Midnight in Paris

 

This film lived on its scenery, a few choice actors, and a love for the arts. With its dry humor and conversation, this film screams Woody Allen.  Now, don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing.   

Midnight in Paris follows the life of a Hollywood writer trying to find his way back to inspiration and a fresh perspective amidst writing his own book.

I enjoyed following the quick banter and bickering between Owen Wilson's character and Rachael McAdam's character.  I also enjoyed how fast it took for the plot to evolve as we begin seeing literary and artistic figures from the past.  The scenes were beautiful, historical, and cultured.  The costumes were well done.  I enjoyed this film in every way visually.

As for the acting, it was well done on all accounts.  I love Marion Cottilard as always; I just think she's so talented.  Owen Wilson did a wonderful job.  I absolutely hated Rachael McAdams' character which must mean she did a wonderful job as well, since that was most likely the intention.       

As for the historical accuracy of the film and the literary/artistic figures it meant to represent, I thoroughly enjoyed meeting a depiction of Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Gertrude Stein and Picasso.  These are some of the men and women behind the classics that surpassed centuries.  It was extremely inspiring, as it was meant to be for the protagonist.  This film fulfilled its purpose, setting it before our eyes in the most imaginative way. 

Now, I acknowledge that people who do not have a passion for literature and art, may not understand or appreciate this film for what it tries to do.  However, I believe the point that this film is trying to convey is to follow your passions, whatever they are, or life passes you by and leaves you unfulfilled.

If you can't tell, I thoroughly enjoyed this film.  I give it 8.2/10.   

The Descendants

 

The child actors in this film is what made it worth while for me.

The Descendants is about a father named Matt King (George Clooney) who finds himself faced with taking care of his two daughters, while his wife lies in the hospital in a coma.  The film follows his hardships as he discovers his wife's past infidelity, leaving him torn between saying goodbye to her and dealing with his inner anger.

This film was so realistic and natural thanks to the actors in it.  The two girls played by Shailene Woodly and Amara Miller were exceptional.  They really brought this film home.  I was thoroughly impressed with their authenticity as actors.

As for George Clooney, he did a wonderful job as well.  Watching the film, however, I couldn't completely let go of the fact that he was an actor.  I didn't believe him as much as I would have liked to.  With the girls, I was completely sucked in to their characters and their feelings, but with him I couldn't forget he was George Clooney trying really hard to play a role.  And I could tell he was trying really hard.  I commend him for his effort, but I shouldn't be able to tell when an actor is trying or not.  I should feel like I've entered the story and that it is real to me.  I couldn't do that with him. 

And now, for the technicalities: the Hawaiian culture throughout the film was subtle but effective.  I enjoyed the scenery and I liked the fact that it didn't distract from the plot.  If there had been a lot of music in the background it would have transformed an authentic scene into a fabricated one, which is why I was grateful that the music was placed strategically throughout the film and at rare occasions.  The cinematography was simple.  I thought this was extremely appropriate because the film was trying to convey a real life situation as if you were there, and if there had been fancy camerawork, it would have brought the audience out of the reality of the film.

One thing I found strange was when some scenes would randomly black out before opening to another scene.  I found that it broke the illusion of the story when this happened.  Personally, I could have done without it.                 

Ultimately, I enjoyed this film, I appreciated the acting, but I wouldn't see it again.  It was too out of place for me because I didn't quite feel the purpose.  But because of the acting I give this film 8.3/10.

Breaking Dawn Part 1

 

I would start off by saying that if you have any respect for the art of acting, do not go and see this movie.  If you have any respect for the art of film as a whole, do not see this movie.  If you read the books (like me) and have no choice but to give in to your own curiosity... well... see this film expecting only the worst.  (which I'm sure most of you do anyway)

Breaking Dawn is the fourth installment of the twilight series.  It revolves around the characters of Bella, Edward and Jacob, as Bella and Edward are preparing for their wedding, honeymoon and impending future together.  However, the honeymoon gets cut short due to her unexpected pregnancy.  The film follows this series of events leading up to the main problem - what exactly is she impregnated with? 

In short, the acting was pretty useless.  Taylor  Lautner, for me, was the absolute worst this time around.  His emotions never come off authentic.  Robert Pattinson wasn't horrible, wasn't great, yet somehow was still less than mediocre.  And Kristen Stewart was awkward - I couldn't care less about her attempts at acting.  At least she wasn't breathing so heavily in this film, like her usual (usually when she doesn't know what to do with her body or her expression in a scene, she exhales heavily every few seconds) - something I noticed in the past three films.  

As a whole - with visual effects, soundtrack, and picture - the film was unoriginal and extremely boring.  The visual effects were not impressive and nothing really stood out to me.  The wolves weren't anything special at all.  The soundtrack was either sappy music to dramatize an already dramatic scene, or music used from the first film, repeated throughout the entire movie.  As for the picture, the set design was impressive and the picture itself was sharp and strong - probably overcompensating.   

The only part I will point out is the birth scene and her pregnancy.  The birth scene was the only scene they made somewhat realistic with the given circumstances.  It may have been unnecessarily gruesome but at least they cared enough to attempt some kind of realistic approach.  I appreciated the attempt as a fan of the book, way back when I read them.  But, like I said, it was the only part worth mentioning.  

Inevitably, I give this film 4/10.  Frankly, without the sharp picture and wonderful set design, this film would have been worth even less.  I think I'm being generous, but there it is.         

Tower Heist

 

It wasn't what I was expecting, but in this case, it was a good thing...

Tower Heist is about a crew of hardworking men who plan to rob their boss for swindling their money away and leaving them all on hard times.  They attempt to take back what is theirs, and in the process, discover exactly what they are capable of.  This film stars Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Matthew Broderick, Casey Affleck, Alan Alda, Tea Leoni, and Gabourey Sidibe.

Looking at the list of actors starring in this film, one would naturally think it's a comedy, right?  It is in fact comedic, however, it also touches on subjects that are unexpected and deeper than first anticipated.  Alan Alda plays the remorseless boss, swindling away the company's money.  He does a wonderful job of portraying a man who charms those around him, while not actually caring about anyone but himself.  He was extremely convincing and realistic when compared to Corporate America right now.  It was also refreshing to see Ben Stiller play a character with a little more depth than usual - though, I did find his face a little lacking in expression.  Other than that, he did a good job in being the caring character that fights for justice. 

The actors meshed well together as a group, but not all of them found their place.  

