127 Hours

"127 Hours" is directed by Danny Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire") and stars James Franco.  It has a couple more people in it, but Franco gets almost all of the screen time.

This film is a true story, based off of a book, written by Aron Ralston.  Aron (James Franco) decides to go hiking in the canyons of Utah.  He doesn't tell anyone, which he later finds out was an extremely stupid idea on his part.  He ends up getting trapped in a canyon when a large rock pins his arm to the side of the wall.  He manages to survive for a few days and eventually has to cut off his arm, so he can actually live to tell the story, and then sell the rights to Fox Searchlight Pictures.

James Franco runs the show in "127 Hours" and it is a truly beautiful thing.  He is a phenomenal actor and I like him more each time I see him.  It takes a great deal of talent to hold together an entire film by yourself (kind of like Tom Hanks, in "Castaway") and he was up to the challenge and earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor.  For the majority of the film he is the only one on screen and is pinned inside the canyon.  He is the main reason why the film was so enjoyable.  He showed a great deal of emotion and determination as he was trying to survive under such awful circumstances.  Without him it would have been a completely different film, and probably significantly less enjoyable.  James Franco just comes off as extremely likeable and you want him to succeed, even though he shouldn't have been an idiot and run off without telling a soul.

The soundtrack to "127 Hours" is great and I loved just about every minute of it.  Right from the opening credits there is a powerful score, that came off as sounding rock-ish to me.  There were a lot of drums and guitars playing throughout.  At least I think so.  I'm no expert on musical instruments or anything.  It added intensity to the film which is always nice, especially a film where the climax is the man character cutting off his own arm.  Also, sound in general was used beautifully.  One of the areas this is seen is when Aron is cutting his arm and you can actually hear the nerves being severed.  It sounds gross and added power to the scene.  Most sounds in general, like rain pouring into the canyon were exaggerated to let them stick out more prominently.

The cinematography is also incredible in "127 Hours."  Although James Franco is in a small space for the majority of the film the camera catches him at so many different angles, including close-ups and wider shots.  This helps to make it more interesting.  In general the coloring of the scenes is wonderful as well, with a lot of bland colors like brown and such being present because we are indeed dealing with the great outdoors here.  There are extreme long, aerial shots of the canyons as well.  I loved these because the camera gradually moved farther away from James Franco, ultimately showing how miniscule he was compared to all the natural fun surrounding him.

There are several flashbacks and fantasies throughout, for those of you who are worried that it's just James Franco stuck between a rock, staring at you for 95 minutes.  This including flashbacks of the women in his life, the girls he met earlier on the trip, and his family while he was growing up.  Some of these seemed a little random at times, and it appears that he dated really dumb girls.  Overall, they gave you some incite into Aron, as a person.  Flashbacks are a nice technique to use in film, and generally speaking "127 Hours" did it well, I thought.

The only major things that I disliked was the use of split screens.  At times the screen would be split into three sections and a different scene or picture would be going on.  As a rule I think this is a bad idea and just comes off as cheesy to me.  Another thing was at times someone, probably Danny Boyle, decided it would be a good idea to have a scene rewound in fast motion, like when Aron first falls and gets tracked.  I thought this was on the cheesy side too.  I mean Aron jokes around a little bit to try to alleviate the pain and horror of his predicament, but the movie isn't cheesy, so I could have done without those, and a couple others.

For those who have weak stomachs: you may vomit during this film.  I heard that has happened to people who watched it when it was first released.  There is a couple minute scene that is quite graphic and bloody, showing Aron breaking the bone in his arm and eventually cutting it off.  I personally didn't vomit, because I'm not into that sort of thing.

One last thing: there is very little talking in the film, when compared to most.  This may turn people off of it, but I hope that it doesn't.  Talking isn't always necessary.  The visuals and the score/sound moved the plot along just fine. However, James Franco did talk to himself while he was stuck, I guess to pass time.  Mainly, his face and body movements or lack thereof were able to convey feelings.

