Brothers

Wow. I thought I'd enjoy this, but I didn't know how much. Unrelated to the movie, I always found these two actors similar in looks/sound, so them being brothers worked. However, clearly Tobey Maguire is the better actor. From start to finish, he nails his role. Movies like this don't get Oscar nods, but he should. Natalie Portman as an adult...interesting, but again...brilliant. She has gotten better movie to movie, and now is a top actress. Gyllenhaal was solid as the bad brother turned good at the supposed death of his brother.

Plotwise, Bad brother (Jake) gets out of jail and is having a hard time adjusting to normal life. At the same time, his good brother (Tobey) is heading off to Afghanistan as he's in the military. Shortly after, it is assumed that he is dead. (The viewer sees that clearly he is not, although he is not in the best shape) Bad brother, Tommy (Jake) starts helping out Grace (Portman) as she is a struggling "widow." He develops an even better relationship with Sam (Tobey)'s impressionable young kids. After Sam gets back from his struggle overseas, he has trouble adapting, and suspects things are going on with his family that aren't right.

This movie is very moving, and has a lot of depth to it. It is meant in respect to the struggles that someone overseas goes through, and tries to get the viewer to see that things aren't always that easy, and aren't always that hard.

I highly recommend it.

I rate this movie 8.9 out of 10.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

Ever see commercials for a movie too good to be true? A movie you can't wait to see, and then you see it and realize not only was it too good to be true, but it was an even bigger letdown than that? That is this movie.

It's mildly funny. Not really funny. Bridges and Spacey let me down, and they acted brilliantly (writing/directing issue). Clooney was what I expected. McGregor's accent was confusing.

The premise was good, and "somewhat true." However, it didn't go anywhere. From start to finish, I felt like I just watched a 10 minute movie. There was no development, climax, nothing. Just an hour and a half of movie going nowhere.

Yikes.

I rate this movie a 6.3 out of 10.

The Box

Pretty late on this one, but I'll continue. The Box is Richard Kelly's latest movie (Donnie Darko, Southland Tales). It is also based off of a Twilight (not the vampire crap) Zone episode. It stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden (Cyclops), as well as Frank Langella with half a face (terrible effect).

Just like Kelly's other movies this movie is really long and doesn't explain too much. The premise was clear from the commercial. Press the button, get $1 mil and a person you don't know dies. Don't, and nothing. SPOILER (if you are dumb) ALERT: They press it. The movie would end had they not. This is really early in the movie.

From here its a series of creepy characters, twists, the supernatural/metaphysical, and much, much more that is either hinted at, or slowly develops. You really have to pay attention to all the details.

If you didn't like Donnie Darko, you won't like this. If you did, you still might not like this movie. However, if you open up to the movie, and just try to take it for what it is, it is quite enjoyable. I actually like movies where I have to think, and I can analyze. This was both.

Oh, and the movie takes place in the 70s, and is filmed to look like it.

I rate this movie 7.6 out of 10.

Paranormal Activity

Welcome to the Blair Witch Project of the 2000's. This movie, though a great viral marketing campaign, and first movie to have a concrete idea since the Blair Witch Project, managed to scare/enterain many. This movie could have been made by anyone at any cost. However, Oren Peli manages to make the idea sound throughout. He doesn't doze off on his idea.

In my opinion, no movies are scary. They are fake. As long as I know that, they don't bother me. This movie was decent enough because it didn't use the jump film crap that other horror movies use. You know, when they move the camera fast and jumpy and shift it to make things seem more scary as they catch you off guard.

This movie "documents" the life of a couple being haunted by a demonic presence at night. Kate, the woman in the movie has been haunted by this demon for years. Her boyfriend, Micah, determined to figure this out, decides to film every day/night of their lives. They slowly catch the demonic presence more and more each day. Finally it gets serious, and that's as far as I'll go.

This movie is good if you go with someone who scares easy as it will entertain you more. However, as with all low budget movies, the acting is sub-par as is the effects. But hey, for $15,000 total, this movie was done well.

Don't expect too much, and 90% of you will be scared.

I rate this movie 7.0 out of 10. [Buy Paranormal Activity Today]

Where The Wild Things Are

To start, and I still feel this way. James Gandolfini's character, as with all his characters post-Sopranos make me imagine they are all Tony Soprano in a different form. And in this movie, he was the monster version of Tony Soprano. Just weird. I can't get that whole idea out of my head.

Getting past that, Spike Jonze did an excellent job in translating this movie from a book to the big screen. I think it is incredibly hard to do, given the length of the book. However, little boy Max runs away from home as he is frustrated and ends up arriving at an island inhabited by giant monsters. He lives with them as their king, and eventually realizes he must return home.

There were a ton of voices in this movie, James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Forest Whitaker, and Chris Cooper to name a few. The movie had very nice effects. The plot was actually managable.

There was a problem, for some in this part. It was and wasn't for kids. The movie goes from kid friendly to scary and back. It is much deeper than the book was ever meant to be. It was gravely realistic in thought and kind of dark. So this inconsistency, I think, weighed down the movie.

If you enjoyed the book, and want to see an interesting movie, but don't expect too much. Give it a watch as a matinée movie.

I rate this movie 7.3 out of 10.

Law Abiding Citizen

After seeing countless previews for this movie, I thought a few things. I have to see this because its stuck in my head. This movie seems like Saw but in a non horror setting. (not necessarily the best thing) This movie looks good.

Well marketing worked, I saw the movie, and here I am.