Casey Affleck, for example, did not create much of an impact for me with his character.  I almost felt as if he was simply a plot device, only meant to further the events along to where they needed to be, rather than taking you in to the world and make you feel for the character itself.  I couldn't care less about his problems or his decisions, and secretly wished he wasn't in the film in the first place.  Apparently, the Afflecks in general don't do it for me... but that's for another review.  I also was disappointed to find that Eddie Murphy wasn't in the film as much as I would have liked.  He brings a certain energy to films, especially comedies, and without him the energy was also lacking.  

Now that I think about it, the characters were not really that connected.  The only time I felt that they were, was when Eddie Murphy was in the scene.  Their humour was individualistic most of the time and you kept gaining and losing that sense of "group".

Because the characters were disconnected from each other, the whole film starts to feel disconnected.  Tea Leoni's character seemed unnecessary to me, and something didn't quite link up with her purpose in getting close to Ben Stiller's character.  I would have also liked the ending to be explained a little more - in the sense that - I don't like to assume how certain events happen, I would like to see them first hand.  The final scene is not as satisfying as it could have been either.  It doesn't feel realistic enough to give the audience full closure.  

I guess what I'm saying is that the film definitely has its weak points.  It isn't amazing and it can be forgotten within, perhaps, a month or so.  But, if you need just a night of some light comedy to help you lighten up, see this film. 

I give this film 6.5/10.  Enjoy!

50/50

 

I was expecting good things. It was the actors involved in the making of this film that had me interested.  And I'm proud to say I'm still a loyal fan of Seth Rogen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and even Anna Kendrick.

50/50 is about a 27 year old who discovers he has cancer.  We follow him along this journey of survival with a comedic backdrop that makes everything seem a little bit brighter.

Let me first just say, this film is based on a true story and a real man named Adam.  Off the bat, it's relatable to everyone.  Everyone knows of someone who has or had cancer.  Right away, your hooked in. Now your thinking, I hope they don't make this a tearjerker.  It's not about that.  This film doesn't spend its time sugar coating or dramatizing anything for you.  It's simply trying to tell a story about one man and what he went through. So now that that's clear, we can move on.        

With a technical point of view, I really enjoyed the way the film was shot.  Some scenes were made interesting by the way they were cut up, and the movement of time in the film was also subtle and well done.  I never felt like they were trying to rush through years or months, but only hinting at the fact that time has passed and it doesn't really matter how much.  I enjoyed the soundtrack of the film because it was placed in appropriate places, only adding to the scenes rather than distracting us from them.  

And now for some lighter points.  Seth Rogen was hilarious.  His humour was so natural and authentic.  There were no punchlines or set-ups.  It was just day to day comedy that was like breathing to him.  As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, his acting is all about subtlety and maintaining a calm surface.  That way, there's nothing to distract you from what is being said.  And when he does give you a reaction or expression, it is that much more distinct.  I also want to point out Anjelica Huston who played Adam's mother in the film.  It really shows you what great acting can do, when there is a character that isn't even shown in half of the movie, yet they stand out to the audience as if they were one of the main characters.  That is exactly what she did for me in this film.  She showed a funny side of herself that not many people get to see, and I'm so grateful she did.  It was definitely a treat.   
I just want to add a large thumbs up to Will Reiser, the writer.  The writing was extremely funny and unique.  We don't get genuine comedy like that these days, so it was more than nice to see.  The acting and the writing are what made this film and no one could have done it better than the actors chosen.

Finally, this film plays out much like its title.  It is half a comedy and half a tragedy - 50/50.  Having said that, I give this film 8.5/10 for staying true to its title.  

Drive

There is a lot that can be said about this film, even though, ironically, dialogue was not one of its strong suits.  However, trust Ryan Gosling to deliver a character to its full potential - and believe me, it's worth the watch.

Drive is about a Hollywood stunt performer who gets involved in a heist gone wrong.  His involvement makes him a target, so he does everything he can to protect those he loves.  This film stars Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Oscar Isaac, Christina Hendricks, and Ron Perlman.    

For starters, this film is based on a book.  That's important to point out, because when you base a film on a book, a director might feel limited to the world of that book.  This is where Nicholas Winding Refn really stepped it up.  He made the soundtrack one of the most interesting things in the film, as well as the slow motion scenes that only added to the precision of the events.  His camera angles and shooting decisions really stood out and made each scene seem that much more iconic.  You feel like you could pause any scene, and whatever picture you get, it would radiate some sort of underlying or deep meaning. The saying "less is more" really rings true in this film.  You can just tell, this director truly loves his art.  And to him, that's exactly what this is - art.
             
For a film like this, the plot doesn't necessarily have to be detailed or complex.  It's the delivery of each line, the motion of the body, the direction and angles of the face - that matter most.  You have to be able to convey heartache, revenge, motivation, or contentment with a powerful look.  No exaggeration or melodrama, only one look; one chance to get that emotion right.  This was definitely portrayed through the eyes of Ryan Gosling, and, at times, Carey Mulligan.  Their eyes told you everything you needed to know.  That's the way it made me feel, anyways, watching this film.

As for having a little fun, the blood was the dramatic release of the film.  The whole film runs sort of rigid, very disciplined, and when the killing begins, that's when it releases its playfulness.

The acting was excellent on all accounts.  I thoroughly enjoyed that.

So I give this film 8.8/10 for being just the way it is.

The Help

 

Sorry for the slight absence there, but I'm back and I have lots to tell!

I saw The Help a few weeks ago but, unfortunately, I haven't found the time to write about it.  Luckily the film made such an impact on me, that a few weeks isn't long enough to forget about it.  

The Help is about African American maids in the 1960s, as we watch their lives and their hardships unfold while working for white families, and ultimately, having their stories told within a heartwarming book.  This film stars Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Octavia Spencer.  It's moving, it's disturbing, and it's is real to its very core.

Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer stole the show in this film.  I was blown away by their talent.  These ladies know how to lead the way.  Emma Stone was her usual charming and humorous self, which sucks you in immediately.  This film was not only female driven, but female empowered.  I was so moved, I even felt a tear stream down my cheek.  Let me tell you, that doesn't happen very often, even when a film is excellently sad. 

Expect tears, expect the reality of the time, and expect the power that women have to tug at your heart strings and make you see life for what it really is.  

Enjoy this film!!! You won't regret it.  I give this film 8/10.       

The Coming Attractions...

It's that time again!   Here are some highlights of what movies to look out for in the next few months.