Overall, this film was highly entertaining and certainly worthy of being nominated for Best Picture, Actor, Director, and a few other Academy Awards.  At 95 minutes the film is the perfect length, for something like this.  Any longer and things would have felt dragged out and people most likely would have stopped paying attention.  James Franco proved himself to be a wonderful actor yet again and it's worth it just to see his smiling face...extremely talented.  Also, Danny Boyle is a great director and this was a nice follow up to "Slumdog Millionaire."  Great film by the way, in my opinion  better than "127 Hours," but then again that plot is completely different.  3 out of 4 stars...I would recommend it though, if you can get over a couple minutes of blood.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Barney's Version

"Barney's Version" was directed by Richard J. Lewis.  It stars Paul Giamatti, Rosamund Pike, Rachelle Lefevre, Minnie Driver, and Dustin Hoffman.

This film is based off of a novel of the same name.  It tells tells the story, through various flashbacks of Barney Panofsky(Paul Giamatti), a television producer who is not afraid to speak his mind and is just difficult to be around most of the time.  "Barney's Version" is his perception of what his life was like, including his three marriages, his relationship with his father (Dustin Hoffman).  Overall the story is kind of a downer, just a heads up.

The casting was impressive.  Paul Giamatti is a great actor.  He starts out playing 65 year old Barney and is quite convincing as someone who isn't afraid to voice his opinion and is mainly concerned with himself.  Each younger version of the character is just as well acted.  He is not a terribly pleasant character, so there really isn't a lot of sympathy for him, but near the end I did feel a little bad for him.  He has great chemistry with the three actresses playing his wives.  However, all of the relationships were extremely rushed into and basically all happened by coincidence or simply making poor decisions.  That aspect of it was a little dumb, but once you get past the disbelief the couples worked well, especially, him and Rosamund Pike, who played Miriam, his favorite wife.  Although naturally Barney destroyed that marriage as well.  Dustin Hoffman was wonderful as always and I'm glad he chose to star in this, since "Little Fockers" was just a bad idea.  Then again, the producers of that movie had to bribe Hoffman to come back, because they knew how horrendous it was going to be.  I guess the important thing is he got paid and worked with Barbra Streisand again.

I loved all the flashbacks in this film.  It kept things interesting since the narrative was out of sequence.  It  didn't get confusing though, if that's a concern.  The film consists of about three decades of the main characters life, and just about every scene is entertaining, thanks to the talented cast and good script.  There are some funny parts, especially lines from Dustin Hoffman and then some really depressing and sad scenes.  The mix of emotions was good and the music, although not overpowering would always fit well with the emotions depicted of the screen.

I feel obligated to mention that this film includes a couple scenes of immorality, that I will not go into detail about because I don't feel like getting uncomfortable.  This includes infidelity and just really messed up looks at relationships.

Visually I enjoyed this film a lot as well.  The sets and on location shooting were all beautiful.  There were some shots of New York City and outdoor shots near a house in the woods that is important to the plot.  Just about every shot was aesthetically appealing.  I won't go into it because it would be kind of hard to visualize I guess.

"Barney's Version" only got one Oscar nomination, for Best Make-up.  This is probably because the actors had to age throughout the film.  It was done well, but I'm kind of surprised it didn't get nominated for more.  It's a well made, highly entertaining film.  There are only a limited about a places to fill with nominations, though.

I really enjoyed this movie.  The story was a downer, but there were some funny parts and lots of good emotion.  The casting also added some enjoyment to the film.  At over two hour, I was expecting my ADD to kick in.  It didn't at all though, which was nice.  The pacing was perfect.  3 1/2 stars out of 4.  This is definitely not a movie for the masses though.

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

I know this review has taken a long time from its viewing to its reviewing but I started a new college and the movie wasn't that good. I'll also keep it short because I don't want to waste your time like this movie wasted mine.

