The Fighter

"The Fighter" was directed by David O. Russell.  It stars Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, and Amy Adams.

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a boxer.  His half brother, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) used to be one of the best boxers in Lowell, Massachusetts, but that got ruined when he became a crack addict and served some prison time.  When Dicky is not in prison and semi-sober he helps Micky become phenomenal.  Amy Adams plays Charlene, a barmaid and the object of Micky's affections.


The three leads are phenomenally talented and work beautifully with each other.  Mark Wahlberg plays a darn good boxer and has great scenes with Christian Bale and Amy Adams.  Christian Bale, as a crack addict steals every scene he is in, and may actually win an Oscar for the role.  Quite a long ways away from Batman.  He lost tons of weight and completely became his character.  And finally, Amy Adams, three years ago played a Disney princess in "Enchanted" and after "The Fighter" it is guaranteed she will never ever in the history of her life be typecast.  She's tough, curses, and is very strong willed and has quite an attitude on her.  It is quite a joy to watch.

"The Fighter" looks beautiful.  There are great on location shots in Lowell, Massachusetts as well as impressive camera work and editing in the boxing scenes in the film.  Also, the framing of the actors also is well done, with a lot of panning back and forth during conversations between Dicky and Micky, and other characters.  Character interactions were extremely important in this film, so this kind of camera work benefitted the film.

The actresses who played Dicky and Micky's seven sisters were extremely annoying.  I'm just calling it like it is.  It's like white trash and incessant chattering, and I was not a fan.  Also, for some reason I didn't like the music most of the time.  Sometimes it worked alright and other times it was really awkward sounding.  However, I did love how sometimes music would be coming from a car radio or something and it sounding like it was just background music.

If you are expecting tons of boxing scenes, be warned, there are only about four or five.  The main focus of the film is the interactions between the three main characters, mainly the two brothers and their family.  "The Fighter" is much more that a sports movie, just a heads up.  This may turn people off, such as the unbelievably annoying people next to me who got bored and chatty and walked out after a half hour.  Maybe they should just wait a month and see "Drive Angry 3D"...I'm sure Nicolas Cage would love that.

Another random thing I feel like mentioning: "The Fighter" definitely wasn't a long movie, but at times, especially in the middle it became hard for me to follow. Other times it felt like scenes could have been slightly trimmed.  That could just be my ADD kicking in...you never know.

I love Oscar season.  It is the most wonderful time of the year.  So many great films to be seen.  Yes, that  includes "The Fighter."  It's a great true story, brought to screen in a well made film, with great acting by the leads.  Once again I sense a lot of Oscar nominations and possibly a couple wins.  If you enjoy any of the actors, sports movies, or quality movies in general, then by all means go to your nearest theater and pay rip-off prices for a night full of wonder and cinema. 3 out of 4 stars...somewhere around there....these star things are hard to figure sometimes.


-Joseph Sbrilli

The King's Speech

"The King's Speech" was directed by Tom Hooper.  It stars Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham-Carter.

Prince Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth) becomes King George VI after his father, King George V dies and his brother, King Edward VIII gives up the throne in order to marry a twice divorced woman.  Prince Albert at first isn't a huge fan of this because he has a huge stammer.  This makes it quite difficult to give speeches over the radio, or elsewhere, like a good king of England should in the 1930s.  Luckily for him his wife, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) loves him to death and finds Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), the greatest speech therapist the world has ever known.  Initially Albert thinks it is useless to have speech therapy, by Lionel Logue convinces him otherwise and they embark on a journey full of speech and friendship.

The acting in this movie is incredible...mainly the principle three actors, who are simply a joy to watch and bursting with talent.  I sense acting nominations all around for this film.  Colin Firth just becomes Prince Albert/King George VI.  It's amazing.  He has the stutter down perfectly and it seems to come naturally to him.  He is convincing as the King of England at the time, someone who at first is scared of the responsible of leading a nation while not being able to articulate himself fluidly and without stutters and hesitations.  This fear combines with a general lack of self image which occasionally turns into anger.  When all is said and done we have ourselves a man, confident in leading a country, and giving a darn good radio speech.  Each part of the transformation is done exceptionally well by Colin Firth, who makes it hard to envision anyone else in the role.  It was really nice to see Colin Firth in something other than "Mamma Mia!", since Pierce Brosnan sang in it and ruined everything beautiful about the world.  Colin Firth has believable chemistry with Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham-Carter.  Both of these are also great actors.  I had only seen Geoffrey Rush in the first couple "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies and I didn't really think much of him, because those movies got ridiculous.  However, after "The King's Speech," I love him quite a lot.  He worked perfectly with Colin Firth.  Each actor complimented the other perfectly and they were able to play off each other well, making for memorable scenes and several funny lines.  Rush as Lionel Logue would not give up on King George VI, and as a result the two real life men formed a life long friendship.  Finally, I was pleased to see Helena Bonham-Carter play a normal role.  I am so used to seeing her in Tim Burton movies, or in roles that are similar in their creepiness.  She has a lot of range as an actress and plays royalty quite well.  Elizabeth's love and dedication to George was admirable and came off as perfectly realistic.

The cinematography in "The King's Speech," almost overshadows the brilliant acting.  It comes pretty close.  The art direction, lighting, camera work, and editing all combine to form a truly beautiful film.  The cinematography is some of the best that I have seen this year in theaters, or in general.  I won't even be able to do it justice in this paragraph because I didn't take notes on specific parts of the film, so I'll do the best that I can.  Firstly, the sets were created incredibly well.  In a period piece, such as this, set design is one of the major factors that give a realistic look to the film.  Each building, room, piece of furniture, clothing, etc., comes off as something that would have actually been in England in the 1930s.  Of course I am no expert on English decor of the 1930s, but I was visually very impressed in this regard and feel like the Academy, as big a scam as it seems like sometimes, will be too.  The lighting and color of the sets and costumes also greatly add to the film.  The majority of the film has generally flat lighting, with the occasional character in harsh shadow.  The colors are dull, with browns, greens, etc. being prevalent.  The last seen of the film, after the successful speech, the lighting got much brighter, kind of as a sign of success.  This counteracting nicely with the duller, flatter colors being present mostly in the beginning of the film.  Also, throughout the film they are several instances where a person, or part of a scene would be out of focus, adding to the visual appeal.  Camera-wise there are some beautiful shots that I wish I could remember specifically.  They are gorgeous aerial shots in buildings, shots that make certain characters appear to be the dominant figures in a scene, and just well composed shots, and unique perspectives.  The film is worth it solely for the beautiful visuals. 

The score is not prevalent many times during the film, but it is useful and adds to the dramatic or triumphant tone, depending on the scene.  Sound in general is used well, in general often serving as a transitional device between scenes.

This film is rated R, solely for language, otherwise it would have been G or something.  There is one major part where Colin Firth swears continuously for a little bit, managing to fit in a large amount of cursing.  As it turns out when George is angry and cursing, he does not stutter.  This scene is not only quite funny, and I am assuming quite memorable for people, but also shows the audience a little bit more about the dynamic character.  I wouldn't advice taking small children to see this movie, and if you must then close their ears before it is too late.

So I assume that most people knew how this movie was going to end, that's understandable, but that won't hinder any enjoyment of the film.  The dialogue and everything is just so wonderful and the story, at least I thought so anyway, was interesting.  Also, for those of you who think the plot of "The King's Speech" is boring, then don't judge a book my its cover.  True, the subject matter is slow at times, that's just the nature of the plot and real life occurrence.  However, the film is never boring and the script and acting combine to form something entertaining, maybe not to everyone, but for people who appreciate well made film.  

4 out of 4 stars...It's definitely getting a Best Picture nomination, among many others.  "The King's Speech" is well acted and well made in every regard.  It is a beautiful looking film and quite entertaining.