To start, I would like to point out a film that has just received the opportunity to open in the United States.  I'm hoping that it is only a matter of time until it will be opening in Canada.  Fireflies in the Garden depicts a family dealing with a recent tragedy and the consequences that come along with that.  It follows their lives, flashing back from childhood to adulthood, showing the constant strained relationship between the children and their father.  It stars Ryan Reynolds, Julia Roberts, Willem Defoe, Carrien-Anne Moss and Emily Watson.  Fireflies in the Garden is set to release in the US on October 14, 2011.  Enjoy the Trailer!

Fireflies in the Garden

 

Now, for a film a little more thrilling than dramatic.  Drive follows the life of a Hollywood stunt performer as he gets involved with a heist gone wrong and tries to protect the victims in danger because of it.  Drive stars Ryan Gosling and Cary Mulligan.  It will be released on September 16, 2011.  

Drive

         
The next film I'm excited for stars some of my favourite and reliable actors, such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anna Kendrick.  50/50 is about a 27 year old man who is diagnosed with cancer and has to rediscover who he is and how to survive the disease.  With the help of Seth Rogen's comedic relief this film promises to be a heart warming eye opener.  50/50 is set to release on September 30, 2011.  

50/50

And now for some interesting recommendations...

- Coriolanus (a Shakespeare adaptation) starring Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler, set to release on December 2, 2011.

- A Dangerous Method starring Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, and Keira Knightly.  It is about the relationship between Carl Jung (Fassbender) and his mentor Sigmund Freud (Mortensen).  It's set to release on November 23, 2011.

- The Ides of March starring Ryan Gosling and George Clooney.  It is about corruption in the political world.  It's set to release on October 7, 2011. 

I hope these films live up to their hype! 

Fright Night

To be fair, I have yet to see the original Fright Night, however, this film still managed to make me smile with nostalgia.

Fright Night is a remake of the film with the same name back in 1985.  It's about a teenage boy who suddenly finds his life and the lives of those he loves in danger from his next door neighbour... who just happens to be a vampire.

The thing I like about this film is that it stays true to its genre.  It claims to be a horror/comedy film, which we don't come by that often these days.  But this film manages to pull it off.
Colin Farrel did a great job with his role.  His body language added to the character and his controlled facial expressions may have seemed mild and subtle, but actually were very effective.  I find that people tend to forget about Colin Farrel as an actor who takes his job seriously, because he always seems so calm and collected.  I think, however, as someone with his tracking record in films and acting, he never disappoints.  I'd like to give him a shout out here and now, because as an actor he gets overlooked too often and he deserves some recognition.
 
As for the film itself, I really liked how they didn't take long to get into the thick of it.  What I mean by that is, instead of dragging the ignorant part of the film - where all the characters are in disbelief and the main character keeps trying to convince them of the truth - the story gives in to its supernatural elements immediately.  The "bad guy" reveals himself fairly quickly and you never really question that.  It somehow seems appropriate, perhaps, because it is a comedy as well as a horror.  It's supposed to be humorous and slightly silly.        
         
As for the other actors, they were all pretty decent but no one especially stuck out to me.  The visual effects were very interesting and they kept true to the original film.  The fact that this vampire was a monster and not some misunderstood creature to be pitied or romanticized, made this film stand out.. ironically.  It was a nice change to what this generation has been surrounded by lately.  Sometimes going back to the classics reminds us of how much fun film making is supposed to be and how simple can sometimes be better.     

Ultimately, I give this film 7.4/10 for bringing back a true horror/comedy film, enlightening some of the more ignorant movie lovers and showing them how it's really done.  

The Change-Up

This film only remains passable due to one thing....

The Change-Up is about a friendship between two men who lead very different lives.  One seems to have it all figured out with a family and a stable career, while the other seems a little more lost.  In the midst of wishful thinking, a lot of alcohol, and a magical pissing fountain, their lives get switched.  Sounds like Freaky Friday doesn't it?  Well, not quite...

Like I said before, this film was only decent due to one thing: the acting.  If it didn't have such good actors, this story line and the screen play would have brought it tumbling down.  I thought Ryan Reynolds did a great job in his acting.  Jason Bateman did a great job as well and it was refreshing to see him in a different type of character.  However, the characters themselves - not the actors - needed a little work.  The character Mitch, for example, was not a likable character.  In films where you have two main characters that are equally weighed in importance, they both have to be ultimately likable.  Sure, they can be rough around the edges, but their has to be some sort of redeemable scene that overpowers whatever the character was seen as before.  This film did not do that for me.  The character Mitch was too much in his vulgarity, in his stupidity, in his ignorance and in his insincerity.  It came off unrealistic to watch and way too exaggerated.  And at the end when the bodies are switched back, you never feel that change that needs to take place.  Mitch remained what he was before, for the most part, and his redeemable scene didn't seem like enough.

But I would like to point out Leslie Mann.  She was very funny, consistent, emotional and played her character extremely well.  I think, personally, she was more of the highlight for me.  I found that Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman, after they switch bodies, are inconsistent with their personalities, and it became somewhat confusing keeping track of who was who.  But Leslie Mann kept true to her character and delivered a stable, solid performance that never seemed weak or unsubstantial in comparison to the main characters.                

So in a nutshell, I didn't love the story, I didn't love the character Mitch, but the acting was what kept it going, so at least there is a positive note.  Wouldn't see it again though.  Sorry.

I give this film 5.8/10.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

For the record, I saw this movie the second day of its release.  The reason it took me so long to write a review on it was because I didn't trust my own reaction.  Sometimes, your mood and expectations can alter your perspective.  I was expecting so much and the hype of the last installment weighed so heavily on me, that I didn't see the film clearly for what it was.  Therefore, I waited a little while to watch it a second time.  And I wasn't disappointed.

Looking back on all the Harry Potter films, the fans have to be proud of the effort put in to them and their execution.  I know I am.  I have only once been truly and rightfully disappointed in a Harry Potter film, and that was the sixth one.  But that's for another time.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 did a wonderful job of keeping true to the book and keeping true to the characters and their gradual development throughout the series.  I was so happy with Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint for fully giving this film everything they have physically, mentally and emotionally.  It was the perfect end to a well-put-together series and I applaud them for giving it the proper farewell.

Now, I'm not going to give a synopsis for the film, because everyone pretty much already knows what it's about.  Let's just get to it, shall we?

