The Dark Knight

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Christian Bale – Bruce Wayne/Batman
Heath Ledger - Joker
Aaron Eckhart – Harvey Dent

Plot (contains spoilers): I will try to make this as short as possible. Virtually no time has passed since the end of Batman begins, 6 months maximum, and Batman has inspired the people of Gotham. While the police are “aggressively” looking for Batman they are very willing to include him on investigations. The Joker is committing more crimes but Batman chooses to focus on mob bosses that run the town. In a meeting attended by the mob bosses, the Joker, who has been stealing their money, crashes in to make a deal: join together to kill Batman. Harvey Dent is the fearless new District Attorney for Gotham and his is taking on crime in the city no matter how many enemies he makes. Dent, like Batman, is a hero to the city. He is a symbol of hope to the people that Gotham will get better. Batman views Harvey as his ticket out, Gotham no longer needs Batman because it has its hero, a hero that resides within the law and not above it. The grey area of where Batman stands gets darker when the Joker tells the city that he will begin to kill innocent people until Batman turns himself in. Harvey Dent calls a press conference to address the issue but upon hearing the calls of the people for Batman to turn himself in, Dent, knowing the necessity of Batman, turns himself in claiming to be Batman. This leads to a series of events and some sweet action scenes where the Joker is captured. While in jail, Harvey and Rachel Dawes, the love interest of Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent, are captured and Batman must make a choice on whom to save. He mistakenly rescues Harvey and one side of Harvey’s face is horribly disfigured in the process. Devastated by the loss of Rachel, Harvey is trying to make sense of it all and is paid a visit by the Joker, he got out via an exploding fat man. Fueled by rage, Harvey, now Two-Face, goes after those responsible for Rachel’s death, deciding their fate by a flip of a coin. Ultimately, Two-Face captures Commissioner Gordon and his family and while deciding the fate of each member Batman flies in and knocks Dent to his death. Faced with a difficult choice, Batman tells Gordon to blame the deaths that Harvey caused on him so that Dent will remain the hero he was. We end the movie with Batman fleeing from the police as a criminal. (I apologize for this crappy synopsis. I know I left a lot out but I didn’t want to write that much. I tried to focus on what I thought the movie was about. Besides is you are reading this you most likely saw the movie already.)

Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• The length worked for and against it. The movie is two and a half hours by the end I was squirming in my seat because I really had to go to the bathroom. Let this be a lesson, even if you don’t have to go, buy your ticket, food, and find your seat and go before the movie starts.
• The sonar eyes was dumb. However it was not a dumb as the microwave emitter in “Batman Begins”. What is dumb about a microwave emitter? A machine that emits microwaves to boil an enemy’s water but conveniently doesn’t boil the water that makes up 70% of humans. While the microwave emitter was impossible, the sonar eyes were somewhat believable though still dumb in my book.
• Batman seemed a little weak in this one. If he could own the League of Shadows in the first one, a few street thugs should be a walk in the park. However I remember some fights where Batman wasn’t in complete control. Maybe he just wanted them to feel like they had a chance.
• Maggie Gyllenhaal was not good for this part. Maybe this is offensive but see looks old. The fundraiser scene, she looked like she was 57. Not flattering at all.

Reasons why I liked it:
• Heath Ledger was amazing. A lot of people were saying that he could be nominated for an Oscar for his performance but I thought that people were saying that because he was dead. I stand corrected. If he were alive I would be there with everyone else saying he is Oscar worthy. He played better than I could have hoped. He was truly terrifying.
• The story was great. I hinted earlier in my synopsis what I thought the movie was about and I felt that it was about the line between good and evil/right and wrong. The Joker was obviously evil but we see two sides of good: one with in the law(Harvey Dent) and one above it(Batman). Since this was the main theme of the movie, I think this is why Harvey Dent was such a prominent character. We learn through the eyes of Batman that what is right and good is not always black and white and maybe more importantly that good men are corruptible.
• It was just a sweet-A movie. Good action, good characters, and good story.

Final Notes: Best movie of the summer if not the year. This movie confirmed its place as the best superhero series ever. Also, in my opinion, it confirmed that Christian Bale is the best Batman ever and Heath Ledger was better than Nicholson. I know it was two different ideas about who the Joker should be but Heath’s was more scary, more interesting, and a better villain.

