raizo. The world powers think Raizo is behind assassinations around the world, but the people who are actually responsible for them are his old schoolmates from ninja school! Oh no! Sound confusing? Half of this summary is just guess work because almost no plot is actually revealed in the film.

Plot really does not mean much in a movie like this, and it is a nice change of pace. In winter when all the intense Oscar movies come out, it's good to have a fun flick to fall back on when none of the Oscar films are at the theater. The action in the film is just amazing, loads of CGI blood is splattered around the screen (and the walls) and Raizo's knife-attached-to-a-string-weapon-thing is the sickest weapon since the extendable claw in Jet Li's "Fearless". Although almost every action scene is in the dark, it is still hard to miss the Matrix-like slow-mo and bullet-time that plays throughout the movie, and did I mention the blood?

The acting is not that good, Naomie Harris (who plays the researcher) is adequate but Rain is just plain awful. He delivers his lines so poorly that many trigger laughs, but his action delivers awe, and this kind of makes up for his acting. The directing is okay, but once again, the action is incredible. People fly through the air, get cut in half, decapitated, disemboweled, and there (of course) is blood everywhere!

"Ninja Assassin" will be more than adequate for any martial arts fan, and it is just a fun time. The bad does outweigh the good though, and every movie does need some kind of plot. This has none.

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

**.5/***** (2.5/5 stars)

BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL- NEW ORLEANS

Detective Terrence McDonagh keeps seeing iguanas throughout "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans", but no one else can. This is probably a side effect of his cocaine addiction, or heroine addiction, or it might be paranoia because he owes a bookie $5,000 and he roughed-up a rich client of his prostitute girlfriend who sent out 3 "enforcers" to rob McDonagh and kill him. This is the main plot of "Bad Lieutenant", and McDonagh (played amazingly by Nicolas Cage) has to solve his own web of problems while solving a murder case in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Cage plays the "Bad" Lieutenant perfectly. He is much more than bad though, because stealing drugs from the police medicine stores and getting on the right side of a drug-dealer to pay off some debts constitutes as much more than just "bad" behavior. Cage is on drugs the entire movie, he never sleeps, and never goes to his house (which does not appear in the film). In his finest performance since "The Weather Man", Cage proves to the world once again how talented of an actor he really is. In the beginning of the film, Cage and his partner (played by a crazed Val Kilmer) are investigating the remains of a flooded prison. They find some evidence that Kilmer wants to take back to "Duffy", one of their co-workers. Cage keeps the evidence instead (which are dirty pictures of Duffy's wife) and yells out "F**k Duffy okay, f**k Duffy!" It is clear from this point on that Cage is going to be a raving maniac, which he plays as funny and depressing at the same time. There is also a hilarious scene in which Cage visits a drug store to get his prescription pills (vikaden), when he waits too long, he explodes and jumps over the counter to get them. This is how Cage acts the entire movie.

The supporting cast is not nearly as strong as Cage is though. Eva Mendes plays Frankie (Cage's prostitute girlfriend) well, but her performance is nothing special. Cage's co-workers and parents are not bad either, but their performances pale in comparison to Cage. The only other very good performance is Xzibit, surprisingly enough, who plays a drug-dealer named Big Fate.

Werner Herzog directs the film moderately well, but it seems he just let Cage run wild instead of trying to do anything fancy (besides the acid-trip-like scene with some iguanas), which is not necessarily bad. He also lets the city of New Orleans become a character all on its own, with lots of shots of the city and many references to streets and gang turf as well. Herzog (who also directed "Rescue Dawn" and "Aguirre, the Wrath of God") does this to perfection, but it is the only perfect thing he does.

The screenplay by William M. Finkelstein is just incredible. He creates all these horrible problems that Cage brings on to himself, and weaves all the stories together in the last 30 minutes of the film to allow Cage to fix his mistakes. The screenplay does drag on at some points though (mostly at Cage's parent's house), but the ending really makes up for any lagginess in the first hour and a half. Finkelstein also masterfully intertwines Cage's plot to the murder investigation he is leading, and when they finally meet it ends with a bang. The cinematography is also very well-done, with lots of handheld and 3-4 minute takes, there is an added realism to the film which is needed because of all the crazy and improbable things that happen to Cage. Mark Isham's score is also very well done, with a head-bobbing theme and haunting strings that carry the movie at some parts. The film could have used a better editor though, the 2 hour run time is very long, especially when the audience watches Cage do drugs the entire time.