Where has the magic gone? The Chronicles of Narnia are about wonder, adventure, magic and growing up. Sadly, the latest entry into this failing franchise does the absolute worst so far.

The whole plot is a muddled mess, devolving into some kind of World of Warcraftesque quest. Go here, find out what's wrong, defeat evil smoke, live happily ever after. It has been a while since I read the books but I remember a pretty awesome adventure with unique islands and situations. There are some deep themes that the film addresses but I chalk that up to the genuis of C.S. Lewis showing through any adaptation of his work.

Visually, like it has in the past, the Dawn Treader succeeds. But at this point that's a feature that I expect rather than praise. And it can't save the movie from its actors. Lucy and Edmond have finally grown up...into terrible actors. Well at least Lucy has. Edmond does his best but Lucy just takes the fruit cake of Christmas disaster. I should find out if she got nominated for a Razzie. The newcomer here is Lucy and Edmonds bumbling spoiled cousin Eustace (Who I imagined as a much more portly child). Eustace may have been given some of the only funny lines in the movie but his general lack of acting ability drags by the end of the film. Especially after watching his totally not gay cryfest with Reepicheep.

The point is, I didn't enjoy it. My younger self probably wouldn't enjoy it. And I doubt my mom would think it's a good film. Failed executions at every turn, this is one rushed Chronicle that should be sent back to the storyboard.

1 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

The Dilemma

"The Dilemma" was directed by Ron Howard.  It stars Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Jenniffer Connelly, Winona Ryder, Queen Latifah, and Channing Tatum.

Ronny and Nick (Vaugn and James) are best friends.  One day Ronny finds out that Nick's wife, Geneva (Ryder) is cheating on Nick with a guy named Zip (Tatum).  Ronny spends a while trying to make a decision that would take most people less than a minute, whether or not to tell Nick that Geneva is being unfaithful.  Yep, there's the dilemma, that same dilemma which gives this movie its imaginative title.

The cast is talented and they do the best that they can with a mediocre script.  Yep, kind of like what I said about "How Do You Know."  Queen Latifah and Kevin James and Vince Vaughn have a couple of funny interactions together and I found out that Channing Tatum can be surprisingly funny.  I don't even really like Vince Vaughn all that much, but I was just really glad that he isn't Owen Wilson.  However, unfortunately this is proof that Kevin James will never be in anything as wonderful, memorable and hilarious as the "King of Queens."  Take any episode of that show and you are guaranteed more genuine laughs.  Winona Ryder is also very talented, and I hope to see her in movies for years to come.  At first you hate her for cheating on her husband, but then you realize that technically he cheated first, which doesn't make what she did any more right, but you just have two people in a marriage making horrible decisions.

This movie is too long.  I don't know why people feel the need to make a comedy close to two hours long. It is almost always a dumb idea, unless of course we're taking about "My Cousin Vinny," which is charming, well cast, and quite hilarious.  "The Dilemma" was not annoyingly long, like some movies that I've seen, but approximately 20 minutes could have been cut out.  It dragged a little and there were not enough jokes to keep things interesting and the plot wasn't something that warranted a 2 hour running time.  While I'm mentioning the quotes, this is unfortunately not a laugh out like comedy, at best you may smile or smirk, and occasionally, if you're lucky you may hear yourself half giggle once.

Hans Zimmer is back to do another score.  He is really not meant to do music for romantic comedies.  It just seems weird and cheesy.  He should stick to action movies and drama since he is actually an incredibly talented man.

Ron Howard can do way better than this.  I promise all of you who read this.  This is nowhere near his best work.  If you want to see the wonder and talent that is Ron Howard then take this time to watch "Apollo 13", "Cinderella Man", "A Beautiful Mind", or my personal favorite "Frost/Nixon," one of the best films I have seen in the pasts couple years.  I actually think I smiled multiple times during it.  With that being said "The Dilemma" is better than "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."  It's just so weird to think that he directed that.  Also, one more thing Ron Howard was involved in making "Arrested Development," one of the funniest shows you will ever watch.