Hancock

Young's Review

When one hears the term superhero, a specific picture comes to mind. A protagonist is called in to save the day and usually does. He or she is a bastion of virtue that has an All-American image.

And then there's 'Hancock'.

John Hancock (Will Smith) always catches the bad guy, but leaves in his wake a trail of property damage and resentment. This tale of a superhero with an image problem certainly does not follow any formula and, while it does not entirely live up to its enormous potential, is a funny and entertaining movie. I am giving it a 'thumbs up'.

The movie opens with a hungover Hancock sleeping on a city bench. A little boy alerts him to the fact that some bad guys are leading the cops on a high speed chase on a Los Angeles freeway. After alienating the kid with a caustic comment, Hancock flies off to remedy the situation. The problem is he also leaves nine million dollars in damage to the city. The police chief publicly denounces Hancock, who doesn't seem to mind.

Shortly thereafter, Hancock saves Ray (Jason Bateman), a public relations specialist whose car is stuck on the train tracks as a train barrels down. Hancock rushes in to save Ray's life, but again causes massive destruction. The crowd that gathers hurls insults rather than praises at Hancock, but Ray comes to his defense. Thus begins Ray's attempt to restore Hancock's public persona. After introducing Hancock to his wife Mary (Charlize Theron) and son, Ray tries to convince the surly superhero to turn himself in and go to jail. Ray's logic is that if Hancock goes away for a while, the crime rate will rise and everyone will see just how important he is to the city. While there, the plan is to work on improving Hancock's personality.

The plan seems to work at first, until a twist is thrown into the story regarding the origin of Hancock's superpowers and Mary's true identity. And that is where the recap portion of this review ends (sorry, no spoilers here!).

The three main actors are perfectly cast. Smith again confirms why he is one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood. He gives a pitch perfect performance in the lead role, bringing an edge to Hancock the movie going public rarely sees from the normally squeaky clean Smith (the movie is rated PG-13 for language). Smith makes you care about the character even though Hancock is a grade A jerk.

Bateman, who has enjoyed a career renaissance since starring in the woefully underappreciated TV comedy 'Arrested Development', is hilarious. Rarely has an actor been able to draw so many laughs based solely on the manner in which he delivers his lines. Theron is also good as the mysterious Mary. She conitnues to prove that she should be known more for her acting ability than her pretty face.

While the movie bogs down a bit towards the end, director Peter Berg does a nice job of pacing the story overall. It would have been easy for the cast to just mail in its performances because this movie is a guaranteed blockbuster. Much to his credit, Berg refuses to let that happen. All three stars bring their A-game in the movie's more dramatic moments.

The special effects are stunning, as well. Watching the train get derailed and seeing the street get blown apart each time Hancock lands after flying are both awe inspiring tricks.

'Hancock' does have some strange turns and threatens to come apart in the final third, but I still recommend it to anyone looking for some worthwhile summer entertainment. It is funny, action packed and an all-around good time.

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Will Smith – John Hancock
Jason Bateman – Ray Embrey
Charlize Theron – Mary Embrey

Plot (contains spoilers):
See above review.

Reason why I didn’t like it:
• The twist was a little lame and somewhat predictable to me. I mean why would they cast Charlize Theron for the role of wife?

Reasons why I liked it:
• I have said before that my biggest pet peeve concerning movies is when a character goes from one end of the spectrum to the other overnight. I hate that. However when a movie does it right, it is one of my favorite things. This would be an example of that. This is regarded as a superhero movie but to me it was about a man dealing with pain. Outwardly Hancock is rude, careless, and drunk but inwardly he is trying to deal with the fact that people hate him. We see later, in one of the best scenes in the movie, that he has no idea who he is. The story of man seeming all alone trying his best deal with what he is feeling while keeping up the persona of an indestructible man is why this movie was so great.
• Will Smith is a great actor. Played the character beautifully.
• Some people, including myself, thought the twist was lame. However I also thought that it added to the depth of the story and its main character. From my perspective the movie had two parts. The first was about Hancock dealing with feelings and coping with his past. With the help of Ray, Hancock addressed his hurt, turned himself around, and become the loved superhero he wanted to be. At this point the movie could end, Hancock has come full circle and a bad guy was beaten. However, with the aid of the twist, Hancock’s true past is brought to light and now it is one more thing for him to deal with to become at peace. In the end Hancock must make a decision and it is his sacrificial choice that shows the end of his journey.
• Jason Bateman is awesome in this movie. His style of comedy is perfect for this story.