"Bad Lieutenant" is just fun to watch. Cage should easily get an Oscar nomination, as should Isham's score. The way the film goes from gritty crime-drama to an almost-comedy (the transition scene is when Cage visits a retirement home to inquire where a murder witness is) is just ingenious. Cage gives the performance of his career, it seems he was born to play Lieutenant Terrence McDonagh, and it's a treat to sit back and watch him.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

****/***** (4/5 stars)

A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Robert Zemeckis has been revered for directing films like "Cast Away", the "Back to the Future" series, and "Forrest Gump". But in the last few years he has developed a curious habit in the field of animation. His last two outings in this category were "The Polar Express" (another classic Christmas tale) and the action-epic "Beowulf". These films are both very well done and the computer animation is spectacular. They pale in comparison though to Zemeckis' third animated epic, "A Christmas Carol".


This classic tale needs no summary, but the way Scrooge and his three ghosts are presented are absolutely stunning. Scrooge himself, voiced by the way-too-talented Jim Carrey, is just a marvel to look at. His hooked nose and jutting chin are done in a way that makes him ugly, but still relatable as a human being. He also looks incredibly real, every pore on his face is able to be seen, and his clothes look just as real and tattered as if they were in a live-action period film. Jim Carrey's voice also shines through, his British, mean-spirited growl is so well done that it is hard to believe that Ace Ventura is voicing him.


The ghost of Christmas Past (voiced by Carrey) is the funniest and most exciting of the three ghosts. His head is a ball of fire and he is about three feet tall. Carrey's whisper of a voice makes everything the ghost says funny and his head-bobbing can be stared at the entire film. Christmas Past also provides the best visuals as he flies Scrooge through cities and forests to visit Scrooge's school, where he first worked, and the place where his wife left him. These scenes provide depth and sympathy for Scrooge, and require a reevaluation of his character.


The Ghost of Christmas Present is by far the most well done of the three ghosts. Voiced again by Carrey, he provides a boisterous laugh to this jolly giant of a spirit and makes Scrooge see how his bad treatment of his co-workers and peers have negatively affected them on Christmas day. These surprisingly tender scenes effect Scrooge deeply. So much so in fact, that he cries after the jolly ghost disappears (which happens right after a surprisingly scary scene involving rabid children or "temptations").


"A Christmas Carol" gets down right creepy when the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come enters. Looking exactly like the grim reaper and taking the form of Scrooge's shadow, he provides Scrooge a look into the future right after Scrooge has died. This finally sends Scrooge over the edge, and leaves Scrooge to question how he treats Christmas and everyone around him.


The visuals are absolutely stunning. All of the "sets" look 100% real, and everything in the background and foreground are animated meticulously. "A Christmas Carol" is also very well adapted from Dickens' story. Zemeckis' screenplay is written in the exact same type of dialect as in the book, so it will be hard for little kids to understand. It is also the most faithful adaptation of the book I have ever seen. This is a version of Dickens' classic for people older then 10 years of age. Finally! This is no Muppet are Mickey Mouse version, this is the Dickens version, and for that I thank Zemeckis. It is quite scary for younger kids as well, so there will not be a lot of crying babies in the theater either. The movie is very long though, and some of the sequences just make stomachs do somersaults. These two things, while seeming rather small, really detract from the film. But if Zemeckis can keep improving this much with each of his animated films, the public will be in for a real treat. More please, Mr. Zemeckis!


Verdict: GO SEE IT!


****/***** (4/5 stars)

OLD DOGS

In director Walt Becker's new film, "Old Dogs", Robin Williams has a tattoo on his chest that says "Freemont" instead of "Free Man". He got this tattoo when his character (Dan) was fresh off a divorce and went to party in Miami. The reason his tattoo says this is because the tattoo artist could not speak a word of English. This story has absolutely nothing to do with the actual plot of the film, in which Dan and Charlie (played by John Travolta) have to take care of Dan's newly discovered twins because their mom is going to jail. Sure this little tattoo anecdote is unneeded, but it is still funny. These type of scenes are what save the movie from being a complete disaster.


The plot itself has some funny parts, but Becker's direction makes the funny scenes actually funny, and the rest of the movie, well, not funny at all. Williams and Travolta are good together, but the plot still wears thin in the last third of the film. The writers seemed to run out of steam by the last third and decided to create a conflict just to have some drama. They also seemed to not know how to get the children into Williams' hands, so they just threw the mother in jail. Therefore, there is no feeling of sympathy towards Vicky (the mom) and no need to see her scenes in jail throughout the film.