The reason I felt conflicted the first time I watched the film was because of the speed in which it was moving.  I felt that the whole film was rushing through in order to get to the final battle.  But, the second time I watched it, my point of view slightly changed.  I still say that it felt a little rushed, but I now feel that there was a reason, which perhaps I misconstrued at first.  They were trying to create a different tone for the final film.  It was a tone of "getting down to business" and "jumping right in".  I find this appropriate because this is how the book plays out.  Harry has accepted his destiny and is ready to face it.  Extremely appropriate.  The fear is gone, therefore, the hesitation from the previous films has disappeared.  So my original issue was amended.

Only now there is another issue.  Because Part 1's tone and Part 2's tone are so different, the place in which they meet should coincide.  In other words, where Dobby meets his end and sadness makes its way throughout the theatres, to where Harry is suddenly an overly determined, ballsy, forceful and energetic man?  I guess I didn't quite feel that appropriate transition.  I was still caught up with feeling Harry's fear and sadness that I didn't quite understand his swift change of attitude.  That has less to do with the film as a whole, as it has more to do with how I watch them.

And now for the technical stuff.  The acting was well done.  It was consistent, at times even phenomenal (Alan Rickman/Ralph Fiennes).  The younger actors really stepped it up.  I found that all the loose ends were tied up and everything was explained with sufficient detail.  The graphics were especially great.  The visual of the entire film was extremely well done.  It was everything I imagined it would be, which says a lot.    

I give this film 9/10 for doing everything in their power to make these films the right way and making all the Harry Potter fans proud as a result.  Thanks for a decade of HP!!!

Crazy Stupid Love

The title is very fitting...

Crazy Stupid Love surrounds a family that deals with the complications of love throughout their daily lives.  Bottom line, you can only take love as it comes, because you can't control it, you can't tame it and you certainly can't understand it.  Just accept it anywhere you can find it, because that is what makes life worth while.

At least, that's what I took from this film.

To break the film down a little more, let's move on to the actors and their characters - because really, that's what made the film what it is.  Let me just say that Ryan Gosling is wonderful.  I have never seen him play a part that he didn't do well.  His character may have come off unrealistic at first, but upon second glance, turns out to be a character with some heart.  Steve Carrel is also wonderful because he always brings the awkward and uncomfortable out of everyday life, and finds a way to depict it flawlessly on screen.  That's what I like about Steve Carrel.  He doesn't pick characters that go through exaggerated events and coincidences, with extreme personalities that pop out at you.  He always picks a dorky character with real qualities and relatable embarrassments that make us reflect on our own lives, only to realize that perhaps they aren't as dull as we thought.  We just don't seem to appreciate our experiences when we're having them.  Sometimes you need an actor like Steve Carrel to remind us that life can be light and comedic if we approach it differently, even when it seems to be full of let downs and disappointment.

Emma Stone played her character as well as always.  She does seem to play a similar personality in most of her films, however, she always puts 100% of herself in her characters, making them so authentic, you can't help but enjoy her.

As for Julianne Moore, she is always amazing - I think that's a given.  And for the boy and the 17 year old girl in the film, you guys get a thumbs up!!!  A for effort.

Ultimately, I give this film 7.8/10 for using some of my favourite actors to, for once, give us a realistic approach to love.   

By the way, I love this picture I chose (above).  Best part of the film.  Look at Ryan Gosling's face and imagine him saying: "What are you grabbing?"  lmao, best line.  You'll see.  Go see it!!!!

Friends with Benefits

 

Another romantic comedy.  Normally, I wouldn't complain, but somehow, I'm starting to get a little tired of them.  

Friends with Benefits is about a headhunter named Jamie (played by Mila Kunis) who is trying to sell her client Dylan (played by Justin Timberlake) on a job offer in New York.  She spends an entire day, introducing him to the city as she knows it, and welcoming him in as a friend.  Eventually, to her surprise, he decides to take the job offer and moves to New York.  They become good friends instantly and discover that they both have issues with relationships.  Trying out an experiment, they begin sleeping with each other casually without any attachments or commitments.  I think we ALL know how this is going to end.  

As a whole, the film was okay.  It was funny at times, it was relatable.. I guess.  The acting was decent and the story wasn't completely predictable.  So I guess I just wanted more.  I wasn't blown away by anything.  There wasn't much emotion for me to feed off of.  Mila Kunis did a great job trying to bring that in, but Justin Timberlake was lacking.  He wasn't bad, but like I said, I wasn't really impressed.  To me, he didn't seem to have a hard job to pull off from the beginning, so to criticize him is difficult because it seemed like he played a very common character.  A light-hearted, take nothing seriously character.  I'd like to see more from him.  

So I give this film 5.6/10.  I wouldn't see it again just because it didn't stand out to me enough.  It was cute.. that's all.        

Horrible Bosses

Need a laugh?  Need something ridiculous and borderline insane, so that you can feel your lips slowly curving upwards?   How about a group of men who want to hire a hit man to kill their bosses?  Borderline insane you say?

This film may appear silly from the outside, and trust me it is, but if you need a meaningless, superficial laugh to help you get through the week, this will do the job.

The acting was well executed.  Seriously, Jennifer Aniston was hilarious.  Kevin Spacey delivered as always.  And Colin Farrell really hit his mark in the comedy genre.  As for the three stooges, Jason Sudeikis , Jason Bateman and Charlie Day, they had good chemistry on screen.  All characters belonged together; no one felt or seemed left out. 

Moving on, the plot was seriously lacking, as in they took an ordinary problem in a lot of people’s lives and just completely went too far with it, making it unbelievable.  But that’s assuming you’re going in to this film with expectations.  BIG MISTAKE!  Go in without any expectations and just enjoy it for what it is. I promise this film can be just what you need to chill out. 

*Can I just comment on the titles of these films lately.  Getting lazy much?  Bad teacher, Horrible Bosses?   I can tell a lot of thought went into those... How about “The Dangerous Doctor” or “The Tired Accountant”?  Please, feel free to borrow those anytime, I’ve got plenty more.

So I give this film 7.5/10 for rubbing every possible toiletry up Jason Sudeikis’ butt.  Which, ironically, bites him in the ass later on.       

Bad Teacher

 

Pretty good, not sure I’d see it again though.

In Bad Teacher, the plot surrounds a woman who wants to marry for money so that she’s “taken care of” and can do whatever she wants without any consequences.  Unfortunately, this plan falls flat when her fiancé dumps her because of her recklessness and spending habits.  Therefore, she has to go back to her menial job as a school teacher.  She eventually sets her eyes on a new victim, and does everything in her power to win him over.    

This review is going to be like ripping off a band-aid.  Here we go. 