Final Notes: I think I am the only one by saying this but this is, so far, the best movie of the summer. When you look specifically at the story of the character, Will Smith has never done something like this before. Great movie, if you don’t mind coarse language, you need to see it.

WALL-E

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Ben Burtt – WALL-E
Elissa Knight – Eve
Jeff Garlin - Captain

Plot (contains spoilers):
When human consumption has left behind too much garbage that Earth becomes uninhabitable, Big N’ Large, the company that provides us with everything, offers to send the entire Earth’s population on a five year space cruise while the clean up the mess. The Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth Class robot or WALL-E is there to do the job. Unfortunately he has been doing it for 700 years. Working all alone amidst skyscrapers of garbage, WALL-E roams around not only cubing garbage but also collecting interesting items, watching musicals, and interacting with his only friend a cockroach. A spacecraft lands in an opening and leaves behind Eve. Immediately WALL-E is drawn to her and after some explosive encounters, they become friends. However Eve is there for a purpose and that purpose is to find vegetation. Once she finds a plant she takes it and goes into lockdown mode. Not knowing what happened to his friend, WALL-E does everything he can to care for her while she is out. The spacecraft returns for Eve and not wanting his friend to leave, WALL-E grabs holds and is taken on the journey through space to the human “cruise” ship. Big N’ Large has taken care of all of our needs. They have provided many activities, hover chairs to ease getting around, and robots to bring us all the food we want. When we arrive at the ship we find that after 700 years in space, humans have gotten lazy and grossly obese. The arrival of the plant causes some great drama, as an Eve robot, Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, has never brought back a plant. The captain therefore must start operation re-colonize however the ship’s main computer is operating under different orders: stay in space. Skip over about 20 minutes of conflict, WALL-E, Eve, and humans overcome the computer and come back to Earth.

Reason why I didn’t like it:
• Not as funny as what I was expecting. I did laugh a lot however there wasn’t a constant flow of laughter because it was a serious movie at parts.

Reasons why I liked it:
• The animation was fantastic. The detail of the animation was superb. For earlier animated movies, the animation of the focus of the scene was great, however the background and surfaces are simple, smooth, and monochromatic. This movie had great detail for everything and it, animation wise, is on its own level.
• The story was really good. It was funny and the love story was unique to Pixar. I had read that some thought that the story was a little too mature for Pixar’s target audience. I thought that kids enjoyed it. One of the perks for seeing a movie on its release is that you can see it with its target audience. While at times it was annoying to be in a theater of children, it allowed me to witness that little people got really attached to the story.
• The story telling was good. I didn’t realize it during the movie but my friend Nate pointed out that there was virtually no dialogue. Other than the robots saying “Eve” and “WALL-E” for the first hour they communicated everything through sounds and gestures and that is impressive both for this point and my animation point.

Final Notes: I liked this movie although not as much as “The Incredibles”. However this movie will be a real hit with your kids. If you don’t have kids and have a heart, you will enjoy it as well. Do see this in a theater because I do think you will miss some of the fantastic animation.



Young's Review

'WALL-E', the latest film from Pixar Studios, is a portrait of irony.

Never has a character displayed so poignantly what it means to be human. The irony, of course, is that WALL-E is a robot.

This film is a perfect blend of eye popping visuals, humor and poignancy. At it's core, 'WALL-E' is simply a wonderful story and it is worthy of a 'thumbs up'.

WALL-E is the last of several hundred robots designed to rid earth of a catastrophic waste problem. He is designed to gather trash and compact it into easily stored squares. All of humanity is off in space living in massive ships awaiting the day when it can return home.

WALL-E is just going through the motions of a typical day when a spaceship lands and throws his world for a loop. A machine, named EVE, begins searching for some form of life. After initially being terrified of EVE, WALL-E becomes smitten and grows attached to her. Problems arise, however, when EVE sees a plant that WALL-E has been keeping alive in an old shoe. Upon seeing it, she takes the plant and shuts down. The ship comes back and takes EVE away, but WALL-E is so bound to protect his new love that he hops onboard. The adventure continues among the humans in space as WALL-E tries to save EVE, and EVE tries to do the same for WALL-E.