Williams and Travolta are adequate, but it is the supporting and cameo roles that really shine in the film. Matt Dillon plays Barry, the testosterone-filled leader of the camp Dan, Charlie, and the two kids visit. He steals every scene he is in, and plays the macho-role to comedic, over-the-top greatness. Justin Long plays one of Dillon's employees and is convinced Travolta stole his girl in the past. Long's crazy hair, half-goatee, and wild eyes make him the funniest crazy guy in the whole film. When he starts ripping on Travolta for past sins, Williams tries to get involved and Long simply says, "My beef is not with you old woman!". This might not sound funny, but Long delivers the line with such insane seriousness it turns into a knee-slapper. There is also a tear-jerking cameo by the late Bernie Mac as puppeteer Jimmy Lunchbox. Mac's performance is perfect, and he makes everyone miss his comic talent. Luis Guzman also provides some laughs as a "babyproofer" who baby-proofs Travolta's condo.


The best scene stealer out of everyone is Seth Green. Green plays the assistant to Williams and Travolta. He thinks he's slick, cool, and smart (which he is none). Instead of coming off arrogant though, he seems friendly,naive and is hilarious at the same time. When he loses himself in the scene of Tokyo (after he is transferred due to a major account that just closed with Dan and Charlie's sports marketing company) there is a feeling that he will be missed, and this makes his return to the film a great relief.


The movie itself is just not that funny though. The chemistry between Dan and Vicki is staggeringly low, and the chemistry between Dan and his son is even lower. On the flip side, the relationship between him and his daughter (played by Travolta's actual daughter) is surprisingly sweet and heart warming. The writing is not that good, so there are no laughs without the slapstick comedy. The physical comedy is actually pretty good, there is a hilarious Frisbee game at the camp, an extremely funny situation when Dan and Charlie's pills get mixed up with crazy side-effects, and a funny break-in into the zoo where Dan's kids are having there birthday party.


This film is not nearly as bad as all the critics say, the movie starts off slow and is way too long, but the cameos are surprisingly funny and not to be missed. The movie does not know where to go and when to stop either, and the performances do not make up for that one.


Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO


**.5/***** (2.5/5 stars)

THE BLIND SIDE

John Lee Hancock's "The Blind Side" has a Nick Drake song playing over the opening credits. This is a great omen for the rest of the movie because of the use of this wonderful singer's song right? Wrong. "The Blind Side" is about a Michael Oher, a huge, undereducated boy from the bad part of Memphis who is picked up by a rich mother of two (Sandra Bullock) and given the chance to play football in college. Oher then gets drafted into the NFL and becomes a highly paid starter. Now how can Hancock make this inspirational and true story into a poorly made film? Very easily it turns out.

Hancock (who wrote and directed the film) does nothing special here. His directing is a little below par, and his writing is atrocious. The dialogue seems extremely forced and the plot moves at a sluggish pace. Hancock seems to be conflicted over who to focus on throughout the movie too. With the incredible star power of Sandra Bullock, it is hard to make Oher the actual main focus of the film (who is very well acted by Quinton Aaron), and thus the movie veers off into many unneeded side plots and scenes of both characters.For instance, there are some unneeded scenes with Bullock and her bigot housewife friends at a fancy restaurant. These housewives are meant to be an opposing force to Bullock's actions of taking in Oher and letting him live with her and her family. These scenes drag on and are pointless, it is already clear that she is doing a brave and noble thing so there is no need to waste twenty minutes trying to show it off in front of uncaring housewives.


Even Oher's childhood story is pushed aside for Bullock's star power. There are only flashes of his childhood in the film, and they lead to a conclusion that is revealed in the first third of the film. It takes the entire movie to show all the flashes put together into one scene though, and there is a feeling of being jipped by the end. There is a tiny subplot about one of Oher's friends. Even though he was athletically gifted, he dropped out of school, joined a gang, and was killed on his 21st birthday (I want to see that movie!). This is never developed though, in favor of some scenes between Bullock and her husband arguing over what to do with Oher.