The acting in this film was good.  Everyone held their part, especially Cameron Diaz, who I’ve learned not to expect much from throughout the years.  However, she did a top notch job.   Justin Timberlake did a good job with his character, in the sense that I found him incredibly creepy.  Near the end, the funny level was low, because it lost its spark for some reason.  The plot was half-assed, but because the characters were so interesting to watch, it held most of the film.  Perhaps that’s why the humour didn’t seem to be enough in the end.  There wasn’t enough backbone in the plot to keep it interesting.

One thing I particularly liked about this film is that, perhaps without intending to, it comments on how many people think becoming a teacher is a backup plan for when your dreams fall in to the crapper.   Not to mention, it comments on how easy it is to become a teacher no matter how wrong you are for the job.  Just sayin...  

I give this film 5.5/10 for trying and remaining funny... most of the time.  

Super 8

Okay, normally I'm not an alien kinda girl.  Not a fan of aliens in movies.  What can I say, it just does nothing for me. It's probably because the story is always the same.  The alien wants to go home and the selfish people on Earth won't let that happen.  It's the same story in E.T., Paul, District 9 and now Super 8.

*For all the, now offended, District 9 fans out there, let me clarify:  I loved that movie because they made the situation realistic, the actual aliens looked realistic, and they even tried to show us what it would be like if we turned in to the much hated aliens ourselves.  However, that base story line remains the same; the aliens want to go home.  But they did something many film producers, writers and directors can't do.  They managed to make an old story completely new, completely fresh and original.  The makers of District 9 created art with that film.  For Super 8, that was not the case. *

Super 8 follows the lives of 6 kids as they are trying to shoot a zombie movie, but witness an accident at the train station instead.  Next thing we know, people go missing, animals run for their lives and the government military takes control.  Something is the cause for all of this and the 6 kids make it their job to find out what. The actors involved in this film are Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Basso and Zach  Mills.    

 Now, looking at the film as a whole, it's a good film.  Good, not amazing.  The reason I say this is because, even though it was well done, it also felt like it brought movies back at least a decade, especially with the ending they gave it.  I would say about 3/4 of the film was really good and then the last quarter made it lose its sparkle.

So, how do I explain this properly - my major issue?  I guess I would put the blame on Spielberg.  He wanted so badly to create the epicness that was E.T. in its time.  He wanted it so bad that I think he forgot that films have moved on from what they used to be, and have evolved into something with more substance and realism to them.  I feel like shouting at him a little bit because its like he's never left his little box of how to make films.  He sticks to what he knows and refuses to open his mind to new and exciting things.  He wants to create something shocking and awing, but he doesn't want know how to make it real.  And that's why this film isn't strong enough to make an impact.  It's nothing new and it's not relatable.  The films that make impacts are films with raw emotion and he just didn't deliver that in this film.  At least not emotion that hits you to the core.  Like I said, it was the last 1/4 where the lines became cheesy and predictable, as well as the events in the conclusion.
 
More specifically, the acting was well done, the kids were impressive.  The graphics were well done too.  The comedic relief was placed well in the film.  Honestly, I don't find that there is much to comment on because it was all fairly solid.       

What I will give this film is that it comes off nostalgic.  Because Spielberg's work has almost a signature to it, it reminds you so much of E.T. and how far that film went.  You smile to yourself and think, Oh that Spielberg.  And then you move forward to never look back.

I give this film 8.3/10.  It's a good film, but like I said, not amazing.

X Men: First Class

(Warning: there may be some spoilers below; they’re minor, but if you’re a stickler for these sort of things, you might want to tread lightly)

X Men: First Class is about the beloved characters (Professor Xavier, Mystique, Magneto, Cyclops' older generation, and Jean's mother) before they became the X Men.  They work together to stop a major threat, mutant Sebastian Shaw, who believes that in order to feel accepted in the world, they have to dominate it. Some actors involved in the film are Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence and Kevin Bacon.  

People have been asking, does this film revamp what was the dwindling X-Men trilogy? 

My answer: Yes, I believe it does.

To be fair, this film is not a continuation of the last, rather, an introduction to how it all began.  They managed to no only make concrete connections between the films, but also they maintained the ability to surprise you so that it’s not so predictable.  I recommend brushing up on your X-Men characters to fully enjoy this film, only because if you haven’t seen any of the previous ones for a while, you might forget some details that make it worth watching.  I loved the few special character appearances, no matter how short-lived they were, such as Hugh Jackman as Wolverine or Rabecca Romijn as Mystique. For me it was extremely entertaining.     

All the acting was well done; playful at times, ironic, and stimulating.  I have to give props for using one of George Bush’s famous lines – “If your not with us, by definition, that means your against us”.  Really, truly funny, I have to say.  In addition to historical quotes, the history involved in the film was fairly accurate, which pleased me.  I always find it impressive when you see the effort put in to making a film historically correct.   

The graphics were also well done as well as the sounds effects. 

The only critique I think I would give would be to make some of the transitions from scene to scene more interesting.  The reason I say this is because for, I would say a good third of the film, your following one of the main characters as he moves around the world, while another main character pretty much stays put. All they did was put text at the bottom of the screen to let you know where each character was when they switched from one to the other.  This made it seem kind of boring, to be completely honest. All I’m saying is to make more interesting cuts, so it feels less like – he’s here one minute and then were back, and then he’s here the next minute and then were back.  Oh now he’s here, oh and look, we’re back. We get it!  It was sort of tedious I guess and that’s why it stood out to me.   

Other than that, I recommend the movie for a solid performance, some comedic relief and a nostalgic 2 hours with some of Marvel’s memorable characters.

I give this film 8.2/10 for making a solid effort at keeping what was great from X-Men and not letting it get lost in chaos of film making.  

The Hangover Part II

I was careful walking in to this film.  I thought that it would either be hilarious or horrible.  I think it's fair to say that it ended up being somewhere in the middle. 

The Hangover Part II is a continuation of The Hangover.  Following the lives of Alan (Zack Galifinakis), Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha), it's their second time around at throwing one of the most forgettable nights in the history of bachelor parties.  Having lived through Doug's bachelor night in Vegas, it was now Stu's turn.  What we all thought was a night that no one could top, ended up being only the beginning.

Okay, so here's what I thought.  The acting was top notch, like always.  Zack Galifinakis was as funny as usual. Bradley Cooper was the calm and collected leader.  Ed Helms was the one who freaks out.  Nothing new right?  Looks like the entire movie runs much like this... predictable.

Every single scene was almost an exact replica of the first film.  The same songs, the same scene transitions, expansions of old jokes, just different scenery.  This was the film's downfall.  What makes films stand out are their originality and uniqueness.  We want to see something we have never seen before, not what we've seen possibly several times.