Well this review kind of lost it's way.  In all honesty it wasn't terrible.  I wish the movie was shorter and the jokes were better and more frequent.  I guess what I am trying to say is that people should watch "The King of Queens," "Arrested Development," and "Frost/Nixon" instead. 1 1/2 out of 4 stars... Somewhere around there.  All I know is that it was better than "How Do You Know."

P.S. The morally right decision was to tell your best friend immediately, in case there was any confusion.  And another fun moral fact, DON'T CHEAT ON YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Blue Valentine

"Blue Valentine" was directed by Derek Cianfrance.  It stars Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.

Dean and Cindy (Gosling and Williams) were once deeply in love.  However, as the years go by their relationship begins to crumble.  This film goes back and forth between the early parts of their relationship where they are happy and in love and the latter part of the relationship, doomed to divorce.

The two leads for a movie like this needed to have believable chemistry with one another.  Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams apparently were up to that challenge.  The viewer really believes that they were once young and incredibly in love.  They get married after Cindy becomes pregnant by another man and even brings Dean home to see her parents, something showing the seriousness of the relationship.  As the years go by, they raise a daughter together and begin to fall apart from each other.  This is partially to Dean drinking too much and Cindy being convinced he is not taking advantage of his fullest potential as a person.  The fights between them, including one at a cheap motel, which in some strange way was supposed to help salvage the marriage, all seem genuine.  The anger, the tears, the love, among whatever other emotion you choose to put on the list, was most likely displayed well by the two lead actors.  Seeing as they are in just about every scene of the film, this makes things rather nice.

The filming of "Blue Valentine" was unique.  The scenes taking place in the past, happier part of the couple's relationship were filmed to look much grainer and older.  The scenes in the present, near the demise of there relationship, are much clearer.  I love how the film makers chose to do this since it sets apart the two portions of their life.  As a result of this the frequent cuts back and forth between the relationship were easy to follow.  This non-linear style of filmmaking is one of my favorites, and was used perfectly in "Blue Valentine."  Doing the relationship in chronological order would have been too boring.  I enjoyed seeing how the two seasons of the relationship mirrored one another.  Besides this, "Blue Valentine" is just a beautiful film.  There are several close-ups shots of the actors, mainly the leads.  This makes the raw emotion seem even more intense and becomes the focus of many scenes.  Also,  occasionally the background of a scene would be slightly out of focus and the person in the foreground would be in focus.  This added to the aesthetic quality of the film as well.  Other impression camera work was also on display throughout this film.

Just a word to the wise, this film used to be rated NC-17.  The company fought the Motion Picture Association of America for an R rating, so they could make more money off it in this country since more theaters would show it.  They won and this film is rated R for all to see, however, there are a few scenes with sexual content.  I wouldn't be able to comment on how graphic they are because I wasn't actually looking at the screen at the time.  So, just beware of that, and be careful who you see it with so it's not awkward for everyone.  Or look away and almost all the awkwardness disappears immediately.

Another word to the wise, although not about sexual content this time:  This movie is quite a downer.  A very well made downer, but a downer nonetheless.  If you are one who does not enjoy sad movies, then I would see a different film at the cinema.