-Joseph Sbrilli

True Grit (2010)

"True Grit," the most recent adaptation of the novel, of the same name, is written, directed, and produced by two wonderful filmmakers, Joel and Ethan Coen (aka the Coen Brothers).  The film stars Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Hailee Steinfeld, in her first film role.

First, and foremost, I have not read the novel, but the Coen's version is superior to the 1969 version, starring John Wayne, for reasons I will go into later.

Mattie Ross' (Hailee Steinfeld) father is murdered by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin).  Naturally, he ran off so they don't hang him.  However, Mattie would much prefer Chaney get hanged for murdering her father, so she enlists the help of Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and La Beouf (Matt Damon) to find the murdering scoundrel and have him executed.  

The acting in this new adaption of "True Grit" is immensely better than the 1969 version.  John Wayne was not much of an actor, essentially playing some variation of the same role, so it's a little weird that he won an Oscar for playing the original Rooster Cogburn.  Jeff Bridges on the other hand, is phenomenal, then again I don't expect anything less from him.  Once he put on that eyepatch he became Rooster Cogburn, a gruff, hard drinking, extraordinarily successful United States Marshall.  "True Grit" also proves that Bridges plays a convincing drunk.  I'm just glad the Coen Brothers brought Jeff Bridges back after working with him 12 years ago, on "The Big Lebowski." Jeff Bridges has great chemistry with the entire cast, which I will go into later.  Hailee Steinfeld is immensely better than Kim Darby in the original, despite the fact she is only 14 years old.  Whereas Darby came off as annoying and just not that great of an actress, Steinfeld plays the part of Mattie, perfectly.  She is stubborn, determined, independent, and more than holds her own against such talents as Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both of whom I absolutely love.  This brings us to Matt Damon, who is hilarious in this movie and provides much of the comic relief.  He is extremely talented, no matter the genre.  I just really enjoyed his buffoon of a character.  Also, he has some funny scenes with Jeff Bridges.  Matt Damon was also better than Glen Campbell.  I'm pretty sure Glen Campbell was a country singer who should have never ventured into acting.  Lastly, Josh Brolin's role was not that substantial, especially compared to the other three. He gets little screen time and I was just confused about how he could be murderer, he didn't come off as someone who could pull a murder off properly.

The cinematography is what I have come to expect from the Coen Brothers.  It is truly beautiful and I loved it.  They have a great cinematographer and hopefully they never change.  Attractive outdoor shots are everywhere in this movie.  Naturally you also have some wide shots of people engaging in gunfire, among other fun western activities.  The coloring is very dull, with a lot of browns, green, beige, etc.  This, along with the set design, or real locations, I'm not positive, helped give it the look of a western taking place in the 1800s.  The original was so bright it just screamed technicolor, or something and it was truly blinding.  Dull, dark colors were way more effective and I am proud of the Coen's for realizing that.

The score was not overpowering, but it was there, and added to the action and drama.  Quite frequently I didn't even notice it was there, which means I am either deaf and oblivious or the wonderful Coen brothers didn't think it was necessary to have a lot of score.  This was way better than the score in the original, that was prominent, but didn't really add to to movie.  It even felt out of place or just cliched. 

The new film started with narration from a grown Maddie and ended with a flash forward, again with a grown Maddie.  I think I liked this better than Glen Campbell singing in the beginning of the original and John Wayne galloping away into a freeze frame at the end.  

Several scenes, including Maddie falling into a snake pit, coming across Chaney near the river, and courtroom scene near the beginning came directly from the first film, and I am assuming the book as well.  There was also a decent amount of the same dialogue in both films.  But, of course the Coen Brother's version is better in every way, not just acting, although that is a major area.  

Thankfully the new film was 1 hour and 50 minutes...the perfect time for a movie.  Even that started to feel a bit long, maybe just because the nature of the plot is a little on the slow side.  The original was over 2 hours long, which I didn't appreciate, because it didn't make the movie any better and it got obnoxious.  They could have cut out tons.  Luckily the Coen's were smart and cut the running time.

The Coen Brothers amaze me.  They are so incredibly hard working and have made a quality film a year for the past four years.  I love how they make their films as a team and how they have complete control over every aspect of it.  There films are known for being dark, often funny, and including a great cast, script, and cinematography.  "True Grit" wasn't as dark as their other ones, which hopefully means more people will be willing see it.  Great acting, story, and cinematography, make "True Grit" another successful Coen Brother's film. 3 out of 4 stars...mainly because I saw "Black Swan" before this and there have been a couple Coen Brother's films that I have liked more.   

-Joseph Sbrilli 

Black Swan

"Black Swan" was directed by Darren Aronofsky ("The Wrestler").  The cast includes Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, and Winona Ryder.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), is a talented ballerina who wants to play the role of the Swan Queen, in Swan Lake.  In order to play the part perfectly, she needs to convincing become both the White and the Black Swans.  She has the ability to do the White Swan, but the Black Swan will take a great deal more effort.  Nina gets the position, and starts going through massive, often psychological changes and fantasies, as she becomes fully immersed in becoming the Black Swan.  The friendship, turned rivalry between Nina and a new ballerina, Lily (Mila Kunis) adds to the insanity and stress in Nina's life.  Vincent Cassel, is the ballet director, Barbara Hershey is Nina's mother, and Winona Ryder is Beth MacIntyre, the ballerina who retires and is replaced with Nina.  This film is much more complex, than this synopsis is.  It is a hard to explain, without giving away tons of information, so I will leave it at that.

The cast is phenomenal...each and every one of them, but I am only going to comment on a few of the actors...the rest you will just have to take my word for.  First and foremost, Natalie Portman is pretty much guaranteed a Best Actress Academy Award.  She is absolutely incredible in this film.  Nina starts off an an innocent, mild mannered ballerina, and by the end of the film is anything but.  Portman convincingly changes gradually, as "Black Swan" progresses.  She is incredibly tormented internally and allows herself to gets so involved in the ballet, that her dark shade emerges.  This is beautifully done by Natalie Portman, over the course of the film and is something you have to see to fully believe.  Mila Kunis, known for her roles on "That 70s Show" and "Family Guy" is becoming a film actress, and quite a good one at that.  I'm enjoying seeing her in a wide variety of films.  She is the perfect counterpart to Nina.  Finally, Barbara Hershey was well cast as Nina's mother.  She loves Nina and yet has enormous expectations of her and has huge control over her life, probably due to the fact that Nina's mother used to be a ballerina, until Nina was born.  Barbara Hershey and Natalie Portman have some great scenes together that show the levels of the relationship, some more positive then others.

The cinematography is impressive and one of the many highlights of "Black Swan."  The lighting is phenomenal and puts emphasis on the ballet scenes as well as the overall dark tone that the film has.  The camera work is also done successfully.  Many times the camera follows characters from behind.  Also, there are a lot of great close-ups to show the vivid emotions on the actors faces.  One scene, with particular memorable filming was near the beginning where Nina is dancing, and as she spins around, the camera does as well, making for a whipping motion.

The score is incredible and could not have complimented the film any better.  Much of it is from the actual ballet, which for obvious reasons fits several scenes incredibly nicely.  It sounds like its being played by an orchestra, which just adds power to the scenes.  At other times the music adds suspense and intensity to the film, since it is in fact a psychological thriller, despite it being about a ballet.  Then occasionally both music types mix together for a beautiful experience for you ears, to go with the excellent cinematography.

This movie proves that 1 hour and 50 minutes is the perfect running time for a movie.  The filmmakers and everyone involved with making this work of art, packed in so much great talent, storytelling, suspense, visuals, sound, etc, that it is truly astounding.  The pacing was perfect and boredom will never, ever set in...and if it does then there is something seriously wrong.