Even though this bothered me, I can't deny that the film was funny.  I still enjoyed it.  So I give this film 6.8/10.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

 

Stop it!!!!  Seriously, please stop. 

With every desperate attempt at mooching off this franchise, they in fact destroy what was good and lovable about, not only the original Pirates of the Caribbean, but the character of Captain Jack Sparrow.  I warn you, this review is short and sweet.  Come to think of it, some of you might love that for a change.  

The fourth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, On Stranger Tides, follows Captain Jack Sparrow (played by Johnny Depp) as he is searching for the fountain of youth.  Once again he throws himself into this adventure, pissing off women (particularly Penelope Cruz), stumbling around, and trying to beat everyone else to the punch.     

The acting is good.  There is nothing wrong with that. Let me make that clear now.  

The makeup from the makeup artists - always good.   

The story, the plot, the scene to scene transition, the soundtrack - horrible.  Why so blunt?  Well, for one, when in doubt, they played the theme song over and over.  In fact, I'm not confident in saying that I heard any other type of background music.  The story seemed like it was picked out of a hat.  It was common, which would have been fine if they tried to revamp it, but they didn't.  The humour was lacking.  The ending was open-ended of course.  The transition of scenes didn't flow properly and weren't nearly interesting or creative.  

Frankly, I wanted to sleep five minutes into the film and with me that's extremely rare.  You don't even want to bother with understanding the plot because you just don't care.  It's exhausting to follow and at times just plain boring.  

So, in conclusion, don't see this film.  If you actually enjoyed the first film, don't ruin its legacy for yourself by seeing this one.  I give this film 4/10.  Okay, so maybe it wasn't that short or sweet.        

Bridesmaids

I think it is important to admit when you make a mistake.  Let me just say that the first time I saw this film, I was pessimistic, because I imagined a really stupid comedy that I was wasting my money on.  I watched the film with this pessimism, and I let the pessimism follow me to the review below.  Let me clarify my feelings for this film as they currently are.  I now give this film 7.7/10.  I know it's not much of a leap, but this film has grown on me.  I take back what I said about the other characters not having an effect on me, I thought they were all wonderful and talented.  I absolutely love the plane ride scene. I refer to it constantly for a laugh.  But, I stick to what I said about The Hangover still being my personal favourite.  All in all, this was a funny, at times hilarious, and at other times disturbing film, which exceeded my expectations and finally gave me a prominent female cast that shows the men how its done.  So I retract my previous review.  However, it is below if you're curious.   
 
Let me just say, as funny as it was, it isn't worth the hype that's surrounding it.  To compare this film to The Hangover  is carelessness.
In my book, The Hangover reigns supreme.

Bridesmaids is about the relationship between two best friends as one of them is getting married and the other... not so much.  They deal with the hilarity and frustrations of planning a wedding, as well as the complications of feeling like your being left behind.

And now, for a more technical analysis.  Let's break this film down.  Never underestimate the power of innocent stupidity over in-your-face vulgarity.  And this is why Zack Galifinakis' character Allan, from The Hangover, will always be more funny than Melissa McCarthy's character Megan in this film.  They both play the abnormal siblings of the barely acknowledged fiancees.  McCarthy was very funny, don't get me wrong.  She played her character straight-faced and showed us her versatility in comedy and acting.  From Sookie in The Gilmore Girls, to Molly in Mike and Molly, and now to Megan?  You can't deny her talent and fearlessness.  But if you were to look at the kind of comedy she brought... you'd have to admit that it was bordering on disgusting and uncomfortable.  I mean, obviously, these are the aspects that make her funny in the first place, but personally, I prefer humour I can thoroughly enjoy without resisting the urge to cringe.

As for Kristin Wigg?  I was expecting much worse.  I was anticipating an SNL style comedy from her that she continuously brings to films.  It is these films that end up being crap.  But I am happy to say, I was pleasantly surprised.  Yes, there were some scenes that had that SNL flavour, but they were toned down so that your could actually enjoy them without feeling like they're being shoved down your throat.  She finally played a somewhat relatable character in a somewhat relatable film.  I don't think she's ever done that before, so, kudos!

All other characters were forgettable.  None of them stood out or claimed the scenes.  The men in the film played their parts, not that they had much to do in the first place.

So ultimately, I give this film 7.5/10.  Yes that's it.  It's okay, it's pretty funny, but I wouldn't see it again.  Not my kind of funny...

Something Borrowed

I had begun to hope... I should have known better.

Something Borrowed is about Rachel (played by Ginnifer Goodwin), an overworked lawyer just hitting her thirties, feeling unaccomplished and old.  In the midst of this momentary mid-life crisis, she does something completely against her character - she sleeps with her best friend's fiancee.  At first, what seems like an incredible mistake, is discovered to be the best thing she ever did.

This film contains actors Ginnifer Goodwin (as Rachel) as I stated before, John Krasinski (as Ethan, Rachel's basic conscience), Kate Hudson (as Darcy, the self-absorbed best friend) and Colin Eggelsfield (as Dex, Darcy's Fiancee).

This film had its good moments and its bad moments.  Thanks to John Krasinski and Kate Hudson, I witnessed a mere fragment of what I wanted this movie to be.

Kate Hudson played her role - dare I say it - perfectly.  I had absolutely no issues with her portrayal of Darcy, in fact, she is exactly what I imagined.  She was selfish, biased, confident, arrogant, manipulative, but then at times, alluring, loyal and enticing.  She played that best friend role us girls know all too well.  It's that role of having to have all the attention, having to always get her way and then when you think you've had just about enough, she finds a way to reel you back in.  They are seductive characters and Hudson accomplished this wonderfully.  You love to hate her in this film.

John Kransinski was not exactly what I imagined, but he trumped whatever that was in the first place.  He was demanding.  He demanded our attention to the reality of the situation.  He was straight forward, to the point, brutally honest, funny and acted as Rachel's conscience.  When he screamed, you felt his frustrations. When he acted out, you felt that he was justified.  He spoke for the audience and allowed us to live through him.  He was that much and more.