"Blue Valentine" was a great film.  I sense some Academy Award nominations.  The acting by the two leads was exceptional and the cinematography was beautiful.  The subject matter is sad and graphic at times, so I can't really recommend this film to everyone.  Take from that what you will, but this is one of those movies that makes me love Academy Awards season.  4 out of 4 stars

-Joseph Sbrilli

An Affair to Remember: A Quick Review

"An Affair to Remember" was released in 1957 and directed by Leo McCarey.  It stars Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr as Nickie Ferrante and Terry McKay, who meet on a boat heading back to New York City.  Naturally they fall in love because that is what generally happens when one watches a romantic comedy.  However, both Nickie and Terry are engaged to other people, so this makes the situation a little be awkward for everyone.  They decide that after they land they will not see each other for six months.  If they still feel the same way about each other in six months they will meet on top of the Empire State Building and get married shortly thereafter.  However, on that night something happens to Terry that prevents her from meeting Nickie.  I'm going to opt to not spoil it for you, in case you feel like seeing it.  Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr had some nice chemistry with each other.  Then again I feel like any actress in the 1930s to 1960s would have chemistry with that man since he was just so charming and irresistible.  Anyways, the story is simple, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.  Older romantic comedies are much better in my opinion.  They just seem less cliched and everything since they are older.  And naturally thanks to the censors they are not trashy.  The cinematography in this film looks quite nice and the filmmakers must have been really happy to get to use technicolor in it.  There were a couple scenes with singing children that I did not appreciate and could have done without.  Singing children, and animals for that matter, do not usually have a place in movies.  One last comment: While the film is usually not laugh out loud funny (it seems to be more of a drama), Cary Grant does have a couple of good one liners.  So I enjoyed the movie.  The story was simple, but good, the stars, talented, and the colors, bright and attractive to look at for slightly less than two hours.  If you like these two actors, old movies, or romantic comedies, I would give it a try.  "An Affair to Remember" actually inspired "Sleepless in Seattle," which I personally don't like, but I understand millions of people do.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Sunset Boulevard: A Quick Review

"Sunset Boulevard" was released in 1950 and was directed by Billy Wilder.  It's the story of Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), an aging silent movie actress and Joseph C. Gillis (William Holden), a movie screenwriter.  She is convinced that people still love her, even though it has been years since her last movie and silent films are no longer being made.  Norma Desmond enlists Joseph C. Gillis to help her finish her script, that she is convinced will be her big comeback.  Her life at this point consists primarily of delusions at this point, since she is so caught up in her former self.  She also becomes very attached to Joseph C. Gillis, a feeling that he certainly does not reciprocate.  The acting is incredible in the film, especially by the two leads.  They compliment each other perfectly and Gloria Swanson played the character of Norma Desmond incredibly well.  On one hand she is completely full of her self, since she used to be such a widely known and respected actress.  On the other hand she is lonely and afraid of the current world she is living in, which is so different from the world decades before when she had a huge fanbase and was loved by millions.  This causes sympathy towards the character, especially since she is most certainly not mentally stable.  The black and white cinematography is absolutely beautiful.  Every scene is so well put together, whether it be a shot down Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles or one of many shots in Norma Desmond's huge mansion, showing how vast it is.  Each of these shots is usually extremely dark in nature and has a lot of shadows, adding to the creepy, lonely feeling of the house, which perfectly mirrors the main character.  There's also some panning across a scene, adding to the visual style of the film.  One of my favorite shots is of Joseph C. Gillis lying dead in a pool.  The camera appears to be in the water looking up at him and the police officers at the edge of the pool.  The score compliments "Sunset Boulevard" perfectly and is one of the best that I have heard in recent memory.  It's a great mix of dark with occasionally romantic tones.  Also, this film had a lot of narration by William Holden, which worked perfectly for this film.  I feel like it is a useful film narrative technique.  Another useful technique that is used is the flashback.  The first scene of "Sunset Boulevard" is one of the last scenes in the film and then the majority is just a huge flashback.  This was done well and worked much better than "Sunset Boulevard" being completely in chronological order.  This is an incredible film to say the least.  It is perfect in every regard and it is no wonder it is still remembered and loved over 60 years later.  I highly recommend it to everyone since it is a classic American film, and one of the best films to come out of this country.  However, if you don't like old or black and white films you may not appreciate it. 4 out of 4 stars.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Machete: A Quick Review

Why in the world is Robert DeNiro in this movie? Can we go back to a time when Robby D starred in movies that won multiple awards and were most likely directed by Martin Scorsese? No? Dang.