The movie starts out with basically the majority of the trailer. Loved that. Its good to see a trailer that only sets up the movie and doesn't spoil it. The movie shoots immediately to 10 years after Gerard Butler's (Clyde's) family was murdered. From there, Clyde begins to take down everyone involved in the process. At the same time, he is making a mockery of the justice system because he feels they don't worry about right and wrong. They only worry about looking good. He wants the system changed. He turns his primary focus on trying to teach his old lawyer (Jamie Foxx) a lesson. Teach him that he has to worry about what's right, not what will help him have a high conviction rate.

The movie moves from there at a thrilling and rapid rate. It is neat to see how Clyde manages to do what he's doing. How the movie winds to its ending is surprising, with the ending being obvious.

The dialog is what really makes the movie. Gerard Butler makes you laugh with how he acts and treats everything. This makes the movie even more enjoyable on top of the plot.

Great acting all around.

So if you want to see a good movie, without a twist (twists suck most of the time and don't make much sense in hindsight), go see this movie. Trust me.

I rate this movie 8.7 out of 10.

Zombieland

Woody Harrelson and the star of Adventureland (seems to do well with __land movies), Jesse Eisenberg (Michael Cera 2) star in a comedy zombie movie. Now its not necessarily a spoof movie. It is a zombie movie.

Eisenberg plays a character who is a nerd and relies on strict rules to stay alive. Harrelson is the crazy bad ass type who runs on instincts. They meet up and are headed to their various destinations, when they meet two more humans, 2 girls, played by Emma Stone (Superbad) and Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine). After some deception, they team up to head to LA, where they think there is a safe spot.

Harrelson is back. His acting was perfect. His humor was great. Dry at some times, slapstick at others. His never-ending quest for Twinkies and his "enjoying of the little things" was priceless. Eisenberg plays his nerdy role spot on, not hard for him. His quarks and narration keep the movie going and people laughing.

The timing on all the events were great as was the creativity. However, the zombie aspect made that easy to do. The writers and director really set up a mold and kept with it. It worked perfect. The movie was absolutely hilarious. I'm not going to spoil it, by saying anything about it, but I will mention it since its been already mentioned by others... Bill Murray's cameo was amazing.

The movie doesn't make you think. It makes you laugh, and laugh, and enjoy. Don't go there looking to see something develop and progress. Go there looking to laugh at one of the more creative movies this year.

Definitely, one of the top 2 comedies of the year, with The Hangover only topping it by a little.

This movie is one you can see over and over and not get sick of it.

I rate this movie 9.1 out of 10.

Surrogates

Bruce Willis stars as Tom Greer, an FBI worker in a world where people are linked to robots safely from their home while the robots do all the living. He accepts it, but secretly hates it. No worry about dying while your surrogate is out there. However, its discovered there is a weapon that can kill the person running the surrogate. Once discovered, Tom Greer realizes everyone is acting funny. Like they know something and are covering it up. Once Tom's surrogate is destroyed, he has to solve the mystery with his own human body. Dangerous.

This movie was predictable from start to finish. The action scenes were boring and old. I didn't learn or see anything I haven't in other sci-fi movies. Bruce Willis did a great acting job. However, the rest of the cast, even James Cromwell, didn't deliver. Ving Rhames's character was shallow and terribly developed.

Also, the movie was under an hour and a half. For a movie they promoted so much, it was too short-lived. It also had no lasting effect on me. Just a high-budget mess.

So unless you are a die hard Willis fan (pun intended), you'd be better off holding out and spending your money on a good October movie.

I rate this movie 5.4 out of 10.

Jennifer's Body

Another movie I didn't plan on seeing. OK, so we got Megan Fox, everyone's favorite girl for some bizarre reason, since there are a handful of actresses who could be her twin. Also, I think she's very overrated and looks like an angry person. (not saying she is, its how she looks) We got her half naked, killing "boys" and we got her saying she goes both ways. Wow, who cares. That + horrible movie = lame. Guys, if you want something like that, watch porn, you actually see things happen. Paying to see this movie for Megan Fox is paying to get cock-teased and having to suffer through a bad movie in the process.

Diablo Cody, I appreciate your efforts and creativity. However, showering your movies with your terrible lingo is infuriating. It isn't clever to refer to someone being jealous as 'being jello' and if they are being really jealous to refer to them as 'being so jello they are lime jello.' That's just one example of many. If you've seen this or Juno, you know.

Further, I wasn't sure if I was watching a satire on a horror movie, or just a horror movie. It wasn't scary, thrilling, or enthralling. It was predictable, lame, and just boring.

The story is Megan Fox eats boys for a reason they explain later. Amanda Seyfried, her nerdy friend gets scared and eventually tries to stop her.

It doesn't get any deeper than that.

I rate this movie 4.7 out of 10

17 Again

Well, never thought I'd watch this, but I did. The idea isn't original, nor is the presentation.

Starts out shallowly explaining how Matthew Perry's character's life got the way it was. From there he meets a janitor who asks him if he'd want relive his teen years and says yes. After some lame circumstances, he becomes Zac Efron. From there he now goes to school with his children and through that becomes the cool kid in school with morals (realistic) and gains a closer relationship with his kids and bettering them. Oddly enough, he gets closer to his wife/ex-wife.

The movie really has tons of plot holes. Especially at the end. It is delivered horribly as well. Thomas Lennon's side role makes no sense, either. The only plus I can give it is that maybe 2 or 3 jokes made me laugh.

This movie is good for people who love Zac Efron, and don't mind a watchable, yet awful movie.