This movie is a remarkable achievement in several ways. First, and most impressively, is the fact that so much is communicated with such a small amount of dialogue. There are hardly any words spoken in the first half of the movie, and the two main characters barely say anything beyond each other's names. Non verbal communication has never been so prevalent in an animated picture. Ben Burtt, who perfected the audio for the character R2-D2 in the 'Star Wars' franchise, works his magic again here. His sound editing work should earn him an Oscar nomination.

Visually, this film may be the finest work yet by the creative geniuses at Pixar. The initial spaceship landing is so vivid that it makes you feel like you are there. All of the colors and moving parts create a wonderland for the eyes. WALL-E's fascination with the old musical 'Hello Dolly' is also a visual treat.

The two main characters in this film have so much heart and are very easy to root for. WALL-E develops a winning personality after being isolated for so many years. His relationship with EVE is sweet without crossing over into being sappy. This is a story that will connect with both adults and children.

The short film 'Presto', about a rabbit who just wants a carrot and the magician that keeps it from him, precedes 'WALL-E' and continues in the Pixar tradition of entertaining lead-ins.

The Happening

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Mark Wahlberg – Elliot Moore
Zooey Deschanel – Alma Moore
John Leguizamo – Julian
Ashlyn Sanchez - Jess

Plot (contains spoilers):
One morning two friends are sitting on a park bench in Central Park talking when one of them can’t remember what page they were on. She repeats herself and then sits motionless. When she stops talking the other friend realizes that everyone has stopped moving. That is when friend one takes a pin out of her hair and jabs it into her throat. A block away a construction worker falls off a building. The other workers on the ground rush over to help. Then another body falls, then another, and another. In Philidelphia, Elliot Moore and Julian are pulled out of class for a teacher’s meeting. That is where they learn about the incidences and that they are spreading. School is canceled for the day and Julian decides to leave the city. He invites Elliot and Alma even though Julian does not like Alma due to her treatment of Elliot. On the way out the train stops because they have lost contact with everyone. Julian desperate to get in contact with his wife, who had to leave the city later, hitches a ride to New Jersey leaving Elliot and Alma to take care of his daughter Jess. Still not knowing the cause of the incident, the three get a ride but when the hit a crossroad cars coming from the other directions report that people there have committed suicide. They are left with one option, to hike in the only direction they have left. They split into two groups and the wind starts blowing. As one group is making their way, the wind passes through and one by one people start stopping and the inevitable starts. Elliot’s group, which is much smaller, happens upon a house, which is unfortunately inhabited by a crazy old woman. While in the house the wind picks up and Elliot finds himself in a cupboard while Alma and Jess are locked up in a shed. Able to communicate through a pipe in the ground, Elliot decides that he doesn’t want to die by himself and walks outside to them. A few months later Elliot and Alma have adopted Jess, reconciled their marriage, and are having a baby of their own. Also scientists discover the source of the event, it was the trees. The planet is warning us.

Reasons why I didn’t like it:
• The ending was lame. Usually M. Night Shyamalan’s movies have a big twist in the end that wasn’t revealed earlier in the movie as a possibility. About halfway through the idea that it might be the trees was said and I felt that it really cut down the suspense because you knew what the cause was. I thought it would have been better if we never knew what the cause was and all possibilities were plausible.
• In the end it stopped being a movie and started being a platform. One of the last scenes is the scientist telling us that it was the trees and that the planet is warning us. Right there I felt that Shyamalan stopped making a movie to entertain and used his movie to promote his political view. Don’t do that to me. If you want to make a political movie then make one that I won’t go see. I want to see a movie and be entertained not lectured.
• Unnecessary gore. They really promoted this movie as Shyamalan’s first R rated movie and most of the gore, which caused it to be R rated, was dumb and really cheapened the movie. His other movies are suspenseful because he leaves the gore up to our imagination, while he does do this some in the movie, most of unrealistic and really brought the movie down.