Bullock tries to pull off the tough-and-loving mom role, but comes off just tough. There are all the family-film cliches though. Bullock has some "funny" dialogue showing off her command in the household (her husband sleeps on the couch "when he's bad" and other poorly written lines). There is also the racist football player who lines up against Oher in a high school football game. This provides a group hatred for him in the theater and a collective gasp when he calls Oher a "black piece of crap" (intense I know). There is also the funny little son who helps Oher train provides comic "relief" which is more like punishment than anything else. The only good performance in the film is Quinton Aaron. His portrayal of Oher is very real and sincere, if underused by Hancock.

The film, at the end of the day, is simply boring. The story is real though, and nothing can take that from the film. If you want to see and family-friendly inspirational holiday film, this is for you. It is very long though, and dry, and not very good.

Verdict: DON'T SEE IT

*.5/***** (1.5/5 stars)

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Wes Anderson's quirky claymation comedy, "Fantastic Mr. Fox", starts right off the bat with its in-your-face and fast paced type of animation. After about 30 seconds of opening credits fast foxes and crazy animation are filling the screen every second. The film is about Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), who tries to steal chickens and alcohol/cider from three of the meanest, ugliest farmers in, well, wherever the movie takes place. The farmers Bean, Boggis, and Bunce are about as bad as villains get and are all out to kill Mr. Fox and his family for stealing from them.

The animation in "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is absolutely stunning. The water in some of the sequences looks entirely real while everything else is animated. This provides an off-putting amount of realism into a clay world, and it works magically. The clay-animation really accentuates the foxes features. So much so in fact, that way-too-close-ups are used to show how well done they are. The set design is also quite ingenious, Anderson actually lets the sets look like miniatures and it creates a fairly-tale like quality to some of the scenes as well. Fire is also just yellow paper being blown up from underneath, this reveals a nice, not-too-dangerous feeling in the climax of the film. The balance between fairy-tale and realism is split almost fifty-fifty, so it is hard to get adjusted to each scene. Some of the action scenes also happen so fast that it is incredibly hard to tell what is going on at some points.

Anderson's directing is very well-executed, but his script leaves lots to be desired. The script, which is written by Anderson and Noah Baumbach based on Roald Dahl's novel, is all over the place and has no idea what to do or where to go. There is some compensation for this in the film though with incredible voice acting. Clooney, along with Meryl Streep (who plays his wife) and a spectacular Jason Schwartzmann (who plays their son Ash) lead on all-star, if underused, voice cast. Even the hilarious Schwartzmann cannot make-up for the script though.

Anderson seems to be relying too much on the ground-breaking animation to tell the story than the actual story, which there is almost none. Mr. Fox is incredibly unlikeable as well, it is hard to have sympathy for him during the entire film and he makes everyone around him suffer for his hobby of stealing from the farmers. The script is just not that funny either. The characters are constantly in life-or-death situations and there are not that many jokes. Every time that a character is supposed to curse in the film, they say "cuss" instead for, I guess, comedic purposes. This is just one of the many things that do not work in the movie, and they more they say it, the more ridiculous it sounds. Schwartzmann is the only hilarious part of the film, as everything he says is just knee-slappingly funny because his voice is perfect for the role.

The film also lacks a satisfactory ending. The climax seems to drag on forever with no great resolution at the end, and there is not a caring feeling as to if Mr. Fox "wins" or not. There are also unnecessary comments about Mr. Fox's phobia of wolves (the reason for his phobia is never explained) and this prompts a silly and unneeded scene with a real wolf and Mr. Fox.

The soundtrack is extraordinary though, featuring Beach Boys and Rolling Stones. Anderson shows signs of promise as well, his directing is very well done, but if he gets more defined script the next time around he can really do something special. As for now, you should still see it but the film is purely mediocre.

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

**.5/***** (2.5/5 stars)

THE MESSENGER

In Oren Moverman's new film, "The Messenger", the first shot of the film is main character Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) putting water drops into his eyes. This is an introduction into Will's life, and represents that everything in the film will be seen from his perspective.

"The Messenger" is about how Will reacts to being put on the Casualty Notification Taskforce in the U.S. after serving a gruesome tour in Iraq. He is partnered with Captain Tony Stone, marvelously played by Woody Harrelson. Stone, ironically, is cold-blooded and emotionless when informing the next of kin (which he reffers to as the N.O.K.) that one of thier loved ones was killed in action in Iraq. After Will and Tony inform a shell-shocked widow that her husband was killed in Iraq, Will becomes attracted to her and a tender relationship blooms between the two.