I rate this movie 4.9 out of 10.

The Informant!

Matt Damon plays Mark Whitacre, an airhead yet genius type. You know, where they are unbelievably smart, but don't really pay attention to others. Not trying to confuse this with a lack of "street smarts" that the commercials show, because Mark has them.

Anywho, the story begins with Mark Whitacre talking of a man bribing his corn company for a few million dollars. This leads to an FBI investigation. The investigation quickly switches off of the bribe and onto a bigger thing that Mark reveals... price fixing. From there the chaos ensues. Mark actually does a decent job with helping them get film and tapes, yet he doesn't seem to be telling the truth all the time. I won't spoil the rest, you'll just have to see it.

The movie is really funny, not so much in physical humor, but in a lot of dialog and situational humor. Matt Damon really nails his part well. The supporting cast has that dry humor type acting which really works well with the movie.

The movie seems to drag on toward the end, but never really has you lose interest. The story, namely Mark Whitacre's lies, keep the movie flowing well and never allows you to guess what is happening next. (Unless you've read the novel)

I think it was a good change for Matt Damon, and a movie that was very worth seeing.

Don't expect too much laughing. You'll get enough though, and the story is worth it.

I rate this movie 7.7 out of 10.

Tropic Thunder

Ben Stiller. Jack Black.... and Robert Downey, Jr.? Yes. (And Brandon Jackson, Jay Baruchel, Nick Nolte, Steve Coogan, Danny McBride, Bill Hader as well as Matthew McConaughey and Tom Cruise as you've never seen them before) This isn't your typical comedy.

The premise is 4 out of control ego actors are filming a movie about Vietnam, and after something goes wrong they are in the jungle for real. Only they don't realize it, til the adventure starts.

The movie starts out slow. But the dialog and Robert Downey, Jr. are classic from start to finish. Ben Stiller plays an action star past his prime trying to reestablish himself as a dramatic actor. He plays his character one-dimensionally beautifully, a far cry from his boring generic paranoid unlucky characters. Downey, Jr. plays an over dedicated actor to the point where he goes under surgery to make himself black to play a black man's role. Jack Black plays a drug addicted, Eddie Murphy in Nutty Professor, character.

The rest of the cast holds up. McConaughey is great as an air head, super dedicated agent to Ben Stiller, and Tom Cruise in bald/fat suit plays an egotistical producer. It's really great to see them do something different.

Overall, the movie is chunky, and has some lingering parts. But its well worth a watch if you have two hours to kill. It's not a movie you could watch over and over, though.

I rate this movie 7.8 out of 10.

9

Spoiler Alert: Contrary to popular belief, 9 is not a Tim Burton movie, he only produced it. He didn't create, write, or direct it. So it isn't a Tim Burton movie.

Moving forward, I expected a lot out of this movie. I liked the cast, I liked the premise. I liked the PG-13 rating. I kinda shied at the Tim Burton thing, hoping he didn't lay his creative thought on it too much as he's done enough like this. However, when purchasing my tickets, I realized the movie was only 79 minutes long (1 hour and 19 minutes). That really scared me.

After watching it, it rang true. The movie was just too short. Funny since the movie was based off of a movie short, titled 9, in 2005. The plot made sense. 9 rag doll creatures created from a scientist in attempt to save mankind from its complete destruction. Mankind had lost the war against its own robots it created (Terminator, Matrix, etc.). These puppet dolls don't know what they have got themselves into yet. However, the plot lacked solid character development. It lacked any intermediate scenes, transitions, or real explanation of most things.

The acting (voicing) was great. So was the animation. Elijah Wood and John C. Reilly really stood out. Not surprisingly. The animation was great, too.

Really, if they stretched the movie another 20-25 minutes, it would have been much better. Hell, it wouldn't be called stretching, since I feel shortchanged.

Watch it at a matinée price since you aren't paying for a full movie. Also, the commercial may have cool music, but the movie lacks it.

I rate this movie 6.0 out of 10.

Extract

Extract. Mike Judge's 2nd movie since Office Space. It was good to see him stick to the mold of Office Space, and stay far, far away from Idiocracy. Also, he went for a better cast: Bateman, Kunis, Affleck, Simmons.

However, the movie wasn't Office Space, nothing will be. But I can settle for a decent comparison. Bateman plays the owner of an extract company who has some crazy characters who work for him, he has a wife (Kristin Wiig) who he can't any loving from, and he has a lawsuit to settle so he can try to sell his company. Enter Mila Kunis and trouble erupts.

I'm not going to spoil too much, but the movie is pretty funny. It isn't a flowing funny, but its a consistent funny. Affleck isn't as funny as the commercials appear, either. Bateman is his responsible, yet he gets shit on character.

The movie isn't as good as I thought it was, but it was definitely watchable. The only upsetting part was that it could have easily been 300 times better, which was really disappointing. It was a let down.

I rate this movie 6.7 out of 10.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Hugh Jackman returns for the 4th (1st in chronological order) time as Wolverine. This time in an attempt to explain how he became the way he did. The movie starts out with Logan (Wolverine's name) as a boy, a few hundred years back, with his brother (eventually being Sabretooth, played by Liev Schreiber), and then shows a 15 minute or less, travel through time, since neither of them age. Showing from war to war (revolutionary, civil, world(s)) and how they fought for America. Then it turns to real time where they are part of a secret task force of mutants. Logan no longer wants to be part of that, so he takes off. They spend the time trying to lure him back once finding him, in an attempt to have him go through a process in which he gets an adamantium skeleton. Basically, they cause him hell through the whole ordeal, and he tries to stop them from all the bad things they were doing.