I feel like I am obligated to mention a lesbian sex scene that occurs between Nina and Lily.  I was not a fan and looked away for the entire scene and would advise the entire human race to do the same.  I know it's there...I don't have to see it...however I still had to hear it...I was not a fan of that either.  There are a couple more scenes that remind you that it is indeed an R rated movie, so be careful who you watch it with.

Well, it has come to my attention that this is a pretty mediocre review and I apologize.  In my defense It is getting late and my memory is horrible, so I was struggling to remember specific things to comment on.  However, this film is way better than the above review may lead you to believe.  It is absolutely incredible.  It is so much more than a story about a girl who is in a famous ballet.  The characters are dynamic and the suspense, genuine.  Natalie Portman is amazing and will soon have an Oscar on her mantle.  It's impossible to imagine someone putting the same kind of power and emotion into that performance.  It's a perfect movie and I cannot wait to rent it or own it, since I can only assume how much I missed.  Films like this just get better with repeat viewings.  4 out of 4 stars...maybe more...filmmaking at its best.  

-Joseph Sbrilli

Tron: Legacy

Hollywood seems to have an obsession with remaking everything from the 80's. Old TV shows, cartoons and the occasional movie sequel over twenty years later. I feel that this is the product of a new batch of Hollywood executives who grew up in the 80's who all of a sudden had a nostalgia spree after watching an episode of VH1's I Love The 80's. I can only hope that we won't have to suffer through a live action version of "Thundercats."

Anyways, "Tron: Legacy" is the sequel to the original "Tron" that came out in 1982. A movie whose graphics would make "Tron: Legacy's" target demographic pee their pants at the absolute terribleness of it. In the original Tron, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) was sucked into the world of the computer, where programs exist in human form and carry out their functions in a sped up time frame. Kevin Flynn comes out of the computer world, founds the company ENCOM, and bases all of its financial success on an arcade game he developed from the computer world's gladiator like games. In "Legacy" Kevin Flynn gets trapped inside the computer by a program he created  called CLU (Also Jeff Bridges) which stands for Computer...Linear...Uranium or something. I never really found out. His son, Sam Flynn (Garret Hedlund) after assuming his dad has been dead for like fifteen years accidentally gets sucked into the computer world and has to find a way for both of them to get out.

When watching movies I tend to base the quality of the film on a simple question: What in the world is going on? If I can't answer the question it probably wasn't a very good movie. I have no idea what was going on in this film. Why do computer programs take the form of humans and play ultimate death frisbee? What are isometric algorithms? Does Sam realize that he fell in love with a computer program? Well, we can't blame him on that one, Olivia Wilde is very, very pretty.

"Tron" is a beautiful movie. I didn't see it in 3D but I was still very impressed. The colors were vibrant and it gave the film a very good feel to it. The light bike races and the high speed air chase were beautifully rendered. "Tron" also succeeds on an audio level. Every sound was a new, wonderful experience and the soundtrack by Daft Punk was incredible, I highly recommend it. Any movie that has a Daft Punk cameo should be way better than this.

Newcomer Garrett Hedlund is actually one of the bright points in this film. His acting was very good and his little quips within the film provided much needed comic relief. Sam is thrust into an ultimate death frisbee game with a program that decides to pull out TWO ultimate death frisbees and Sam remarks, "That can't be legal." Sadly, to my disappointment one of the worst parts of the film is Jeff "You're messing with my Zen man!" Bridges. He is funneling too much of his Big Lebowski character and "The Men Who Stare At Goats" character. Stop trying to be a hippy Mr. Bridges. Be the badass lawman from "True Grit." Coincidentally one of the best portions of the film is the other Jeff Bridges. In the creepiest yet most interesting way imaginable they made Jeff Bridges younger. I couldn't turn away from the younger Jeff Bridges. The face and mannerisms were perfectly filmed and rendered. In some cases it got weird and fake but overall it was a very good attempt and I know it will be used in the future.

Very good visuals and an incredible soundtrack can't save a plot or script that gives the audience brain freeze. Tack that on to a movie that is a half hour too long and you've got yourself a sad, beautiful dud.


2 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Roman Holiday: A Quick Review

"Roman Holiday," is a romantic comedy, released in 1953, and written and directed by William Wyler.  It starred Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, and Eddie Albert.  It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning three, including a Best Actress Award for Audrey Hepburn, in her first lead role in a film.  Not a bad way to start off a career in Hollywood.

 Hepburn plays Princess Ann.  No one is quite sure what country she is the princess of exactly, but luckily that doesn't affect the plot at all.  She is traveling around Europe and while in Rome, she decides all of her royal responsibilities are too stressful so she opts to wander around Rome by herself.  Luckily, Joe Bradley (Peck), a reporter, finds her on a bench that night.  Naturally, they take a liking to one another, because I am reviewing a romantic comedy here.  So off they go on a day full of fun and Italian cafes, motorcycle rides, and relationships blossoming faster than the speed of light.  Eddie Albert plays Irving, a photographer friend of Joe.

Normally romantic comedies make me literally want to vomit everywhere...absolutely everywhere.  They are one of the worst genres ever: cheesy, sappy, hormonal, unoriginal, annoying, repulsive, predictable, unfunny, etc.  And almost all of them in recent memory have included Sarah Jessica Parker, Drew Barrymore, or Jennifer Aniston.  Yes, we know you guys have miniscule range as actresses, thanks a lot...  Then every so often you get a incredibly quality romantic comedy in the vein of "When Harry Met Sally..." and "Moonstruck."  As far as older, classic romantic comedies go "Roman Holiday" is quite a good one...and makes me want to see some more.

True, the plot line is not original, that's just the nature of the genre, or of movies in general for that manner...since every movie follows one of about only 10 plot lines.  However, the two leads are great.  Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck are Hollywood legends and in "Roman Holiday" they had believable, natural chemisry with one another that was enjoyable to watch.  It helped that they were given dialogue, that while not always being laugh out loud funny, was well written and  succeeded in moving the plot along.  It just made interactions between the characters fun to watch.

Besides the attractive leads, Rome would be another huge draw of this movie.  This film was the first American film to be completely shot in Rome.  This probably goes without saying, that Rome is a beautiful place.  However, "Roman Holiday," once again proves this.  There are beautifully shots all around Rome, many of them outside, that just add to the cinematography in the film.  Also, it's completely filmed in black and white, adding to the classic, romantic feel of the movie.

If you like old, classic movies, romantic comedies, or any of the actors, then by all means check out "Roman Holiday."  It's an enjoyable, well made/acted movie, with one of my favorite actresses, and it doesn't end as most romantic comedies normally do.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars

-Joseph Sbrilli

Wrongfully Accused: A Quick Review

"Wrongfully Accused" is yet another, in the massively long list of spoofs starring Leslie Nielsen, who sadly passed away a couple weeks ago.  This time around "The Fugitive" gets parodied, with Nielsen playing Ryan Harrison, a famous violinist who is framed for a murder committed by a one-armed, one-eyed, and one legged man...yep...this movie is that ridiculous.  But naturally, he is "wrongfully accused," or else the title of the movie would be a lie. "Wrongfully Accused" has an endless stream of one liners and sight gags, basically what the movie viewing public had come to expect from Leslie Nielsen, after his hilarious role in "Airplane!" Most of the sight gags and spoofs are hilarious.  One that stands out, spoofs the train scene in "The Fugitive," where obviously the train starts following Leslie Nielsen through the woods.  Another great scene was the ever popular parody of the crop dusting scene from "North by Northwest."  This probably goes without saying, but this movie is absolutely brainless and ridiculous.  If you have seen "The Fugitive" or love Leslie Nielsen, you will find some enjoyment in this movie.  However, "The Naked Gun" will always be my favorite Lesie Nielsen movie, as it is absolutely hilarious from start to finish, had a phenomenal cast and almost every single joke was successful on some level.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Burlesque

"Burlesque" was written and directed by Steven Antin.  Before I heard of this movie, I has no idea who that was, so I'm assuming most people who read this have no idea as well...but I thought I would mention him anyway.  The cast is led by the wonderful, talented entertainment icon, (this is a fact, and not simply my opinion) Cher.  The rest of the cast includes Christina Aguilera (in her movie debut), Stanley Tucci, Kristen Bell, Julianne Hough, Cam Gigandet, among others.