And now, to the actors that I was disappointed in.  Ginnifer Goodwin was too "goody two-shoe".  It was obnoxious because she never let go of the good/pure/innocent version of herself that contradicted everything else she did.  In the book, she begins to resent Darcy, getting really angry with her.  Sure it's petty and unreasonable, but at least it was understandable.  Suffice it to say, you don't get this version of Rachel in the film, even though it is what made her character interesting. There was no strong emotion from her, and when she finally let some of it out, it didn't seem enough.  Her anger never seemed enough and her love never seemed enough.  She wasn't enough!  I don't think this has to do with her acting - she is a good actor.  I think it has to do with the screenplay and the director.  They didn't give Rachel's character a fighting chance to justify her actions.  They left out the scenes that strengthened Rachel and Dex's relationship, so you couldn't actually sympathize with them for their actions. 

Frankly, I didn't care much about them, especially Dex.

Eggelsfield was boring.  Other than looking good, which I kind of disagree with, he just stood there.  His acting was passive, his character was passive.  He was portrayed as a spineless snake.  And the worst of it was, that even when he "redeems" himself, you still don't think he has any redeeming qualities.  He's just there to act as a thorn in Darcy and Rachel's relationship.  He wasn't a character to me, but a prop for Hudson and Goodwin's use. The most annoying scene was near the end when Dex finds out the truth about Darcy (which I won't give away).  It's appalling and he barely reacts.  In the book, he swears at her, gets really angry, screams, but in the movie he just stands there and says his line.
He was nothing like the Dex from the book. 

Ultimately, the film was okay.  There were two strong characters and two weak characters.  And because of that, I give this film 6.5/10 for not fully bringing the book to life.                

Thor

Now, this is how a superhero movie is supposed to go!  None of that Green Hornet crap...

Thor is about the god named Thor, (played by Chris Hemsworth) - the god of thunder.  The film begins with him on his home planet, as he is about to earn the crown and become king.  However, just before this can occur, a security breach acts as an interruption, making everyone sceptical and nervous. Thor gives in to his arrogance and pride, and risks his people in order to make a point.  His father (played by Anthony Hopkins) decides that his actions are immature and selfish, therefore, he is not ready to be king.  So he is cast out as a punishment, and sent to earth.  This is where he falls in love (love interest played by Natalie Portman), learns his faults and feels remorse for possibly the first time.  He makes his way back home, a better and stronger god, ready to rightfully earn his crown and destroy those trying to take it away from him. 

Chris Hemsworth, for starters, was very impressive.  He hid his Aussie accent wonderfully.  He embodied the character with all the charisma and enthusiasm that makes the role so powerful.  His physical fitness/smile wasn't bad either.  Portman, on the other hand, was not so wonderful.  She was just okay.  A definite disappointment when comparing this performance to others she's done in the past.  I really couldn't care less about her character.  As for the film in its entirety, it had its comedic moments and, for the most part, flowed well.

I only have a couple of criticisms: the hand-held camera at the beginning of the film was shaky and obnoxious, to the point where your eyes hurt a little.  Thankfully, this was only during the beginning of the film - easily forgiven.  Also at the beginning, the opening scene is partly given and then they decide to show us how the story leads up to that very scene.  Let me just say, this didn't have much impact.  Usually when this occurs, you think- oh great this is going to be interesting.  Well it wasn't.  It would have made no difference if they had just let the series of events be chronological like the rest of the film.  This is not so much a criticism as it is a random comment.  It's like the very first scene hypes you up for something above and beyond, and then makes you immediately forget it even existed.  No need to start the film with a minor let down.  Finally, as I mentioned before, the romantic element didn't really make an impression on me.  Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would watch it again. 

Sidenote: It's really exciting when they incorporate the same characters from other superhero films (like SHIELD from Iron Man).  It makes the world of the film feel extended and larger in scope.  I loved the Tony Stark reference (I thought it was hilarious).

So I give this film 8/10 for portraying an entertaining version of Thor: The God of Thunder with fresh talent.    

Looking For Richard

This film is for those who really enjoy Shakespeare, acting and the theatre.

Looking for Richard plays like a dramatic documentary about making Shakespeare more appealing to modern audiences today.  It starts out showing some interviews with random people on the street to establish a general understanding of how people view Shakespeare in our society.  And the one doing the interviewing?  Mr. Al Pacino himself.  He takes on the challenge of explaining and portraying one of Shakespeare's most difficult and most preformed plays - Richard III.  Some of the actors that appear in this film are Alec Baldwin, Kevin Spacey and Winona Ryder.  They help Al as he tries to act out some of the scenes from the play.

This film is wonderful.  It takes the art of acting to a whole different level of talent.  It brings you "backstage" so you can understand the film process, the theatrical process, and the acting process.  It gives you an inside look at certain methods of acting by allowing you to watch extremely talented actors.  It uses humour so that those who have trouble with Shakespeare are more comfortable, because they realize they aren't the only ones confused.  But most importantly, I find that they hit a special mark with this film.  The best way to put it is by quoting one of the random people they interviewed on the street.  A poor man.

Conversation between a poor man on the street and Al Pacino:

Man: "Intelligence is hooked with language.  When we speak with no feeling we get nothing out of our society.  We should speak like Shakespeare.  We should introduce Shakespeare into the academics.  You know why?  Because then the kids would have feeling."

Al:  "That's right, we have no feelings."

Man:  "That's why it's easy for us to shoot each other.  We don't feel for each other... but if we were taught to feel... we wouldn't be so violent.  Shakespeare helped us.  He did more than help us.  He instructed us."

Here's a look at the film (the beginning)- I'm not sure if it includes the conversation above

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this inspiring and humbling all at the same time.  For a poor man to be so clear and true, saying something millions of us could never understand, and having the disadvantages in life that he has - its incredible.

But let's switch focus for a moment.  Al Pacino's acting was exciting to watch.  He uses his facial features, his voice, his lips as a way to create a character and bring it to life.  I had once spoken about Colin Firth's acting as something he created with his entire body.  Al Pacino creates it with his face.  He's very operatic and strong when need be, but the next second he can be sinister, alluring and intriguing by just using his voice.  He uses these strengths to his advantage the entire film.  It's also his confidence that removes any doubt from our minds about Al's certainty.  That's why it's hilarious when he is proven wrong.  You suddenly realize, Al Pacino doesn't know everything to know about Shakespeare, let alone about the play Richard III.  This makes Pacino relatable to the audience.    

I absolutely have to give a large thumbs up to Penelope Allen who played Queen Elizabeth.  She was amazing to watch.