All in all, it was a decent cast (Hugo Weaving Ryan Reynolds, and Will.I.Am included). The story line was a little bit different from the comics, but hey, they had only 2 hours. If you liked the X-Men franchise, you'll love this movie, unless you are sick of it. Which I think most people were split between the two. I think this movie was set to further Ryan Reynolds in another spin off as well, and possibly Liev Schreiber, too. However, I'm not sure either will happen.

The storyline was pretty good, and well presented. The action was a bit unrealistic, and I'm saying this about a movie about mutants, which means something. But it is enjoyable, and you don't have to be a geek to like it.

I rate this movie 7.2 out of 10.

Gamer

From the people who brought you Crank and Crank: High Voltage, present Gamer. Modifying their over-the-top action style slightly to present a much more realistic (although still not believable) movie in which Gerard Butler, or Kable, a convicted murderer (although since everyone knows he's the good guy, he obviously didn't do what he was accused of), who's signed up for a real life video game. Basically imagine you control a real human in Call of Duty or Halo. His game player is a 17 year old kid who is great at these games. The two of them working together have managed to keep Kable alive for over 20 days. If he survives 30 days, he gets his freedom. Kable is a hero to the world as this is being broadcasted on PPV by billionaire Ken Castle, played by Michael C. Hall (of Dexter fame). He also has another project similar to as if the Sims were real. People get paid to be a Sim, and people pay to control them. Castle doesn't want Kable to win at all costs, but why?

Directors/writers Neveldine and Taylor present this in incredible quality and depth as to translating these video games to real life people. Real gamers will laugh and enjoy all the subtleties that are presented before them. The story is fast-paced, but it flows great. Its non-stop action.

There are tons of names in this from Ludacris to Kyra Sedgewick to UFC Star Keith Jardine, John Leguizamo, Milo Ventimiglia (of Heroes), Terry Crews, and blink if you catch him Efren Ramirez (Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite, and all other Neveldine/Taylor movies).

I would have to say I was quite impressed. This movie is ridiculous, but in a good way.

I rate this movie 7.8 out of 10.

Choke

Based on the book written by Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club). This movie stars Sam Rockwell. He is a man currently working at a place that reenacts life in coloinal America. He doesn't take his job seriously and spends most of his time there hitting on women. At the same time, he is visiting his sick mother at the hospital on a regular basis, and she is getting worse and worse and is remembering who he is less and less. At the same time, Rockwell's Victor, is a con man, and goes to fancy restaurants, fakes choking, only for rich people to save him. He then prays on their kindness and his unfortunate situation into getting things from them. While visiting his mother he meets a nurse whom he fall in love with. Craziness ensues from there.

The movie was unlike most movies I've seen. Very off, but not in such a bad way. It was a limited release, I feel, for a reason, as most people wouldn't flock to such a movie. However, it fits its niche great. Rockwell plays his character well, and his mom is played by Anjelica Huston.

I'd recommend this if you are looking for a dark comedy, or if you are a Palahniuk fan.

I rate this movie 6.9 out of 10.

The Spirit

Ahh, Frank Miller's first movie since Sin City, however with him directing it. I thought this would be great. Plus Sam Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and Eva Mendes in supporting roles.

I have to say the movie let me down. I enjoyed watching it from start to finish. However, this being Miller's first directed project with on supervision, he just didn't know what he was doing. The movie seemed rushed and there was little transitioning.

Gabriel Macht, played the lead, The Spirit. He was a cop who apparently died, but was saved by the afterlife. So he lives his life as a basically immortal savior to his city. He is also a womanizer. Macht does a charming job at his first lead role, and provides decent humor and action.

The movie, albeit justifed, seemed too much of a graphic novel brought to life, it was too jumpy as if the viewer was turning a page after each scene, instead of watching 1 masterpiece put together.

I'd say if you like these types of movie and are bored, give it a go.

I rate this movie 6.2 out of 10.

The Haunting In Connecticut

I'm not sure if I made myself clear yet in any reviews, but I'm extremely critical of horror movies. Mostly because they have a shallow plot, and really are far from scary. Just some bad acting and special effects, and either jump camera tricks, or scary music to set the tone. I also don't believe in ghosts. So this movie being based on a true story interested me a lot. I wanted to see what it was all about.

To answer it plainly, wow this movie sucked. Not to mention, when matched up with the "true story," I found this movie wasn't very true at all, and neither was the story it was based on.

The acting was decent, surprisingly. The movie just didn't flow at all. It wasn't scary. The entire thing just seemed like a flash back to something that never happened.

Please don't see this.

I rate this movie 3.0 out of 10.

Slumdog Millionaire

What do we have here? Danny Boyle. Not everyone may know him, but he's a fairl established director. I'd go as far as to say he pulled a Neill Blomkamp before Blomkamp did with District 9. He used actors no one ever heard of, to deliver a fantastic and thrilling movie. However, they weren't as unknown, and some were even British, such as Dev Patel.

The movie basically revolves around a boy raised on his own in the slum being more successful than anyone else has in India's version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Seeing as he has no education this is very suspicious to everyone. Yet as he answers each question, it flashes back to his life experience involving how he knew it, esssentially telling the tale of his life.

It was wonderfully directed, written, and acted. It hit me, as well as many others, by surprise. The movie has also skyrocketed leads Dev Patel and Freida Pinto into immense fame.

If you like a good story, hell, a flawless story, please watch this movie.

I rate this movie 8.8 out of 10.