The plot has been done in some way approximately 80,000 times since the invention of the moving picture.  However, I will tell you the plot anyway. Ali Rose (Christina Aguilera) works at a diner in some mid-western town.  She decides this is unbelievably boring and ridiculous and that she is way to talented and beautiful to put up with that crap.  She takes an insanely long bus ride to Los Angeles and finds herself in the Burlesque Lounge, a burlesque theater, owned by Tess (Cher), that is in danger of closely down.  Luckily Ali Rose is there and talent just flows from her pores and people love her voice and dancing skills.  This is quite a cliched movie so of course you got to throw in a love interest (Cam Gigandet), among other unimaginative things.  Stanley Tucci plays the gay stage manager and Tess' best friend, Sean.  The other three girls are also dancers.  One's a drunk, one's pregnant, it's a fun little dysfunctional surrogate family.

Let's start with the negative aspects of this film.  Yes, you may be thinking this is going to be the worst movie of all time...but that distinction goes to "Year One," so you're automatically wrong about "Burlesque". If you hate musicals, anyone in the cast, or fun things in general, then by all means stop reading this and do something else.  The script and dialogue is absolutely horrendous.  I mean just because you are a flamboyant gay man does not mean you automatically can write a good musical...that is a stereotype.  I could make a list of the horrible lines in the movie, but it would really take too much time.  Sometimes you cringe hearing the lines and other times you just make a confused face because you wonder if you heard wrong.  No, you are not mistaken the script for "Burlesque is campy at best and horrifying at worst. And like I said before, this plot is overdone, and originality is not a popular or welcome idea here.  I needed to get that rant out of the way, so that there are no misunderstandings or misinterpretations.  Below is a brief example of some dialogue, if you don't believe me, and this is just from the trailer. 

Sean:So, is Ali short for anything? 
Ali Rose: Oh, yeah, it's short for Alice. 
Sean: Alice, hm? Well, welcome to Wonderland.

This probably goes without saying, but there's a lot of skin in this movie.  Take a look at the poster/title one more time.  However, it is not graphic and is well within the confines of the wonderful PG-13 rating.  I however would not let a 13 year old watch this...that just seems like a poor decision.

I actually really enjoyed "Burlesque."  Naturally, I had to overlook the terrible dialogue.  Occasionally there was a funny line, but unfortunately it was all to infrequent.  Every single ounce of energy and thought went into designing the elaborate sets, costumes, and most importantly the impressive, elaborate dance numbers.  The dance numbers are phenomenal and the only reason this movie exists.  The weak plot merely ties all of the dances together.  I bet the choreographer had a friggin field day with this.  Also, there is so much glitter and other sparkling things on costumes and everywhere that it would literally give Bob Mackie, Cher's flamboyantly gay costume designer, a heart attack.

The cinematography is also quite good.  The lighting, set designs, and camera work are all well done.  All of these things add to the energetic mood of the movie.  There's lots of quick editing and everything.  It looks just like what you would expect from a live show.  Or so I assume because I haven't actually experienced a burlesque show, because I have a moral conscience.  

The cast is also good.  It's Cher's first lead role in 11 years and she is great.  Unfortunately she only gets two songs, "Welcome to Burlesque" and "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me."  I would have preferred she have a couple more since she is Cher and all.  However those are among the best songs in the movie (the movie has a very strong soundtrack overall).  And "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" is wonderful and written by the nice lady who wrote, "If I Could Turn Back Time."  Cher's power ballad in "Burlesque" is full of emotion (as it turns out Cher is a very talented crier), like a good power ballad should be.  She has great chemestry with the cast, mainly Stanley Tucci.  They play off each other well throughout the movie.  Everyone tries so hard to be a good actor in here, they have so little to work with, though.  Although I enjoyed Cher's performance in "Burlesque," it is absolutely nothing compared to her Oscar winning role in "Moonstruck" from 1987.  That movie is phenomenal and I highly recommend it.  I just needed to get some of my love for Cher out of my system.  Christina Aguilera actually was not a bad actress at all.  Of course her role required little actually acting, since she sings for a living and I assume has danced in music videos.  She came across as pretty natural though and I did not cringe or get mad at her once.  She dominates the soundtrack with some covers and some new songs for "Burlesque."  I had never heard her sing before the movie and I was quite impressed.  She's incredibly talented and has a powerful voice.  I really don't feel like talking about the rest of the cast.  They were good though, but it was really Christina Aguilera's show, so the other girls kind of get lost in the background eventually.  One more comment...Christina Aguilera singing part of "Diamond's Are a Girl's Best Friend"...incredible.

"Burlesque" is kind of similar to "Chicago" in some ways, except it is so incredibly inferior and weak when you compare the two that it is insane.  "Chicago" is a beautiful film and well-made in every single regard.  I also highly recommend that one as well.

So, hopefully no one has judged me for seeing "Burlesque."  I happen to love Cher (with every fiber of my being) and musicals, so it seemed like the natural choice to go see it.  The movie is not of high quality, obviously.  But it was not painful at all to watch.  The musical numbers were phenomenal thanks to Cher (an incredible entertainer for the past 45 years in this wonderful country of ours) and Christina Aguilera and the entire movie is just a fun two hours of life, if you happen to be into musicals and everything.  Just don't think too much about the dialogue.  2 out of 4 stars...

-Joseph Sbrilli


P.S. Cher sings "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me," live...she is that talented and I was impressed.

Tangled 3D

Throughout the course of this review, I am going to attempt to make as many references as possible to hair and puns involving hair. Let's see how I do.

There are very few times that an animated movie, not made by Pixar, generates a huge amount of buzz in my head. They usually tend to cause a lot of frizz. But for some reason, when I saw the first trailer for Tangled, I actually wanted to see it. I actually considered spending money on it! Preposterous, you say, no one over the age of 13 would comb through their wallet for money to sit in a theater with loud, annoying children! Well, I did, and I can honestly say I am glad that I did. (Even though I had to shell out extra cash for 3D. Stupid expensive movie tickets).

Rapunzel, excuse me, Tangled is the story of Rapunzel. Everyone knows about the princess locked in the tower, who grows her hair out to incredible lengths so her true love can climb up into the tower and rescue her from, I don't know, being bored to death I guess. Well, I researched the original tale of Rapunzel and am pleased to announce that Disney has retold the story in a very cool way. Once upon a time a drop of sunshine fell to the Earth. Where it landed a flower grew. A very old woman, Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy), discovered the flower and for some reason sang to it, probably because it glowed constantly. After singing to it Mother Gothel's youth was restored. She tried to keep the flower a secret so she could live forever. But in the kingdom Gothel lived in, the Queen had grown very sick during her pregnancy. The men of the kingdom searched far and wide for a miracle cure and whatdoyaknow there's a magical flower. They boil the flower and serve it to the queen as tea. She gives birth to a daughter with very blonde hair, even though both the king and queen had brown hair (Check the mailman!). Mother Gothel knows that the child's hair is magical and tries to cut some of the girls hair for herself, but as soon as she cuts it the girl's hair turns brown and loses its magic. Gothel steals the child away for herself, locks her in a tower, and raises her as a mother would. Only Rapunzel can never leave the tower nor cut her hair.