The film is mostly about Will finding his own path again after returning home, but some of the movie is focused on Stone as well. Will is still the main charecter of the movie, and there is only one scene without him the entire hour and 45 minutes "The Messenger" lasts. Harrelson, who plays Stone, carries most of the scenes between Stone and Will (played by Ben Foster). Foster carries the rest of the movie on his own though, and never needs a helping hand. This is most evident in his scenes with the recent widow, Kelley (played with great levity by Samantha Morton). Morton is fine, but Foster makes the dialouge and directing look so much better with his performance and really elevates the movie to whole other level. This is a Ben Foster movie, even though Harrelson as recieved a lot of buzz about his peformance, the film belongs to Foster.

It is easy to tell sometimes that this is Oren Moverman's directorial debut. The film is sporadic at times, with random scenes back-to-back that have no influence on each other. At other times though, these scenes represent the sporadicness of Will's life. He does not know what to do now that he is back, and his ex-girlfriend is getting married to a rich man while he is courting Kelley at the same time. So Will does whatever he wants, from going to a cabin with Stone and getting drunk to crashing his ex's weddng party. Moverman (who also co-wrote the film) mirrors Will's life expertly at times with this type of writing, but also loses it a little as well.

Moverman's message is clear though. War casualties are not a statistic heard on the news every night, the soldiers who die are real people with real families that hurt and bleed just like everyone else. This movie is a wake-up a call to America. The message is perfectly hidden behind the story of Will, who reveals why he is so traumatized by the war to Stone in the climax of the film. Stone, who served in Desert Storm says at one point in the movie that all he wanted was "to be shot at", and Will puts him in his place with his amazingly well-written and acted monolouge about his "firefight" in Iraq. Stone breaks down and cries after this. He realizes that being shot at in war is not what he ever wanted, and his cold-heartedness to the N.O.K. is totally undeserved.

Foster and Harrelson should both be up for Oscars, as should Moverman for his expert directing and script. Foster's perfromance is so well-done, so real that he will definenelty become a big star one day.

On the techincal side, the film is a little too long and could have used a better editor. The cinematography is brilliant though. The use of the handheld camera when Stone and Will are informing the N.O.K. might remind some of last year's well-done film "The Wrestler" because the only thing shown are the backs of the officers. There is a sense of being there with them, and it makes the reaction of the next of kin that much more impactful. At one point a grieving father says to Will, "Why aren't you over there? Huh? Answer me!". This just explains that no one wants there kids over there, they support them 100%, but death is a very real thing. It just seems so far away on the news. This is Moverman's message, and it's one we all need to hear.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

****.5/***** (4.5/5 stars)

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

When the title "Where the Wild Things Are" comes to mind, it triggers memories of a beloved children's book about a boy sent to his room for not wanting to eat dinner and then goes to a far off land to party with furry animals. What it does not trigger is a story about a boy who cannot handle his mother moving on after a divorce with another man, or about his estranged relationship with his big sister. Ironically, this is exactly what Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are" is about.

The film, as adapted by Jonze and David Eggers from Maurice Sendak's classic, is a step forward in the family film genre. Instead of giving a clear explanation as too how the main character, Max, gets to the island of the wild things, it lets the audience decide. It can be easily assumed that the island and "wild things" are all in his imagination, but why did he go there in the first place?

The first twenty minutes of the film might be the most emotionally intense ever filmed for a "children's" movie (which it is anything but). We learn that 9 year old Max is jealous of his mom's new boyfriend, and of his sister hanging out with boys more and neglecting him. Max Records, who plays Max, gives the most heartfelt performance of any child actor I have ever seen. He is Max, he is not portraying him on screen, the audience is just seeing his life unfold in the theater.

When Max starts throwing snowballs at his sister's friends, they throw some back playfully and Max hides in his igloo made from fresh fallen snow. When the boys destroy the igloo with Max inside however, he emerges from his fallen fort crying his eyes out while his sister leaves with the boys. This very real scene is countered by one in which Max refuses to eat his dinner because his mom's new boyfriend is going to eat with him too (played by Mark Ruffalo). Max runs away from his house and "travels" to the island where the wild things are.

The island is a metaphor for Max's troubles, with each wild thing representing a different part of Max's life. The first thing shown is Carol (the lead wild thing) destroying another wild thing's house. This is clearly a metaphor for when Max's igloo was destroyed. The rest of the movie is packed with metaphors and motifs, expertly written and created by Jonze and Eggers.