Push

I wanted to see this movie when it hit theatres, however it got little screen time by me. So I had to wait. I'm not going to say the movie was worth the wait, but it was very good.

The movie stars Chris Evans (he is who he is). Not a terrible choice, but he works. Also stars, Dakota Fanning as a teenager, Camilla Belle, and Djimon Hounsou. Everyone has their own abilities as well as many others in the world. Evans is a Mover, he can move things with his mind. Belle and Hounsou plays a Pusher, who can push thoughts into people's minds. Fanning plays someone who can draw the future. There are other types of characters, too.

The premise is that Hounsou is a member of an agency called the Division, who is after Belle and others because of what they can do. Evan's character, Nick is the boyfriend of Belle's character, Kira, and him with the help of Dakota Fanning's character, Cassie try to save her.

The movie sounds simple and dumb, but actually is quite intricate. The directing wasn't the best, but this was a great script if you are into sci-fi. Yeah, its not realistic, either, but the way its explained, if you realize its a movie, you'll enjoy it.

This actually surprised me as I expected it to be lame and cheesy once they got explaining everything, and it turned out to be the exact opposite.

If you like suspense, action, intricate twists and plots, you'll enjoy this. More likely if you are between the ages of 20-30. Just my guess.

I rate this movie 7.0 out of 10.

Watchmen

I'll admit it, and most should... the opening credits were probably one of the best parts of the movie. I'll also add this - I never read the graphic novel, so any differences wouldn't have bothered me. The characters were original in this one. They were acted beautifully, too. The special effects were fantastic as well. The movie flowed, as well. It was long, about 3 hours. (seems I always mention length) However, I didn't mind the length. I became engrossed in it.

The movie is about if super heroes really existed in our world. Basically an alternate reality of how things would be. However, all but 1 of these super heroes have no super powers. The movie begins with one of the heroes being killed, years after they were all retired. The movie follows around Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach character, named after the psychiatric ink blot Rorscach test because his mask had an everchanging ink blot on it. The mystery and action ensue from there.

The movie is made to flow like a graphic novel would. It also doesn't take itself too seriously using song choices at awkward moments to lighten to mood. Some people find that takes away from the movie, I find that it lets people know how the movie should be viewed.

I'm not a Jeffrey Dean Morgan fan by any means, mostly because he does girl movies, yet he played his character perfectly. Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan was awesome as well. However, Rorschach still takes the cake. Haley did an amazing job at making his character intelligent, deranged, energetic, stubborn, and psychotic all at the same time.

If you like comic book / graphic novel movies, I'd recommend you watch this one.

I rate this movie 8.1 out of 10.

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen

Everything is back. CGI, Michael Bay, Megan Fox, Shia, John Turturro. It's all bigger...but is it better?

A few things - I didn't hate the movie and the CGI is too much. If you've seen the first one, you are getting the second version of that. You know what to expect. Don't hate the first and see this one expecting to love it. You won't. If you liked the first, you'll like this.

The script is written fairly well, minus one scene at the end (apparently when you die you see Transformers in "heaven" and what they tell you changes the course of the movies plot and design for no apparent reason). It's about 2 years later, and the transformers kick some ass with Josh Duhamel and Tyrese on a regular basis across the world. This is until our government realizes the bad robots want to come back, and blame it on the transformers. Long story short, they come back, and they need the transformers and Sam (Shia LaBeouf).

My problem is the CGI is too quick and annoying. Also, they do a terrible job of establishing the transformers characters letting you know who is who. Except in the case of the possibly racist car transformer twins.

All this aside. The movie flows very well. There is a ton of action. For the guys, there is Megan Fox (overrated). You can't really complain.

I rate this movie 7.0 out of 10.

Year One

When I first read of this movie I got excited. When the trailers came out, I was hoping. However, when I entered the theater I knew that I was expecting too much. Harold Ramis is good. He's had a great career. However, trying to write a comedy with Jack Black and Michael Cera about them being cavemen and going through the early years of Earth and having the storyline explain how things came to be was just way, way too much.

Jack Black should always be in a supporting role. He just can't lead it. As should Michael Cera (see: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist). Black just has too much physical comedy which was only funny before the year 2000. Putting David Cross and Paul Rudd in it sounded good, too. However, if you force them to go on a horrible script and have them act in ways they don't (physical comedy), its awful.

They also put in Olivia Wilde for eye candy. Her character is just boring in the movie.

I don't know, basically from 10 minutes in the movie, you know you want to stop watching it, but you just sit through it. Oh, and they put McLovin in it, and he isn't funny in the movie. Coupled with the fact that Hank Azaria is in it doing the voice of the old sea man with the scratchy voice from The Simpsons. Its just painful.

This movie is a mess held together by a terrible portrayal of events that took place... or maybe didn't, over the course of time.

Good idea, bad casting, bad script.

I rate this movie 4.0 out of 10.

The Hangover

Directed by the guy who brought us, Old School. Excellent.

This movie was great from start to finish, best comedy since Step Brothers, one of the top since the year 2000.

Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and kind of Justin Bartha star in a movie full of other names like Rob Riggle, Heather Graham, the overused Ken Jeong, and more. Basically the top 4 mentioned about are going to Vegas to have Bartha a bachelor party. The movie then shifts to the morning after, and Bartha is missing, and chaos ensues.

Zach Galifianakis (hate to spell it) is the scene stealer. You may not know him, but he's been around for a while, and is finally getting what he is due. Hopefully they don't over use him on other projects. Bradley Cooper (funny in Wedding Crashers) can play a comedic/serious role well. Ed Helms, no explanation needed.