As anyone could imagine, spending eighteen years in a tower is kind of awful. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) wants to ignore her (fake) mother's wishes and visit the floating lights that appear on her birthday every year. She gets her chance when a thief, Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi, Chuck) tries to hide in the tower to escape his pursuers.

Brushing off the incredible psychological trauma that would occur after living in a tower your whole life with no contact from anyone besides a diabolical fake mother and a chameleon (coincidentally, the cutest sidekick of any Disney movie) Tangled is a fun movie.

The six year old next to me certainly enjoyed it. The dialogue was very fast and amusing and the love that was quite obviously going to brew between Rapunzel and Flynn didn't feel as forced as it was in The Princess and the Frog. Flynn is equal parts daring, charming and roguish with wayward strands of goodness in him. Rapunzel is so doe-eyed cute that you could forgive her any faults, if she had any. The supporting animals, a horse named Maximus and the aforementioned chameleon named Pascal, have almost as much personality as people without having any dialogue at all.

The 3D did not add much to the film but I have to say that the 3D was used very well in terms of depth. 3D used to be a gimmick that would throw a T-rex at the crowd so the audience would be shocked. I'm pleased that it is being used more along the lines of creating depth within the film. Makes the experience that much more enjoyable.

There isn't much that is bad about the film. The voice overs at the beginning and the end could be brushed out. Or at least reworked in an amusing way because they were god-awful. Also, one song felt kind of awkward.

But I loved the film. It is perfectly enjoyable for both kids and adults. If Toy Story 3 hadn't come out this year Tangled would definitely be in the running for a best animated feature Oscar.

Only 4 references, phooey.

3 and a half out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

SPOILER ALERT

For those who have seen it, Rapunzel looks way better blonde than brunette.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

The last installment of the epic wizardry saga is finally here...sort of. The latest Harry Potter movie has started a trend that I am sure will be copied many times in the near future. I'm not complaining, just stating a fact. Another fact that I'd like to state is that I would much rather watch a 4-5 hour movie that finishes the saga in an incredible fashion than be forced to wait another couple of months for part 2.

The wizarding world is experiencing an upheaval of earthquake-like proportions. The illustrious headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, has been killed. The ministry of magic is quickly falling into disarray and the evil wizard himself, Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is rising again to subdue England and eventually the world. Voldemort has a slight problem though. Harry Potter and pals know his one weakness, a series of horcruxes that contain parts of Voldie's soul. They know that the only way to kill Voldemort is to hunt down and destroy the horcruxes. While they have an incredibly long camping trip trying to accomplish this, they learn that Voldemort has been seeking three items known as the Deathly Hallows, objects that, if possessed, will make the user master of death.

But I am sure you know all of this. I have to warn everyone right now, if you haven't read the book, don't see the movie. It will be a futile attempt to understand the multiple plot lines and characters popping on and off of the screen. The Harry Potter series has never done this well. Fans of the Lord of the Ring movies know that their films stand above the rest because the movies stand beside the books in terms of quality. Without reading any of the Potter books for background and seeing the movies is like setting War and Peace on fire and expecting the fire to spell out plot points with smoke.

For fans of the book, the film is fantastic fun. It has various discrepancies, the book emphasizes some things while the movie emphasizes different ones. In these case it is easy to figure out why the director chose to do what he did and most of the time I found myself agreeing with his decisions. There is just so much information to include, even if you split the book into two movies.

The actors are all familiar faces, but we are treated to a significant lack of supporting characters. Voldermort gets a depressing amount of screen time, same with Severus Snape, Bellatrix, and Madeye Moody. Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint are still fun to watch, but not all the time. Especially if only one of them can actually act (Watson). The absolute best part of the film by far is when Harry, Ron and Hermione impersonate three Ministry employees in order to steal a horcrux. Watching three unknown actors doing their best to act out the personality quirks of the three was hilarious. I wish the scene was even longer. The movie itself is fairly amusing with witty and quick dialogue, considering its very dark tone.

It is a very good entry into the Harry Potter franchise, and may be the best (I'll have to re watch number 4 to decide). Sadly, despite its successes, The Deathly Hallows Part 1 isn't really a movie. Like the poster says "The End Begins." The entire movie is a beginning, and maybe a little of the middle. There is no climax, no conclusion, it just ends. I shouldn't expect anything different but it's a little hard to swallow and makes it a hard movie to review. Needless to say I am as excited as can be for the final installment.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

p.s. What is up with the scene of Harry and Hermione making out in the nude? That was not in the book.

Places in the Heart: A Quick Review

"Places in the Heart," written and directed by Robert Benton, was released in 1984.  It stars an incredibly talented cast led by the always wonderful, Sally Field, who won an Oscar for her role as Edna Spalding.  Some other cast members include Danny Glover, John Malkovich, and Ed Harris.

"Places in the Heart," takes place in Texas during the Great Depression.  Edna Spalding's husband is killed early on it in the film. She has to sell cotton to help support her two young children and try and make enough money to make the payments on her house.  Helping her with this is Moses (Danny Glover), a man who randomly shows up at her house one day wanting to do odd jobs and who gives her the idea for selling the cotton.  Then we have John Malkovich playing a blind man, who moves in with the Spaldings.  I'm kind of tired of explaining the plot so we will leave it at that.  

Sally Field is incredible in the lead role and definitely earned that Oscar.  First of all she cries, yet again in a movie.  When Sally Field cries the average movie-goer should be moved.  She also is bursting with emotions throughout this movie.  She has to deal with the loss of her husband and is determined to make enough money to keep her house and her kids.  Sally Field is always convincing in her movies, and this is no exception.  She does not overact, except in "Soapdish," or other movies that actually require massive amounts of overacting.  I don't really feel like commenting on the rest of the cast, mainly because I'm getting tired and no one else won an Oscar.  However, each actor plays an interesting, developed character adding to the drama of the film, and to the irregular family that is eventually formed.

The cinematography is beautiful, so I will throw that in here since it's one of my favorite aspects of a movie...and extremely necessary.  Overall there is nothing too innovative about it and everything is done simply but effectively.  Given the dramatic nature of "Places in the Heart," anything more would have been completely inappropriate.  We get a lot of beautiful outdoor shots, filmed on location in Texas.  This greatly added to the film, perfectly depicting the setting and time in history. Also, there is one impressively executed scene involving a tornado, that looks extremely realistic and everyone should be quite proud of it.  

Basically, if you love Sally Field like I do, or any member of this cast you will enjoy it.  It's a beautiful film, visually and otherwise, about survival and deals with some racial issues of the time as well.  It is a little bit slow, since that's the nature of the plot/genre.  It does not get boring though because of the compelling story and characters.  If I were you I would watch it, but then again I love classic movies and a certain lady who once played a flying nun on TV. 

3 1/2 out of 4 stars, even though technically this is a "Quick Review".