Anyways, I'm torn on Machete. On the one hand I am super happy for Danny Trejo (You know the whole being an ex convict turned successful actor thing, that's pretty sweet). The fact that he looks like hes been hit by several buses and gets to star as the main character in a feature length film is incredible. And he is wonderful in Machete. An ex-federale, who was left for dead by Mexican drug lord Steven Seagal, makes his way to America and gets involved in a US congressman's assassination attempt. The only way he can break out is the only way he knows how, by killing everybody as gruesomely as possible and preferably with a machete. (He likes machetes but his name is also Machete...I see what you did there)

Machete can't decide what it is and that's the sad part about it because it addresses a poignant issue in our society. Namely, the control of the US-Mexico border and the drug war in Mexico. At first it seems as if Machete will try to be a violent satire. To which I say bravo, well done. And then the movie keeps going and devolves into the most racially stereotyped Mexican Die Hard film I have ever seen. It was sad, weird, confusing, gross, funny and unsure of what it's next move might be. It could have been built into a much more poignant social commentary but in the end it's just meant to entertain.

Oh and Jessica Alba (Gorgeous) and Lindsay Lohan are just terrible. I don't care if they're naked, at least Danny Trejo and Michelle Rodriguez tried to act. Those first two just were awful and made me vomit everywhere. And Steven Seagal must love cashing that check after the easiest role he has ever been in. Although getting stuck in direct to dvd movies has to be punishment enough


-Christopher O'Connell

Dinner For Schmucks: A Quick Review

I am incredibly perplexed as to how this film made it's way to the big screen. The script is alarmingly shallow and no amount of star power could bring it out of the sewage depths it has attained. I like Paul Rudd and I think Steve Carell is hilarious, but Dinner For Schmucks was turned off halfway through so I could do something more interesting and finish it later. It was like self induced torture.

Most people should know the plot by now, Paul Rudd has been promoted and the first order of business is to find an idiot to bring to a corporate dinner so they can be made fun of by executives. I am almost positive that this happens somewhere in America, probably at large banking firms where they laugh at poor people while burning copious amounts of my money. Paul Rudd is kind of a moral guy and doesn't want to make fun of innocent people but then he runs into Steve Carell, with his car. Steve Carell is the perfect idiot for the job and Rudd has no choice but to invite him along.

 The movie is filled with painfully awkward, unfunny scenes that you just pray will end. Steve Carell is the only shining star and may actually cause some genuine laughs, same goes for Jemaine Clement, but otherwise I would avoid this dinner at all costs. Even if it's free. Especially if it's free.

-Christopher O'Connell

How Do You Know

"How Do You Know" is a romantic comedy written and directed by James L. Brooks.  It stars Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson.

For starters, the plot is paper thin and extremely generic.  Reese Witherspoon plays a softball player who gets cut from the USA team, since she is apparently too old and slow by athletic standards.  Naturally, she is thrown into an awkward love triangle.  One guy is played by Paul Rudd, a business man, who encounters some legal problems that I honestly could not follow all that well.  The second guy is a baseball player played by Owen Wilson.  Jack Nicholson plays Paul Rudd's character's father and boss.  I didn't use the characters names because that's how generic and ridiculous the plot and characters are.

Now for the good, the bad, and the ugly of "How Do You Know."

