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