-Joseph Sbrilli   

Absence of Malice: A Quick Review

"Absence of Malice" came out in 1981 and was directed by Sidney Pollack, the year before he would direct the Dustin Hoffman classic, "Tootsie." It stars Paul Newman, Sally Field, Melinda Dillon, and obviously a lot more.  This basically is a journalism thriller.  Yeah I realize that sounds incredibly boring and kind of a ridiculous combination.  However, quite the opposite is true of this movie.  The two leads are phenomenal.  Then again most people know that when they see Paul Newman and Sally Field's names so close together.  She is Megan Carter, a journalist who gets some false information that makes it seem like Michael Gallagher was involved in a man's murder.  She naturally prints this in her article and this infuriates Gallagher because it's simply not true.  Throughout the movie they are both searching for the truth. These two work very well with each other in "Absence of Malice."  All their interactions seem completely natural.  At first it's strictly business, but then they naturally get into a brief romantic, intimate relationship.  Which happens way to fast, and is one of the few semi-negative reactions I had to the movie.  But I guess very few people can resist Paul Newman.  Emotions fly as they find out the truth and that Megan Carter had no right to write the articles until she knew the entire truth.  Journalism ethics come into play a lot throughout the movie, especially when Teresa (Melinda Dillon), a friend of Gallagher's, commits suicide after Carter reveals information about her relationship with Gallagher, in the newspaper.  And Sally Field gets to cry a little bit, which is always a pleasure to watch since she is just so good, and really should get back to doing those movies she is so great at...which is basically any movie she chooses to make.  Visually and sound-wise the film also succeeds.  The score adds drama and at times suspense, perfectly complimenting the serious storyline.  Also, there are great tracking shots, throughout the movie, mainly in the newsroom and lots of great reactions shots from the cast as emotions are running high.  It is visually just a well composed film, so I won't go on anymore with that.  I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, for the reasons I stated, and a couple more I didn't feel like writing.  Much of this had to do with the cast being led by two of my personal favorites.  I imagine I will enjoy it more when I see it again.

-Joseph Sbrilli 

Morning Glory

 I am not a morning person. I would prefer to wake up at noon every single day of my life; and when I do wake up early, the sickeningly bouncy morning news shows tend to make me lose my breakfast. Morning Glory (What’s the story?) may have convinced me to give them another try, but only if Harrison Ford is one of the anchors.
  
Morning Glory is based around the life of Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams). A very determined, hard-working woman with so many bangs it’s as if her head is a willow tree. After being recently let go from a New Jersey morning show for not being qualified enough, she applies around looking for a job. She gets a call from the worst morning news show known to man, Daybreak. Becky takes the job because, lets face it, she’s pretty desperate. After flailing around like a goldfish with no water, Becky makes a desperate ploy to save the show: use a contract loophole to force Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford), one of the worlds greatest reporters, to anchor the failing Daybreak. Becky soon discovers that Pomeroy is about as nice as a pack of rabid wolverines and refuses to say words like “fluffy” because it is beneath him. With ratings taking a dive, Becky has to employ some show saving techniques to keep her job and the show afloat.  

Morning Glory’s strength is in its actors. Rachel McAdams is usually a strong force within her films but her performance is fairly weak compared to others. Jeff Goldblum and Diane Keaton playing a senior executive and co-anchor respectively are very funny and many of the supporting cast throw their weigh around as well. But the real heavy hitter is Harrison Ford. His first movie since 2010’s flop Extraordinary Measures and he hasn’t lost a bit of his pizzazz. Responding gruffly to coworkers and referring to Becky’s love interest as “Senor Dip$#%!” had me immensely enjoying myself. I wish he and Sean Connery would do a movie together. It would be the epitome of manliness.  

Where Morning Glory fails, it fails pretty hard. There are some clichés within the film that make it just a shameless copy and paste exercise, but the really annoying bits involve Becky and her new man Adam. Their budding love (based entirely off his want of any girl he can see, and her want of being too busy for any sane guy) drags the movie down at every point. It is incredibly forced and a pain to sit through.   

I wouldn’t get up bright and early to see this morning news show, but I might Tivo some reruns.

2 and a half out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Unstoppable

"Unstoppable," based on true events, was directed by Tony Scott.  It stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson, et al.

Although it is based off of an incredible, true story, the names, location, among other things were changed.  The plot surrounds a railroad company, in Pennsylvania that is trying to stop an unmanned train that is cruising through the countryside with lots of dangerous chemicals onboard.  Some idiot decided to abandon his post on the train and not brake the massive vehicle correctly.  Naturally, Denzel Washington and Chris Pine are available, as Frank Barnes and Will Colson, to try and save the day.  Barnes has been a railroad engineer for 28 years and Colson is just starting his wonderful career as a train conductor.  Right from the start you know the movie is going to end one of two ways, but that shouldn't take away any enjoyment from it.

The two lead actors are phenomenal.  With Denzel Washington that a given, because he is a incredible actor.  He takes on the lead role of veteran, widowed railroad engineer.  He's tough, but as the movie progressed I felt sympathy for him.  Chris Pine, who I had only seen before in "Star Trek,"proved himself to be quite an actor.  He is much younger and inexperienced and his character of Will Colson is in many ways the opposite of Frank Barnes.  He also has some family problems, involving a restraining order and other fun things.  These two actors have natural chemistry with each other.  Almost every scene involved them interacting in some way, usually in rather tight quarters of a train, so the dialogue and acting between the two had to come off as believable.  Rosario Dawson, as the train dispatcher, has the next most important role after the two leads so I will mention her briefly.  She plays a extremely strong, competent woman, who is in charge of many of the decisions regarding stopping the train, and talking with people who can help.  The rest of the cast are not as prominent as these three.

The cinematography is among the movie's strongest aspects.  The film, for the most part is beautifully shot.  Tony Scott and the director of photography really racked their brains for ever possible way of keeping a runaway train interesting for slightly over an hour and a half.  In my opinion they were completely successful.  First, you have the every popular aerial shots of the train blasting down a stretch of railroad.  This is good to get a nice wide shot and to show how vast an area we are dealing with.  My personal favorite shots from the film include the camera filming the train from underneath.  It gives a fantastic, different perspective of this massive vehicle crossing over the railroad tracks.  This occurs multiple times and I loved it each and every time.

I had some positive and negative reactions to the sound in "Unstoppable."  Overall the score is nothing special.  It is more or less the same score played again and again.  This would be fine if it added to the visuals, but it sounded extremely tribal to me most of the time.  And I am positive there were no Indians (or Native Americans, if I have to be politically correct) in this film.  However, at times the score seemed to be synchronized with the wheels grinding and sparking on the steel of the tracks.  I'm pretty sure string instruments were used and throughout the movie I described the sound to myself as "steely."  Another comment I have on sound is regarding the actual sound effects, which are memorable.  Like I mentioned earlier the grinding of the wheels throughout the movie, the sparks that are bound to fly during such a scenario, among other train related sounds and the atmosphere in general all add to the intense feeling of the movie.

Another negative aspect I found with the film is that toward the end the camera went a little crazy.  I have a feeling Tony Scott just wanted to make the camera more frantic as the climax came closer.  Which is fine and that very well may be his style, however I found it dizzying at times.  The camera was shaking everywhere and at times spinning rapid fire around characters.  Before that the hand-held camera technique was used well and I believe it added to the film's suspenseful, engaging tone.

Be prepared to have deja vu from last summer, "The Taking of Pelham 123," also directed by Tony Scott.  Denzel Washington is back, since he and Tony Scott have a Tim Burton-Johnny Depp/Martin Scorsese-Robert De Niro/Leonardo DiCaprio type of man-crush going on.  Also there are an awful lot of trains and similar overly digitized look at times, among other things.  However, "Unstoppable," plotwise, actingwise, etc is the better movie, as much as I love John Travolta.

So I was surprised to see how many great reviews this got.  I was a little skeptical after "The Taking of Pelham 123," got mostly negative reviews last summer.  I thoroughly enjoyed myself throughout "Unstoppable."  The leads and visuals are great.  The story is compelling and suspenseful, no thanks to the score.  If you love the leads, then see it in theaters...I recommend the second row in the theater so you can see Denzel Washington's beautiful face up close.  Otherwise rent it.  If you don't at least have a little bit of fun watching it, then I really feel sorry because something must not be right. 3 out of 4 stars.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Due Date

The due date has finally arrived and the delivery room is all set, but this may be a baby that only a mother could love.
   