The Good: Reese Witherspoon is no stranger to romantic comedies, so naturally she does well with this genre.  And she is just way less annoying than someone like Jennifer Aniston or Sarah Jessica Parker.  Also, she has good chemistry with Paul Rudd, in my opinion.  I actually find him quite funny and enjoy him in movies.  Finally, Jack Nicholson is a Hollywood legend and I thoroughly enjoyed his role in this film.  Although he only had a few scenes, he also had some of the few moments of actual humor.  These three talented actors did the best they could with the beyond mediocre material.  Also, the cinematography for this movie is way better than it deserves to be, given the overall quality of the finished product.  "How Do You Know" was filmed by the wonderful, Janusz Kaminski.  He is the only cinematographer that I know by name so I have deemed him my favorite.  He has filmed all of Steven Spielberg's films since "Schindler's List," in 1993.  Think about all the beautiful films he has done during that time, including "Saving Private Ryan," among others.  "How Do You Know," certainly does not look as good as the Steven Spielberg films, for painfully obvious reasons.  However, the set up of scenes, characters, settings, etc was nicely done and I enjoyed the final shot in the film.  I felt it ended a whole lot better than the rest of the film had been.

The Bad: "How Do You Know" is way too long.  It's literally crazy, unbelievable, and baffles me.  It is almost 2 hours long!  One of the key rules to movies is that no comedy should ever be longer than 2 hours and most should try to clock in at about 100 minutes or so.  Apparently James L. Brooks never got that memo and opted to make his more recent movie dangerously close to 2 hours.  Honestly, I thought it was longer than that, since it seemed to drag on for a while.  The plot is weak, basically what is to be expected from your average romantic comedy these days.  The characters are never developed and there really is no reason for Reese Witherspoon to be into either of the guys because she barely knows either of them, although Paul Rudd is the obvious choice to love.  Also, the movie is just not very funny.  The lines, in general are pretty bad...although not nearly as bad as "Burlesque"...but that movie was actually fun to watch and had Cher in it.  This is a shame because James L. Brooks used to be so good, making great television shows like "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and "The Simpsons" and great movies I have yet to see like "Terms of Endearment" and "As Good as it Gets." I guess he's done making quality work, which is a shame, but that's why there's reruns and DVDs everywhere you look.  One final negative thing, the score.  It doesn't really stick out and is just very run-of-the-mill and exactly what you expect from a romantic comedy, most of the time...cheesy and such.  This is a shame because Hans Zimmer did the score, and normally he is phenomenal.  Then again, he usually is working on incredibly well made pieces of film, like "Gladiator" and "The Dark Knight."  I guess he knew he didn't have much to work with, and either way he got a nice paycheck I assume.

The ugly: OWEN WILSON! He is so horrendous and awful.  I do not understand how he is famous.  He is not funny, cannot act, is not charming or likeable, has one of the most annoying faces that I have ever seen (I guess to go with her ridiculous hair), and treated Reese Witherspoon like crap the entire movie, and she is utterly charming and wonderful.  Every single scene that Owen Wilson was in both angered me and made me cringe, made me want to vomit a little and cause myself some physical pain.  I literally cannot express my dislike for him any further, without using profanities.  He is even worse than when I saw him in the first two "Meet the Parents" movies and that dumb dog movie with Jennifer Aniston.  It's horrifying.

Well there's the good, the bad, and the ugly of James L. Brooks' "How Do You Know."  Take from it what you will.  In all honesty if you do see it, just rent it, it's not worth the price of admission for the theaters...and now there are tons of better options currently playing.  Really the only reasons to see it would be Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, and Jack Nicholson.  The script is disappointing, there are approximately 976 better romantic comedies out there to rent, and then there's that man whose name I will not mention again in this review because I literally might scream and my whole family is sleeping, and I assume that would wake them up. 1 out of 4 stars....Oh boy...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: A Quick Review

Honestly, when I first saw the trailer for this movie I was prepared to hate on it like it was going out of style. I made fun of the style, I made fun of Michael Cera for being typecast into oblivion, and I made fun of Edgar Wright for taking on a project of immense stupidity. So, obviously I was overjoyed when Scott Pilgrim made about 3 dollars at the box office. "Ha!" I mused, "Now Hollywood won't try to put this sort of crap in the way of my eyeballs anymore," all while calmly sipping tea and acting better than everyone else. And sadly, this is the truth.