Reasons why I liked it:
• It was suspenseful. I know I just got done saying close to the opposite but it was, and I would say that it might be his most suspenseful. The whole time with the crazy old woman had me freaked out. The idea that all these people are running from something that they can’t see is thrilling. The scenes where he did leave the gore to our imagination were very suspenseful. The climatic scene where Elliot and Alma walk out into the wind had me on the edge of my seat.
• The acting was pretty good. I know a lot of people say it was bad but after talking with Nate I did change my opinion. All the actors overacted their parts and seemed to play them as little children. Now some people will say that that is bad acting but it had to be done on purpose because everyone in the movie acted like that. So the question is what is the purpose? I would guess, going along with Shyamalan’s political view (see 2nd point under why I didn’t like it), that he did that to show that we as a society are naïve, think like little children, about our place in the world with respect to Mother Earth. I think that makes sense.
• This movie displayed why Shyamalan is a great moviemaker. A lot of people say that Shyamalan’s movies are good because of the twist endings but I would argue that he is great because he has the ability to tell an original story with an interesting plot filled with unique characters and it is the development of his characters that sets him apart from other moviemakers. The reason the scene where Elliot and Alma brave the wind is because of their personal journey through the movie. They start off as a couple on the brink of break up and go to a couple that chooses to die together. To me that is where the movie is.

Final Notes: By far this movie has given me the most trouble on what grade to give it. I think it shows why he is good but it also has a lot of problems with it. Don’t go see it for the surprise ending, as it will leave you wanting. Go see it for the reasons that Shyamalan is great.

Young's Review

Too much pre-release hype can be a dangerous thing for a new movie. When a film is overexposed before it even hits theaters, a backlash can occur once the public actually sees it.

M. Night Shyamalan's latest film 'The Happening' was widely trumpeted as the visionary filmmaker's first R-rated picture, which has led to much speculation as to whether the rating is just a gimmick to draw viewers to see a bad movie. In this critic's opinion the hype was overblown, and I am giving the film a 'thumbs up'.

The movie begins with strange occurrences of death happening all over New York City. People are impulsively finding ways to kill themselves, whether it be by jamming a hairpin into their throat (hello R-rating!) or by walking off of a building. The scene shifts to Philadelphia, where we meet high school teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg). He is in the middle of a class when he is interrupted for an emergency staff meeting. The principal informs Elliot and his colleagues of a terrorist attack in New York. To be safe, the students are being sent home.

Elliot decides to leave town with his wife Alma (Zoey Deschanel), his close friend Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian's daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). In the process of fleeing town and amid rising public panic, Julian leaves Jess behind with Eliot and Alma to go look for his wife in New Jersey. Thus begins an eerie journey to safety for the newly formed family.

This film is unlike anything Shyamalan has ever done. It is like a mix between a second rate horror movie spoof and an old episode of 'The Twilight Zone'. It has more of a creepy science fiction feel than his other work. While there is more gore than in his other films (thus the rating), it doesn't feel over the top. The pacing is a little slower than his other work as well, and it works in this case.

I liked the film for several reasons. First, Shyamalan's direction of his cast is dynamite and it leads to some comic relief in an otherwise tense film. Wahlberg has been panned by many film critics for being too melodramatic and over the top. My interpretation is that this is exactly what Shyamalan is going for and it is the right decision. A scene where Eliot finds out his wife lied about having coffee with another man is not sappy but hilarious because of Wahlberg's genuine hurt about being left in the dark.

The writing is top notch, as is to be expected from a Shyamalan script. The film does not have an overly complicated plot, yet kept me mesmerized throughout. The concept of a country's paranoia over a possible terrorist attack is fitting in today's social climate, and the way in which Shyamalan handles the public's panic is spot on.

The cast is great. I clearly am in the minority here, but I am a big fan of Wahlberg. He has proven in the past that he can do a fun popcorn movie ('The Italian Job'), a feel good underdog sports flick ('Invincible'), and even be a scene stealer in a lesser role ('The Departed'). Here, Wahlberg is perfectly over the top as Eliot and I honestly could not see anyone else playing the part. Deschanel, who delivered a brilliant performance in the underseen cable miniseries 'Tin Man' last year, is also a great casting choice as the offbeat Alma.

The film may leave some M. Night fans seething, either because of the lack of a trademark big twist or because of the relatively tame ending, but I thoroughly enjoyed this creepy homage to second rate horror films of days gone by.