In the world of genius pairings, Due Date looked as if it had topped them all. The suave, sexy and incredibly manly/funny Robert Downey Jr. fresh off of Iron Man 2 and the bearded, gut-bustlingly funny, definitely going to be typecast Zach Galifianakis of The Hangover. What could go wrong? Apparently a lot of things.
   
Peter Highman (Downey Jr.) is on his way to Los Angeles from Atlanta so he can be present at the birth of his first child. After getting booted from the plane because of an altercation with Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) Peter finds himself with no money, no I.D. and only one way home. 3,000 miles and 3 days with the world’s strangest man.

Due Date is the equivalent of this decade’s Planes, Trains and Automobiles. The formula for a two-man road trip movie is simple. Have one man, through an unforeseen circumstance, be forced to rely on a second man. The second man must be nice at first but needs to have such a different personality and lifestyle than the first man; enough to create conflict down the road. The second man will then reveal something about himself that explains to the first man why he acts in such a way and the two will end up best friends forever. Due Date got all these steps right but threw away any likeable or enjoyable characters. Brief glimpses within the movie show some shreds of humanity within them but is tossed to the wind in the next scene. When Due Date finished, I was utterly dumbfounded when Peter and Ethan ended up as friends. It makes no logical sense because they are so at odds with each other.

And it’s a shame because Due Date is really funny. Downey Jr. and Galifianakis are kings of comedic timing. The situations they are thrown in become increasingly ridiculous and very funny: taking a wrong turn down the US-Mexico border after getting high (No, Officer my eyes are red because I have glaucoma), gunshot wounds, and launching off a bridge after Ethan falls asleep in broad daylight. It has all the makings of a classic road trip movie, but the only character the audience can actually relate to is Ethan’s dog, Sonny.

I may have been expecting too much, but putting Zach Galifianakis in a movie with Robert Downey Jr. should be pure gold. The due date may have been a little too early on this one.

2 and a half out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Hereafter

"Hereafter" is the latest film from the Hollywood legend, Clint Eastwood.  This time he tries his hand at a supernatural drama.  Peter Morgan ("The Queen" and "Frost/Nixon") wrote it and the cast includes the likes of Matt Damon, Cecile de France, and Bryce Dallas Howard.

The primary theme throughout the film is the afterlife.  Eastwood and Morgan explore various possibilities, but don't exactly get it right...which I wasn't expecting.  One should not go to a Clint Eastwood film for theological truths.  "Hereafter" consists of three different people, with different stories, all involving the afterlife.  All three stories are happening in different parts of the world, in the same period of time, eventually leading to them all somehow meeting at a book convention in France...yes....more on this later.  Matt Damon is George Lonegan, a psychic in America.  He has the ability to communicate with the dead, but is trying to leave that part of his life behind, because he believes it to be a curse.  However, this becomes impossible when all sorts of people want him to contact dead relatives for them.  This includes Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard), whom he meets in a night cooking class and at first thinks there may be a chance at a relationship with her.  Cecile de France is Marie Lelay, a French television journalist who survives a tsunami and glimpses death.  The third person is a young English boy named Marcus who's twin brother is killed by a truck.

The cast, overall is extraordinarily good.  Matt Damon, once again proves what a capable actor he really is, no matter what genre one tries to fit him into.  He has great screen presence as the lead character, who indirectly has a link with the other major players in the film.  I'm glad Clint Eastwood decided to bring him back, after working together on last years "Invictus".  I had no idea who Cecile de France was before I saw this movie.  My knowledge of French actresses is non-existant.  However, she is a talented actress who was able to believably show the aftermath of such a disaster, as a tsunami and trying to move on with her life.  The fact that she looks perfectly fine mere scenes after she's practically dead, just requires some suspension of disbelief.  The boy who plays Marcus, is literally a no name kid, who will probably never act again after this...He's already met Clint Eastwood, so anything else would just be a let down anyway.  He is extremely believable as a young child dealing with the loss of a brother.  Good thing Eastwood went with a complete unknown.  One more thing to comment on, regarding the actors: Bryce Dallas Howard.  I love her father, Ron Howard, with every fiber of my being, but I just don't think she is a very good actress.  She just doesn't feel natural many times.  And she really needs to go to the Sally Field School of Fake Crying, because in "Hereafter," Howard came dangerously close to laughing at one point I'm pretty sure. 

As a rule I think computer generated special effects are the spawn of Satan, unless of course we are talking about "Jurassic Park".  However, I was quite impressed with what was done in "Hereafter."  The beginning of the film includes a massive tsunami in Thailand.  Obviously this would have been impossible to do without the use of computers, but the end result was phenomonal.  It did not look fake at all, at least to my untrained eye.  Nothing screamed "CGI," like what unfortunately happens, many, many times in life.  The disaster immediately sucks you into "Hereafter" and right from the start, Marie is introduced. 

I enjoyed how the movie moved back and forth between the the different characters.  This was a successful plot device that was used instead of just having blocks with the same character.  It makes things more interesting to watch.  Also, I enjoyed seeing how a common theme effected a few different people, from different countries and under different circumstances.  All three of them meeting in France is extraordinarily far fetched...but then again so is Matt Damon playing a psyhic...so one has to cope with these things in order to enjoy the film, as Mr. Eastwood intended. 

Clint Eastwood is not only a very talented director and producer, but he also writes the music for his films, which greatly impresses me.  The score overall was rather slow and not overpowerly, but given that this was an emotional drama, anything more would have been innapropriate.  Also, be prepared to experience deja-vu during the end credits.  The music is very reminscent of "Gran Torino."

One more thing, more of a disclaimer.  There is a lot of French spoken in this film.  I personally liked that they had this, because if I'm watching a scene in a film taking place, and filmed in France I do not expect them to speak English.  True, realism is not a priority in "Hereafter," but French being spoken added to it.  Luckily there were subtitles, so I wasn't completely lost.  This however, may cause some people to run to the hills. 

Clint Eastwood is 80 years old and has been working in Hollywood in some fashion for 55 years, directing for 39 of those years.  With that being said, he is still sharp as a tack and literally cranking out movies rapid fire. It impresses me what he is able to do at that age.  With "Hereafter" he directly a well made and well acted movie.  It's a little long, but my ADD actually didn't kick in.  So anyway...if you're like me and find it incredibly hard to resist a movie that includes Clint Eastwood and Matt Damon's names on the poster, then check out "Hereafter."  If you can resist those to wonderful people, then I don't know what to say, it's just very un-American.  3 out of 4 stars



-Joseph Sbrilli

Batman Begins: A Quick Review

Let's be honest here, Batman Begins blew your mind when it came out. It was like holy crap, a series that was handled so horribly in the 90's has risen to the very top of superhero movies.

Everyone knows the story of Batman. His Parents died, but he's super rich so he devotes his life to defending the defenseless from evil and inspiring terror inside those who cause terror. And that's the best part about it. He has absolutely no super powers. He defintely trains and is buffer than Brad Pitt in Troy, but besides that the only thing that sets him apart from regular people is his gadgets and Batman Begins shows them in a completely believeable fashion.

My one gripe with the movie is that the action gets very slurred at points. The camera flashes back and forth between the puncher and the punchee and it gets fairly dizzying. But the fantastic origin story, visuals, general awesomeness, and incredible sequel make Batman Begins worth every penny. In my opinion, this is the very best Batman movie ever made. Yes, better than The Dark Knight and the original Tim Burton directed Batman. If you argue with me I will prove you wrong.


-Christopher O'Connell

Red

Ways to make a movie financially and critically successful: put Morgan Freeman into the movie, put Helen Mirren in the movie, put John Malkovich in a crazy character role in the movie, put Bruce Willis with a gun in the movie. Wait a minute; doesn’t “Red” have all of these? And doesn’t it also boast a very well written script matched with a well paced plot? The answer is a resounding yes.

Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is one of the CIA’s most valuable operatives in the field, successfully executing countless missions with speed, finesse, and discreetness. Well, he used to be. Frank Moses is now retired, and retired life after the CIA is boring. His only escape is calling his social security benefits advisor Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker). Except one day a CIA sanctioned hit squad tries to take out Frank at his house. Now he’s on the run with Sarah tracking down his old teammates and trying to figure out why the CIA is after him.

“Red” is the definition of a “B” movie. It is not going to win any Oscars. There will be no best actor, best actress, or even best editing nominations. There will be countless numbers of people who will recommend this movie though, because it is perfect in its entertainment value. If every film was like this (besides the Oscar contenders) Americans as a whole would be happier.

The actors here are the real weight behind this film. Morgan Freeman is obviously amazing as usual, and Bruce Willis has always been good at playing the tough guy. Seeing Helen Mirren as a gun-toting ex-hit woman was an absolute riot. John Malkovich has always been good at playing the psycho character and “Red” is no exception. Constantly paranoid about circling helicopters, he lives in an underground bunker disguised as a car. His character was given LSD daily for 17 years and may be the funniest man in the film making quips like, “I remember the secret service being tougher!” Mary-Louise Parker, the star of “Weeds,” really stands out among all of these big name actors. As Sarah Ross she is genuinely funny and has some great interactions with Bruce Willis.

Needless to say, this is a fantastic popcorn flick with some well done action and fantastic acting. This is entertainment in its purest form, enjoy it while it lasts.



3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Jackass 3-D

The boys are back in town, which probably isn’t the greatest idea if any of them want to live past the age of 50. This is the long-awaited and hopefully final installment of the Jackass series, and it has a few tricks up its sleeve to keep it fresh.
  
Jackass 3-D picks up where Jackass 2 left off, as in the boys are still doing the stupidest things you can imagine, like dressing up as prisoners and running a gauntlet of tasers and cattle prods. The trailer shows some very funny moments, but the movie has more that weren’t spoiled by the two-minute spot: Ehren McGhehey gets a crooked tooth pulled out by a very fast Lamborghini. Chris Pontius flies around a remote control helicopter attached to his genitalia. And one of the final, craziest stunts has Steve-O in the Poo Cocktail Supreme, in which he is launched into the air inside a fully loaded porta-potty. If I had time to list all those that were enjoyable I would, but almost every one of them is a gem of bodily injury.
  
For some reason, and I assume it was to make bucket loads of money, the creators of Jackass decided to make this third installment in 3-D. The 3-D does not add much, in fact it adds very little and the movie would be just as good in 2-D, if not better because you paid less. What the boys have capitalized on is a very good slow motion camera system. Every detail and every hit is slowed down so that the audience can truly appreciate what just happened. Watching Johnny Knoxville get tackled by a pro football player is absolutely beautiful, and watching Bam give the cast the “Rocky” treatment, a cup of water and then a boxing glove to the face, is amazing. Let it be known that they kept the old man and woman scenes that were so prevalent (and disgusting) in Jackass 2 to a bare minimum and I only found myself gagging in one scene.

Unfortunately Jackass 3-D, while full of great moments and scenes that had the audience screaming, feels less inspired than the first two films. It’s the same stuff, but for the third time. We loved it the first two times and that’s why we see the third one, but the boys are getting old and they need to pack it up for the sake of their sanity.

Jackass 3-D is like hanging out with the guys one last time. One last hurrah for the show that jumpstarted MTV and shocked the world. But please, don’t try this at home.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O’Connell

Dirty Harry: A Quick Review

I am a terrible American. It has taken me 19 years to see "Dirty Harry". What is wrong with me? Multiple disorders probably but don't let that skew your judgment after I spout my love for Clint Eastwood.

In the city of San Francisco, the baddest cop around is detective Harry Callahan. A man who not only carries the most powerful handgun on the planet, but can shoot it with just one hand. He has to take on his toughest case yet when a lunatic sniper starts killing targets across the city, threatening to do more unless he is paid. Of course it's up to Callahan to track him down and deliver some hot-lead justice.

This movie is fantastic, there is no way around it. Cop movies do not get better than this for a few reasons. One, Clint Eastwood is in it, can you think of anyone more badass than Clint Eastwood? Didn't think so. Two, "Dirty Harry" isn't afraid to get dirty. This isn't a pg-13 buddy cop comedy, this is stuff that actually happens. Suicide, rape, gunshot wounds, and ransom notes. Three, the ethical and moral dilemmas raised are very thought provoking. What is the line between cop and criminal? What does it really take to stop a madman?

Beautifully done and skillfully executed, "Dirty Harry" is a timeless classic that every single person in the United States should watch at least once.

-Christopher O'Connell

The 6th Day: A Quick Review

Schwarzenegger may not be the most talented actor out there, but he certainly is an iconic one. Those huge muscles and distinctive accent really make him stand out. That is probably why I grabbed "The 6th Day" when I was bored one night. Sometime in the future, the world discovered cloning and then banned it under the 6th day law. The 6th day refers to the day God created man on Earth. Anyway it's illegal and cloning has been banned. After a little mishap that I don't want to spoil, Arnold finds that he has been cloned and the company that mistakenly did it is out to kill him before his other half sees him. Arnold has to figure out what is going on and save his family. It's a pretty run-of-the-mill sci-fi action flick even if it creates a few interesting ethical concerns about cloning. Bruce Willis' recent "Surrogates" draws quite a few parallels. Anyways, it isn't a bad film. The action is decent and it is super funny to see some Arnold on Arnold action (Don't tell me you didn't want to see that). Plus, it has one of the best action one-liners of all time, when you hear it, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you're bored and have netflix, check it out, if you don't, do whatever you want.

-Christopher O'Connell

Chicago: A Quick Review

Musicals are one of my personal favorite film genres.  And "Chicago" is one of the best, especially in the last decade.  If you for whatever reason do not like musicals, then still give "Chicago" a try because I occasionally watch science fiction movies.  Anyways, this film came out 8 years ago, was directed by Rob Marshall and walked away with 6 Academy Awards including Best Picture.  It's Chicago in the 1920s.  Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is a successful nightclub performer who kills her husband and her sister.  She end up in a women's prison on Murderer's Row with Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger).  Roxie Hart killed her lover and is an aspiring performer.  Matron Mama Morton (Queen Latifah) is the warden of the prison and Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) is the lawyer who is trying to get Velma and Roxie out of jail, since they kind of might get executed.  Everything about this film is incredible.  The four main cast members are phenomenal and can all act, sing, and dance, which is a truly beautiful thing.  We learn from this that Renee Zellweger can sing very well when she puts her mind to it.  The choreography is also beautiful and you can definitely picture this being on the stage.  This makes perfect sense since it originated on Broadway.  The transition from stage to screen was pretty darn seamless.  Also, this may be one of the best soundtracks that I have heard in a musical, with such memorable numbers as "All that Jazz," "Roxie," and "Cell Block Tango" (my personal favorite scene in the entire film).  One of my favorite aspects of the entire movie, besides the things I just raved about is the fact that most of the musical numbers occur in Roxie's head.  I thought this was an extremely creative way of integrated songs into the plot.  They flowed so well and never once felt awkward.  My least favorite part is definitely John C. Reilly's solo song, but only because I get extremely bored during it.  The direction and editing in this film was also phenomenal and Rob Marshall really went all out.  Each frame is just stunningly lit, composed, everything.  So in case you didn't know I love this movie and highly recommend it.  Everything that makes a good movie, or musical is present here, and much more.  Also, calling these things quick reviews are still some of the biggest lies I try to pull.

-Joseph Sbrilli