Hollywood probably won't try this again and that's a total bummer because Scott Pilgrim is pretty funny and kind of enjoyable to say the least. Edgar Wright's past movies (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) were incredible examples of film making and Wright uses a lot of his best techniques in Scott Pilgrim. His style is quick and usually requires multiple viewings to grab every joke. I probably missed about half of the jokes in Scott Pilgrim because there are just so many in there. Many of them had me laughing out loud for real, and I was pleasantly surprised. It's still not a great film. It's hard to get through because after the first few fights the movie drags on. By the last villain the audience is just hoping it will end. Thankfully Michael Cera is a fresh breath of air and is only slightly typecast. His coming timing is really well done actually. I wish fan boys would swoon over this movie instead of Kick-Ass because I am so tired of hearing how that is the best movie ever. Take a peak if you like Edgar Wright and can handle the most ADD film on the planet and maybe turn on the subtitles to try to catch all of the dialogue.

-Christopher O'Connell

Mask: A Quick Review

"Mask" was released in 1985 and was directed by Peter Bogdanovich.  It stars Cher, Sam Elliott, and Eric Stoltz.  This film is based off the real life story of Rocky Dennis (Eric Stoltz), a boy who suffered from craniodiaphyseal dysplasia, an extremely rare, fatal disease that leaves one's face extremely disfigured.  Cher, plays his motorcycle rider mother, Rusty, who loves her son regardless.  Sam Elliott plays her boyfriend, Gar, who is also accepting of Rocky's disfigured face.  Rocky is an extremely smart boy, but naturally is judged by many people, because of his appearance.  Cher is a phenomenal actress.  There is no doubt about it.  Of course in order to prove my point, do not watch "Burlesque." In her defense she had a horrendous script to deal with for that one.  However, her Oscar winning performance in "Moonstruck" and her role in "Mask" makes it obvious.  I don't understand how she did not get an Oscar nomination for her role as Rusty Dennis...she was incredible.  She loves her son and is incredibly defensive when other people look down on him because of his appearance.  Also, she is dealing with drug and alcohol problems.  She is a flawed character, obviously and just strong willed and one of the only people who truly knows Rocky.  Cher is the only actress I can picture in this role, showed tons of emotion, is a great crier (which I really appreciate), and had familial chemistry with Eric Stoltz.  This movie is definitely sad, but also extremely inspiring and beautiful.  "Mask" boasts great acting, an powerful/emotional story, and just great themes of love, acceptance, among many others.  Also, the film has a great soundtrack of Bruce Springteen songs, since the real Rocky Dennis loved him.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would recommend it.  However, if you're for some reason anti-Cher or anti-movies that don't end happily, then I would opt not to watch it.  You would sadly be missing out on a great chunk of cinema in that case.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Die Hard: A Quick Review

"Die Hard," released in 1988 was directed by John McTiernan.  It stars Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, and others.  John McClane, a New York City police officer goes to see his wife in Los Angeles.  While at her office Christmas party the entire building is taken over by terrorists, led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman).  Naturally it's up to John McClane to save the day.  If it wasn't up to him then there wouldn't be three sequels to this incredibly popular movie.  I loved this movie.  For starters Bruce Willis is wonderful.  Sure, he plays a similar character in many of his movies.  However, I think this is perfectly fine because he is a great action movie star.  He has a great command of the screen and just is so incredibly convincing fending off terrorists with lots of gunfire and wit.  The action sequences are all beautifully executed, whether it be aerial shots of the building explosions or more close up shots of Bruce Willis, naturally with plenty of shadows to add drama and thrills, maneuvering his way around the building.  And one final note, this is indeed a Christmas movie, which just makes the enjoyment of it a little bit greater...Christmas songs during the end credits just don't lie.  "Die Hard" is a highly entertaining action movie, with plenty of thrills, nicely produced action sequences, and enough Bruce Willis to make any fan of him, or the action genre happy.

-Joseph Sbrilli