Basically, the only drawback to the movie was watching it in a theatre. People were laughing so hard and often, i missed some dialogue. Yeah, it was that funny.

No plus/minus on this one. All plusses. Trust me, just watch it.

I rate this movie 9.5 out of 10.

Step Brothers

Another Will Ferrell Movie...

This time, its under the supervision of Adam McKay and co-stars John C. Reilly. When these 3 work together, there is great chemistry (see Talladega Nights). I guess I could start off by saying its mostly a guy movie. Girls will like it, too, but its geared towards guys.

Reilly and Ferrell are both 40ish year old men who still live with their parents. Their parents meet (Richard Jenkins (great actor) and Ted Danson's wife, Marry Steenburgen) and get married and the two are forced to share a room and live together. The craziness then ensues. Will Ferrell's brother in the movie is hilariously played by Adam Scott. He moved out at a normal age and hates his older brother for being a loser.

Basically, this movie is what it sounds. However, it delivers over and over and over. Hell, even after the credits roll it keeps going. I loved this movie from start to finish. There are a lot of subtle things, and a lot of obvious humor. Also, a lot of guest spots from other comedians.

The premise is crazy, but I guarantee you will laugh.

Plusses

• Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly together
• Adam Scott as Derek
• Adam McKay
• hilarious
• well timed
• well written

Minuses

• not another Ferrell/Reilly movie coming out soon enough

I rate this movie 9.0 out of 10.

Land Of The Lost

Having been too young to see Land of the Lost when it first arrived on TV, I can't comment on on the comparisons. That said, I love Will Ferrell (when he's under the supervision of Apatow or McKay) and I love Danny McBride (yeah he may play a lot of similar roles, but he's great at it).

The movie wasn't the best written movie ever. However, it was Ferrell at his best. He plays Dr. Rick Marshall, a scientist who's been laughed at about his theories on time travel, etc. Him, his assistant, played by Anna Friel, and a tour guide redneck, Danny McBride, end up back in time in a parallel universe. They meet a monkeyish tour guide, played by Jorma Taccone. They get into wacky adventures trying to find a way back home.

The comedy is over the top in most scenes, but the dialogue is pretty decent. Its funny at random points of the movie, and it got me to laugh a decent amount.

However, this movie wasn't written that well, and it let me down.

Plusses

• Danny McBride
• some jokes

Minuses

• lack of decent writing
• too much physical humor

I rate this movie 5.8 out of 10.

Bruno

Coming into this movie I expected to have a Borat feeling. Even though, Bruno was my least favorite of the three Sacha Baron Cohen characters. I was completely excited, and watched Borat again just before I went to go see Bruno. While watching Borat, I realized that I had seen it too much, and it was over played. The jokes didn't have the same effects they did when the movie first came out. I ignored this.

However, it lingered over. There was more shock in Bruno than in Borat, but the same played out theme of making people feel uncomfortable. Taking that thought out of my head, the movie held up on its own. I think a lot of people are just too grossed out to see "pornographic images" (not really) unless its a girl or its in a very artsy movie. Also, people tend to feel uncomfortable around homoerotic humor. Hey, its their taste.

I'm not going to go into the plot, but it basically was an 18 year old Austrian named Bruno coming to the United States to try to become famous, any way he can.

Plusses

• Sacha Baron Cohen is brilliant and funny
• well timed stunts/acts

Minuses

• Borat came out years earlier
• everything was overdone and repetitive, plus commerical didn't help spoiling it

I think this is the end for Cohen's characters. He's a risk taker and will make money especially on this DVD, but the movie has to be considered a flop.

I rate this movie 6.3 out of 10.

There Will Be Blood

At first I tried to avoid this movie when it came out because it seemed boring. Then when I finally first saw the movie, I was dozing in and out of sleep for the first 45 minutes. Basically I'm not going to lie... the begininng of this movie is a little slow. However, by the movie's end, you realize its importance. The movie never lacks detail and everything that takes place is for a reason.

The movie follows Daniel Plainview, an oil man out to dominate his field, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. This role is one of two roles in which he has won an Oscar for Best Actor. He completely deserved it. He immersed himself with this character, and it came out brilliantly. He's on my short list of top actors in the field today, maybe ever. As the story progresses, you realize more and more of what type of man Mr. Plainview is. His nemesis/opposition is a young teen who is the head of a local church where he plans drilling named, Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano. Oddly enough, too, he also plays his older brother, Paul Sunday, in a short role at the beginning of this movie. Quite odd casting if you ask me.

The movie is 3 hours long, which is a little off putting, especially since it isn't fast paced, but the story is gripping til the end. This movie was rightfully nominated for Best Movie, it wasn't the best, but it was one of the top that year, definitely.

Plusses

• Daniel Day-Lewis, outstanding acting
• great story
• blood, killing
• original

Minuses

• Paul Dano's whining/screaming
• 3 hour movie
• slow first 40 minutes

I rate this movie 8.7 out of 10.

Public Enemies

Bale. Depp. Mann. (Cottilard.)

That billing should make me want to see this movie more than 5 times.

It doesn't.

However, it makes me wonder why. Was this because it was based on a true story that wasn't creative enough to make a full length movie for? Should this have been a documentary? Has Michael Mann lost his ability to entertain?