Oh, and one more thing: don't be ashamed when you jump through the roof because of the creepy old lady. I did the same thing.

Kung Fu Panda

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Jack Black – Po
Dustin Hoffman – Shifu
Ian McShane – Tai Lung

Plot (contains spoilers): Po spends most of his free time dreaming about being the world’s greatest kung fu master. Unfortunately he is fat, clumsy, and a little dim. The day has come to reveal the dragon warrior. Since Po was unable to climb the stairs in time, he is not in the temple to see who it is. However, through a chair and rockets, he launches himself into the temple and is unexpectedly appointed the dragon warrior. Master Shifu can’t believe the choice that has been made and he makes it his goal to get Po to quit. Though Po is put through some horrible tasks, he does not quit. When evil king fu legend Tai Lung escapes from prison, Shifu is forced to do some inward thinking and decides to train Po to become the dragon warrior though he does not know how to do it. When he returns to the temple he finds Po raiding the kitchen and in his pursuit for food, Shifu discovers that Po has come innate Kung Fu qualities and finally realizes how to train Po. In no time at all Po has become the dragon warrior and faces off against Tai Lung in an epic battle.

Reason why I didn’t like it:
• It was a kids movie, so if you are looking for something more then you will be disappointed.

Reasons why I liked it:
• Jack Black is hilarious. I can’t explain why I find him so funny but it just seems that whenever he opens his mouth I laugh.
• This movie was not typical Jack Black humor. So for those of you that don’t really enjoy him, you will still enjoy this movie.
• Great movie for kids. It has great animation, good morals, and it is only one hour and thirty minutes long.

Final Notes: This was a great movie and I enjoyed pretty much every minute of it and I don’t even have kids.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Down

Notable Characters:
Harrison Ford – Indiana Jones
Cate Blanchett – Irina Spalko
Karen Allen – Marion Ravenwood
Shia LaBeouf – Mutt Williams

Plot (contains spoilers): In the 1950’s/60’s, somehow Indy has been captured by Russians and taken to a military installment. The head Russian, Irina Spalko, forces Indy to find a peculiar artifact. Once found, Indy manages to escape Russian gun fire and live through an atomic blast via refrigerator. However as a result of being tangled with the Russians, he is believed to be a communist and is fired from the university. On his way to a new life, he is found by Mutt Williams who needs his help in finding a lost colleague who was searching for the crystal skull. Intrigued by this adventure, the two set off in search of the professor and unbeknownst to them are being followed by commies. The two get captured and we discover that the professor, who has gone crazy due to the crystal skull, has also been captured and so has Mutt’s mom, Marion Ravenwood. Indy is forced to read the mind of the mad professor, with the aid of the skull, and learns of the location of the temple that the skull needs to be returned to. On the way fill in some action sequences (gun fire, punching, cars falling off cliff, swinging through jungle, etc.). Once at the temple we learn the true secret behind this hidden civilization: aliens. They came down, blessed the people with technology, covered the city in gold, and gave them some artifacts from around the world. Everyone makes it home safely and Indiana and Marion are finally married.

Reasons why I liked it:
· Harrison was a big question mark for me. However, despite what you may have read, he still has it. He kept up with all the action sequences and stepped into the shoes of our beloved archeologist perfectly.
· Sound effects. Maybe I’m just a geek, but when the punches were being landed, the iconical “smack” brought back some fond memories.
· In similar fashion to the old Jones movies, the makers found cool, unique ways to make the villains die. Face melting (Lost Ark), ripped by crocs (Doom), and rapid aging (Crusade) are all great but this one had one that was pretty sweet.

Reasons why I didn’t like it:
· George Lucas should stop writing movies. I was scrolling through his resume and was looking at what his good writing has brought: Herbie, American Graffiti, obviously Star Wars (4, 5, and 6), Lost Ark, Willow. These, with some debate, are probably considered his best work. Willow was made in 1988. Since then it has just been Star Wars 1, 2, and 3 and I think we know how those turned out. This one fared no differently.
· Most of action sequences are dumb. I know that Indiana Jones movies are built around extravagant action scenes but there is always some degree where it could happen. Surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge? Swinging through the jungle on vines? The scenes were cheesy, silly, and only done to show off average special effects.
· Aliens, how original. Again, Indiana Jones movies have always had some supernatural aspect but they have been original. Alien involvement is not original, it is silly.