Jonze's adaptation has divided people into enjoying the movie or not. Some are displeased at the darkness of the film, others are intrigued by it. I am in the latter category. The script is written amazingly well, and perfectly executed by Jonze on the directing side. The special effects are a wonder and the wild things seem alive the entire movie and never look fake once. The set design for the fort Max and the wild things build and their camp are exquisitely done as well. The best technical aspect of the film is the cinematography though. The movie is mostly filmed with the handheld/ documentary style which is very effective in the real world parts of the film, and even more effective in Max's imagination. The movie never loses its realism, and it would not work if it did.

Record's performance as Max, as well as the voice acting for the wild things are perfect as well, and you see throughout the movie how each voice/thing is a part of Max's personality. Jonze's expert direction reveals this slowly, and as the wild things are further explored, it is shown that they aren't the nicest people either. Max discovers this just in time to realize his own fault too.

"Where the Wild Things Are" is about growing up and maturing to the situation that is dealt. Max has to do this faster than lots of other kids his age, and the only way he can is by delving into the deepest corners of himself (represented by the island). This is the only way he will learn his lesson.

This is quite possibly the best film of the year, I cannot find one thing wrong to write down. The film can be analyzed for days on end, and that's the utter beauty of it. Or it can just be entertaining, but an open mind is the best way to approach this movie because this is a drama, not a child or family film. This should be a serious contender for all Oscars, including Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

*****/***** (5/5 stars)

THE FOURTH KIND

This is my first review so cut me a little slack, lol.

In one of the last scenes of "The Fourth Kind", we see Dr. Abagail Tyler spilling her guts in front of the camera about how aliens have ruined her life. Sound ridiculous? In lots of other movies it probably would, but if fits seamlessly in this taught, intense, creepy thriller from second-time director Olatunde Osunsanmi.

There are actually two movies in "The Fourth Kind", one of them is a reenactment starring Milla Jovovich as Dr. Tyler and the other features "original" footage of the alien encounters portrayed in the film (whose authenticity can be debated). Osunsanmi's starategy works brilliantly in the first half of the film.

The screen is actually split in two, one side with the film and the other with the "real" footage. Having this footage brings an extra creepiness to the events in the film, even though it might not be real. Unbelievable things happen in both versions and it adds a scary amount to realism to what could have been another cliche alien-abduction film.

The movie seems to falter toward the second-half though. Every single time something scary happens, the "real" footage goes to static or snow, so we are only left with the reenactment to see, which makes the movie lose lots of gravity in the situations. The most important scene of the film, the last time the aliens come to Tyler's house, is covered in snow with only the audio playing. Instead of being creeped out with a Hitchcock less-is-more feeling, there is just a feeling of being cheated. There is about two minutes of people screaming and nothing is shown.

The editing is to be commended here. "The Fourth Kind" has some of the cleverest editing done in a sci-fi film (the split-screen being extremley effective). Although the film is about 5-10 minutes too long, the editing really makes up for it, because every time the "real" audio or video comes up, an alarm goes off in the audience's head that something bad is about to happen.

Also, Jovovich gives an extremley real and effective performance. Elias Koteas, as Jovovich's friend/doctor Albert Campos, is as good as ever and is still one of the most underrated actors in the U.S. Writer/Director Osunsanmi should be congragulated for pulling the wool over the audiences eyes with the "real" footage (it's just to good to be true!), and his vision of even having the "real" audio and video in the first place should be congragulated as well.

"The Fourth Kind" does not have one spot of humor in it, which makes it hard to sit through. There is also no real closure at the end. I like think-for-yourself endings ("The Fountain" and "The Blair Witch Project" are two), but in this film there is just too much left to speculation. There are too many loose ends that are never tied up, and the ending message of the movie is less than hopeful (to put it lightly). Only Tyler is likeable by the end of the film, but at the same time it's debatable if Tyler is even telling the truth.There are plenty of topics to think about after though...

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

***/***** (3/5 stars)

Hello World!

Hey, I am here to bring movie reviews to you. The people of the world. I am not a revered critic who just likes the art house movies and none of the mainstream ones. Some are good and bad in both categories. I like the movies you average moviegoers like. You can trust me.

I divide my reviews into 3 categories:
"Go See It"
"Wait For Video"
"Don't See It"

I will also give a star review (out of five) for each film.

Movies are an art, but they are also meant to be enjoyable and entertaining!