I think the first question answers my question. Before I go on, I want to talk about something that no one has picked up on yet. Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp is a good actor, agreed. The disagreement is that he is not even in the discussion of top 10 actors. He plays a good character when its all spiced up for him, or when Tim Burton asks him to put on the same repetitive, wacky character role. But, as you can see in this movie, he is greatly outacted by Marion Cottilard and especially Christian Bale. Yet for some reason, Bale never gets the credit.

Going on, this movie briefly outlines the time the movie was going through. With multiple bank robbers and their demises from a vastly improving government agency targetted to stop domestic crime. After which, it focuses on Dillinger the whole time, with a less than 50% split on Melvin Purvis, the man who led his team to eventually capture John Dillinger. The movie is a bit different than the facts of what really happened, but it stays relatively true.

I think the movie had too much information it wanted to cover. Instead of a good story to be entertained by, Mann delivered a good story to be educated by. I never felt sucked into this movie, and it was a disappointment.

All that aside, the movie is very watchable, and there is some great acting, and it is quite educating. However, it doesn't deliver to its hype.

Sorry for the Depp bashing, but he is a little over-rated and I'm not really looking forward to his role as Willy Wonka The Mad Hatter in the new Alice in Wonderland.

I rate this movie 6.5 out of 10.

State Of Play

State of Play despite a few setbacks and cast changes, was still a movie full with talent and big actors. The movie stars Russel Crowe as a journalist for a major Washington D.C. paper who is entirely too committed to his work. It has destroyed his life outside of the job, however, he is one of the best at what he does. His boss is played by Hellen Miren, and he is befriended by new 'online' journalist Rachel McAdams, whom he doesn't like at first. The movie centers around a conspiracy focused on a military security company, and their alleged involvement of an assistant to a congressman, who is played by Ben Affleck, who is also Crowe's characters old roomate. Affleck's character is against giving this company the contracts that would enable them to provide us homeland security and make them rich. From there, we learn twists and turns and up until the final minute, have no clue why any of this has happened.

And the movie does a good job of it, except for one clue which I won't mention.

In addition there is a few spots from some notable actors, Viola Davis, Jason Bateman (as a sleezy character...again, he's getting typecasted it seems), and Jeff Daniels.

I can't find too many faults with the movie. It is very watchable, kind of remniscent of say... U.S. Marshals, you know in the sort of, good political/conspiracy driven thriller. Reminds me of a 90's movie in that. Which isn't bad because these movies are very good, and there aren't much of them anymore. I guess, I'll say thanks to director Kevin Macdonald.

I rate this movie 7.4 out of 10.

The Informers

The Informers is a limited release starring Jon Foster, with supporting roles from Mickey Rourke, Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Basinger, and Winona Ryder. To describe the movie, picture the movie Crash in terms of an interweaving group of characters, and then set it in the early 1980's. Then erase any and all plot...

It seems like they failed to include one. The movie was full of characters that were either scumbags, weirdos, or creeps. It never seemed to go anywhere. That doesn't mean there wasn't good acting, however the movie together was just, eh. They did do a good job, however, of keeping it set in the 80's with people not really aware of what AIDS was.

As I watched through this, I just waited for it to end. It had the makings of a decent movie, but it never went anywhere. That is probably why this movie never expanded to a full release.

I rate this movie 4.9 out of 10.

Adventureland

When I first started seeing ad spots for this movie, I decided in my head that this would be a mildly funny, mildly entertaining movie that would keep me amused for an hour and a half.

I was pretty wrong about that.

The movie is entirely too long, over two hours, and feels like its four hours long. Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, and Martin Starr are the stars of this movie with guest spots from the T-Mobile kid, Bill Hader, Kristin Wiig, and Ryan Reynolds. While I'm not saying this movie didn't have its moments, it did, but they didn't lead anywhere.

The movie stars Jesse Eisenberg (of The Hunting Party and soon to be Zombieland) as James. A timid college student looking for a summer job. He lands one at an amusement park and falls for Kristen Stewart's character, who has a mixed up life. Problems ensue, jokes, plot, the whole works. Its very predictable. Eisenberg is a pretty good actor, think Michael Cera with more range and acting skills.

The movie has an 80's feels to it, and it can possibly bring some people back to its times. I think the movie could have used a bit more definitive scenes and maybe even gotten rid of some parts.

However, it was watchable, and if you have time to kill and its on TV, its worth a watch. Maybe even rent it from NetFlix. Just don't buy it before you see it.

I rate this movie 6.0 out of 10.

Funny People

To start off, Funny People wasn't exactly what I expected. I knew there would be old Adam Sandler clips from when he and Apatow lived together and it would be integrated into his character, including some his old stand up. However, I didn't realize the movie would be about 30% stand up comedy. However, to my surprise, it was awesome. The standu up from Sandler, Jonah Hill, Aziz Ansari, Aubrey Plaza, and even surprisngly Seth Rogen was top notch. The movie really delivered there.

Going with the plot, Jason Schwartzman, Jonah Hill, and Eric Bana really deliver. All 3 of them were great and funny, and had good timing with it.

Basically the movie revolves around struggling comedians trying to make it big and Seth Rogen's character gets lucky even to work with Adam Sandler's character who is a famous comedy actor who's sick. While they both learn from each other, Adam Sandler's character has trouble letting go of his ego, and the drama ensues from there. The chemistry between the two never seems natural, and for once, Rogen actually out acts Sandler as they act side by side.

Overall, the movie had some great standup, some great acting spots, and Jonah Hill was hilarious. But if you are looking for a really good plot, or something as flowingly funny as Apatow's other movies, you probably won't find it. But its a good time, none the less.