Final Notes: I feel that I need to say this up front: I can’t judge this movie on its own. Which brings up the question: should this be judged on its own or should it be judged in light of its predecessors? I find myself in the latter group. I grew up with the originals and it was primarily because of those, that I wanted to see this one. It was entertaining but a very poor capstone to an amazing trilogy.

Young's Review

To say there was a lot of hype heading into 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' would be to revel in understatement. Fans of the original trilogy were worried about the movie living up to the glory of its predecessors and wondering if Harrison Ford still had what it took to carry the franchise.

While there are enough holes to fall short of the original three films, Ford's performance still makes Indiana Jones 4 entertaining enough. That is why I am giving it a 'thumbs up'.

The movie opens in 1957 in the remote Nevada desert. Rogue Russian military officers have captured Mr. Jones and his friend Mac (Ray Winstone) in hopes that Indy can lead them to an ancient artifact that guards a massive treasure. The commies, led by the cold and calculating Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), don't quite realize who they are dealing with. Mac reveals himself to be a traitor, seemingly leaving Indy in a no-win situation. The audience knows better, however, and an action packed chase scene ensues.

Not long after his escape, Indy meets a brash young man in need of his assistance named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf). Mutt explains that his mother, along with Indy's mentor Professor Oxley (John Hurt), has been kidnapped by the Russians. Furthermore, he explains that his mother instructed him to find Indy to help out. Reluctantly, Indy finally agrees, and the adventure is on.

What follows is the typical Indiana Jones experience on steroids. The car chases are a little wilder, the fight scenes a bit more hectic and the believability factor stretched even further. All the hijinks are fun, but be warned: this movie is not for someone who needs their action to be realistic. The sequence in the jungle is so off the wall it makes a James Bond movie look like a documentary by comparison. The crowning moment is the ridiculous sight of Mutt doing his best Tarzan impression by swinging from vine to vine to catch up to the enemy.

Legendary director Steven Spielberg maintains a breakneck pace from the start. He also pulls out a fourth consecutive good performance out of Ford. Much was made about Ford's age prior to the movie's release, but Mr. Han Solo is up to the task. He still exudes the perfect blend of charm and cockiness, while always maintaining his Average Joe persona (yes, he still hates snakes).

LaBoeuf is a pleasant surprise as Mutt. His greaser look is a tool for laughs throughout and he holds his own in the presence of Ford. Blanchett is the perfect choice for the villain, and Karen Allen looks almost the same as she did nearly 30 years ago as Indy's old flame Marion Ravenwood, who as it turns out is Mutt's mother.

The ending is a bit much to take as things turn a bit weird. If you can get past the unblievable nature of the action scenes, though, this is an entertaining way to spend two hours. Number four is not as good as the first three, but taken on its own is a fun time.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Ben Barnes – Prince Caspian
Georgie Henley – Lucy Pevensie
Skandar Keynes – Edmund Pevensie
William Moseley – Peter Pevensie
Anna Popplewell – Susan Pevensie
Sergio Castellitto – King Miraz

Plot (contains spoilers):
The land of Narnia has been taken over by the Telmarines. Since the death of Caspian IX, the people have been waiting for Caspian X to come of age and take over the throne. However when Miraz, Caspian’s uncle, has a son, he orders the prince’s death and Caspian must quickly leave the castle. Before his departure, his tutor gives him a horn and tells him to blow it when he needs help. Riding through the forest Caspian is sandwiched between knights and dwarfs and blows on the horn. The Pevensie kids, back in Post WWII London, are getting on a train when they are suddenly all back in Narnia. As they explore they realize that it has been many years since they were last in Narnia. Eventually they meet up with Caspian and decide to gather all creatures of Narnia to go to war and rid the land of the Telmarines. Facing horrible odds, Peter challenges King Miraz to a winner take all duel. Peter wins and as a result of treachery of one of the Telmarines, the Narnians are forced to fight. Slowly losing, Alsan finally makes an appreance to rescue the Narnians. Caspian becomes king of Narnia and the Pevensies go back to London, however we learn that only two will return.