And now some negative remarks.  This film's week spots were simple.  There were too many scenes from the play and not enough of society's view.  There needed to be more in-depth interviews with strangers or at least trying to grasp a further understanding of why people are withdrawn from Shakespeare.  I think there were so many things that Al wanted to touch upon and make a comment on, that the film became too much and eventually became too scattered. The unity of the film deteriorated from this, and that was its downfall.   I also think if he wanted to make Shakespeare more easy to understand, he probably should have picked a less complicated play to work with.  I understand the reason he picked Richard III was because of its confusion, but I felt that maybe it was too big a task to accomplish.

So, definitely watch this film.  Don't think, don't analyze (like I do), just watch it.  Because it may not be whole, but small and seemingly insignificant parts are worth the entire thing.  I promise, the experience of watching this film will stick with you.  I give this film 8.5/10.  

*Here's the aftermath of the documentary.  After everything was filmed, the dialogue was written down and recorded.  Here it is.  The Looking for Richard script.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/l/looking-for-richard-script-transcript.html

Fast Five (one of many)

So cheesy, it was hilarious!  I personally like to take what is rediculous and silly in a film, and simply enjoy it for all its worth... even though it may not be worth much...

Fast Five is the fifth installment in the Fast and the Furious franchise.  As a continuation, Brian O'Conner, an ex-detective (played by Paul Walker) and his girlfirend Mia Toretto (played by Jordana Brewster), help Dominic (played by Vin Diesel) escape from his jail sentence.  All three of them end up on the run from the police as they try to figure out a way to be free.  Through all the commotion, a cast of fun-loving characters come together to help them gain their freedom.  Some other actors in this film are Ludacris, Dwayne (the rock) Johnson and Tyrese Gibson.
*They appeared in previous Fast and the Furious movies. 

"You know I like my dessert before my dinner"
"Give me the veggie's"
These lines might not sound like much, but if you watch the film, you'll understand the stupidity and hilarity in them.  It was lines like these that kept me laughing, even though they were so ridiculous they should have just left me annoyed.  Thanks to Dwayne Johnson's character, Fast Five actually kept me entertained.  It was pedictable down to the very line, not to mention, the entire film played like a cliche.  They relied heavily on their one liners.

Thinking back on it now, it felt like the movie was really 3 movies in one.  They tried to use every action dynamic possible.  They robbed a bank volt.  They broke in to a police station.  They were on the run for a large part of the film.  There was a street race.  They had one big cop after them.  They had a mobster after them.  It was so rediculous and jam-packed, the focal point started to become flustered.  But I will give the film this: there was funny conversation at times, and the team of characters had good chemistry between them.  I was happy about that.  The comedic banter was pretty good. But, at risk of sounding like a broken record, it was Dwayne Johnson who kept me from walking out of the theatre, whether he was intentionally funny or not.  And for that accomplishment, I give him a thumbs up!
It helps to have Vin Diesel to look at too... just saying.

See this film if your in the mood for a light, silly movie that is comforting in its predictability.
I give this film 5.5/10

Water for Elephants

Did I like it all that much?  Not exactly, but not for the reasons you think.

Water for Elephants is about a man named Jacob (played by Robert Pattinson), living in the 1930s during the great depression, where in the midst of bad times, he chooses to join the circus.  He meets the main attraction (played by Reese Witherspoon) who is married to August (played by Christopher Waltz)- an unpredictable, unsympathetic, and dangerous man who happens to be in charge.  Jacob, finding himself in conflict with the way the place is being run, how he feels about Reese's character, and how the animals are being treated, decides to take matters into his own hands.  

Let me just say- there is a lot about this film that stands out.  It has its good qualities and its bad qualities.  For one, it seemed deeply concerned with lighting and the power of casting shadows.  It reminded me what power lighting truly has on the appearance of a character, of a story, of an environment in a scene.  The silhouette's were something to note and the way a face could change from sensitive to rugged with just a slant of the light was impressive.  But, they were overcompensating.  For what, you might ask?  I have to say, Robert Pattinson's weaknesses as being the male lead.   

Now don't get me wrong, he wasn't all that bad.  At times he even seemed good.  But one major problem that he makes obvious time and time again- he's not comfortable.  He's not comfortable in the skin of the character he's playing.  I know this because his posture, his facial expressions, his muscles are never relaxed.  He always seems tense for attack.  But he tries so hard, you can tell.  And for that you have to give him props.  But jeeze Pattinson, flex your face muscles every now and then and stop pouting!

Okay, so let's move on from the male lead for a moment.  Reese Witherspoon.  I love her, but this film either didn't give her enough to work with or she was just not into it.  I didn't feel it from her.  She was not as strong as I know she's capable of.  I was a little disappointed.

Christopher Waltz was amazing as usual.  For all of you who don't know where he is from, he was in Inglorious Bastards and he was fabulous in that as well.  That is acting!  No one could keep up with him.  When you want to play a good versus evil dynamic and the good is supposed to win, well, you have to make the good stronger than the evil.  That just did not happen in this film.  Waltz was so far beyond the others, he made them look weak and slightly pathetic in comparison.  He put talent into perspective.

So all in all, wonderful cinematography and lighting, extremely weak screenplay, good and bad acting as well as 2 hours that felt like 3.  So what am I supposed to mark this film as?

I give this film 5.5/10 for trying so hard, but just not making memorable.     

Hanna

It was pretty good... I guess.

Hanna is about a teenage girl (played by Saoirse Ronan: the girl from The Lovely Bones/Atonement) who, for the first time, goes out in the world with the knowledge that her life will always be in danger; something her father (played by Eric Bana) tries to prepare her for.  Along the way, she learns about friendship and family.  This film plays like a thrilling chase that never truly ends.

I'm feeling indifferent about this film.  I should be clear- there was nothing blatantly wrong with it.  The acting was good, sometimes even excellent.  The music along with the fight scenes were well done (it keeps your attention and slows things down so that you could actually see the movements being done).  The shot closeups and side shots were decent, nothing really stood out in that category though.  Not that that's a big deal. 

Then, why do I feel so divided from this film?
I think I wanted more.  The plot's solution was lacking and just not fulfilling.  You leave wishing the ending was different, more explosive.  The revelations aren't as big as you hoped they would be.  I also think the movie felt a little long because not much really changes. I mean, yes the plot somewhat moves forward, but it very clearly ends right where it started.  The problem with this is, from the beginning, you can almost guess the ending, which makes the rest of the film (the middle) somewhat of a letdown.

Random Note: Cate Blanchett's forced southern accent was not consistent and would come out randomly, which took away from her character. 

Maybe I was just in a mood, I don't know.

Ultimately, I recommend this movie despite my own quarrels with it.  It is a good movie.  Eric Bana's not bad to look at either.  I give this film a 7.2/10.