I rate this movie 7.2 of 10.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Is it just me, or is Channing Tatum like some robot actor created for action movies? Not saying this is a good thing either. It just seems that he's used because he fits the description of tall, handsome, and fit. I'm not completely knocking him because he doesn't completely lack talent, he is just an average actor, nothing more, nothing less. That aside, this movie is what it is - action. It cut right to the chase.

I think it was made to seem like the cartoon/toys came to life. Which feeling that way, it wasn't that bad when Dennis Quaid had a ridiculous voice the entire movie, or that the fight scenes were unrealistic and action packed. The movie was marketed as a thrill ride and that's what it was.

In addition they tossed in a little action. Some sexy names like Sienna Miller, and some comedy from Marlon Wayans, and some decent writing.

The real trouble with the movie was the lacking of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. For such a good, versatile actor, they really didn't allow him to do much, except for set up the next movie in which he will. Trouble is, this gigantic budget has set to produce results and there may not be a 2nd movie.

However, if there is, I'd expect it to be a lot better. This movie had the right intentions, and just didn't deliver. Seriously, half these movies have too much CGI and its just silly at times.

I rate this movie 6 of 10.

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard

I came into this movie thinking Will Ferrell and Adam McKay produced this, it should be a classic in the mold of Step-Brothers, Taladega Nights, or East Bound & Down. However, what I got was half of Ari Gold, and a lot of short laughs attached to a terrible plot.

I'll give them credit for the casting, Piven needed a role where he starred in that was a comedy. Ving Rhames, David Koechner, and Kathryn Hahn were great as his sidekicks. Rob Riggle's character was classic, too. However, Jordana Spiro, James Brolin, and Ken Jeong failed to deliver in their respective and appropriately sized roles. The movie just seemed like it had a bunch of lame parts to it.

In comparing this to Step-Brothers, where you laughed constantly throughout the whole movie, The Goods was a few hard, but very short laughs. Most of it seemed used, and over used, mistimed, and Craig Robinson really needs to get a new character, he plays the same one in every movie, and its getting old.

The movies best point came towards the end in the form of Will Ferrell's first small appearance. It was one of the funniest scenes in any movie this year, and definitely the funniest of this one.

I'm really upset about this movie because I looked forward to it so much. It was just boring. I mean I won't deny I laughed, but not enough.

I rate this movie 5.3 of 10.

District 9

Let me start off by saying, WOW. After watching the trailers for the last two months, I figured this would be like another Cloverfield type movie. Where basically its all trailer hype, and the movie doesn't deliver. Needless to say, I was blown away.

The movie starts out in documentary form, laying down the foundation from the aliens first arrival some 30 years ago until present day today. It gives you the people's opinions, feelings, and the whole thing seems very genuine. From there we arrive at the current day. The lead, Wikus Van De Merwe, played by Sharlto Copley, at first seems a little miscast. But shortly after the movie begins and from there on out, you realize more and more that his acting is phenominal for the role.

Short premise for the movie would be that aliens came here 30 years ago in South Africa, and have been relocated after a short time to a "refugee camp" call District 9. The aliens are treated as second class citizens and District 9 has become a slum in the middle of South Africa, and the citizens do not want it there any more. The lead, Wikus, is sent to evict the alien residents and inform them of their relocation to a smaller, more structured, and more militarized camp. At the same time, MNU, a military company who has been contracted to run the "refugee camps" is looking to figure out how to use the aliens' technology. After a short time, Wikus becomes exposed to an alien chemical and the consequences set the tone for the entire movie.

From start to finish this movie is impressive. Its storyline is phenominally written and this movie is something totally different from what we've seen in a long time. Everything seems realistic. The special effects aren't over done, either. Also, we get to look at some fresh, new faces and not the same Hollywood A and B listers.

This is more than just "an alien movie," this is a masterpiece.

I rate this movie 9.6 of 10.

Inglourious Basterds

If you like Quentin Tarantion movies, you'll enjoy this one. It's got his style all over it, which is all good except for one thing. When you feature a lot of dialogue, especially small talk, you should stick to it being in the language of the audience. Having to read subtitles while people spoke German and French for over 2 hours is a bit much. His choice of casting 'the basterds' was a bit intriguing with Eli Roth, BJ Novak, and Samm Levine. The first, isn't the greatest actor to begin with, and the other 2 aren't known for being serious or soldierlike at all. However, his decision to cast Brad Pitt as the lead in the movie and leader of the basterds was brilliant. He was spot on with everything form beginning to end and was the best part of the movie.

Tarantino does a good job of the world the movie takes place in from Germany to the farms of France to the city of Paris. He coves a lot of detail and develops the plot well. However, like he does in most of his movies, he doesn't transition from scene to scene, rather going with chapters. Which isn't a bad technique, but again, with a 2+ hour movie, it just seemed a little too jumpy.

As far as the killing scenes you see in the commercial, again Tarantino delivers, with my only gripe being that there wasn't enough of it.

However, if you like a movie with a lot of killing, graphic violence, and a pretty dark humorous plot this movie is for you. If you hate reading subtitles or sitting over 2 hours in a theatre, flip a coin, either way you'll be ok.

I rate this movie 7.8 of 10.

A Different Take?

Welcome to my movie review blog. Here I intend review movies as I see them as well as movies from the past I've seen. I intend to go into my likes and dislikes. There is going to be no specific format, just my real thoughts. I could end up going on a tangent for paragraphs at a time that deviate from the the movie itself. However, at the end I tend to give it my best 'x out of 10' rating. Enjoy... or don't.