Reasons why I didn’t like it:
· Totally not a PG movie. I don’t know how it got that rating. This movie had to have set a record for most death in a PG movie. If you are planning on taking small kids to see this, beware.
· I read all the books but I don’t remember them and it was awhile since I saw the first movie. This movie had no recap, so if you didn’t see the first one there were some things that you wouldn’t get completely. Also there were some moments that seemed important, at least that is what the music hinted, that I didn’t fully understand. I think I might have if I read the books and remembered them.

Reasons why I liked it:
· Great story. I don’t remember the book, so I can say if it stayed true, but it had all the makings of a good epic. Also this movie was darker than the last and I love dark movies.
· I had read that some people thought the acting was horrible but I think that the actors were enormously better than they were in the first movie. I felt that they had grown in their acting abilities and because they are all a little older, the action sequences were fantastic.
· The books were written by C.S. Lewis, Christian theologian, and so the books/movies have Christian themes in them. However I feel that this is a movie that anyone can see, even those who hate Christians because the Christian lessons this movie promotes is like Aslan, you won’t find it until you go looking for it.

Final Notes: Wonderful movie and I can’t wait for the next one due in 2010. Can’t really say if it was better than Ironman because they are different movies but I think that I had more fun watching this than Ironman.

What Happens In Vegas

This Saturday, I am back in the saddle after a long Saturday morning hiatus. Since James will be gone, it is my pick this week. Therefore, my wife and I (and hopefully you!) will be screening the New Ashton Kutcher/Cameron Diaz comedy 'What Happens In Vegas' at the Esquire in Richmond Heights at 11 a.m. As usual, tickets are just four bucks. I hope to see many of you there!

Nathan

Leatherheads

By Nathan Young

Professional football has grown so much that Super Bowl Sunday is an unofficial national holiday.

That was not always the case, as 'Leatherheads' points out. George Clooney's latest directorial effort is a fun and nostalgic look at the game at its roots, leather helmets inluded (thus the movie's title). While it does not reach hall-of-fame status in the sports movie category, Clooney's performance both behind the camera and in front of it is worthy of a 'thumbs up'.

Jimmy "Dodge" Connelly (Clooney) is an aging football player for the Duluth (Minn.) Bulldogs who aspires to make pro football a legitmate enterprise in the mid-1920's. The college game is booming, drawing tens of thousands of fans each week. The Bulldogs, by comparison, are lucky to crack triple digits at the turnstiles. Dodge concocts a plan to woo college superstar and war hero Carter "The Bullet" Rutherford (John Krasinski, aka Jim from 'The Office'), to join his team. Carter is a stellar running back at Princeton who also is a successful pitchman for many products.

Just as Dodge begins to negotiate with Carter and his meddlesome agent (Jonathan Pryce), an enterprising reporter enters the scene. Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger) is a tough customer who is looking to find the real story of Carter's wartime heroics that earned him a medal of honor. He is no hero at all, according to a source, and she sets out to prove it while following the Bulldogs' season.

Carter joins the Bulldogs and pro football begins to take off. A love triangle ensues involving the three main characters, with Dodge providing the rugged, experienced option to Carter's boyish charm for Ms. Littleton.

The movie starts a little slow, but finds its stride about a quarter of the way through. The cast is too good to let things bog down too much. Clooney, a movie star in the truest sense of the term, carries the load. He brings a bit of his 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' sensibility to the proceedings. Zellweger is fesity in the role of Lexie. In a man's world, she makes her presence known without being intimidated. Krasinski again proves he has a promising future ahead of him after being one of the few bright spots in last year's otherwise forgettable 'License To Wed'. He strikes a perfect balance of self confidence and charm.

The supporting cast is very good as well, especially Keith Loneker as the hulking high schooler turned pro Big Gus. In fact, a scene where Gus joins the team at a train station is one of the funniest in the movie. Clooney the director gets the most out of all of his actors and moves the story along in fine fashion.

The movie does not have as many laugh out loud moments as I had hoped for. The quality of the story overcame that fact though, thanks in part to former 'Sports Illustrated' columnist Rick Reilly, who co-wrote the screeplay. The movie is an ode to the way football used to be played, before money turned it from a game into a business. It is an entertaining way to spend an hour and a half, and ultimately that is the point of seeing this type of movie in the first place.

Iron Man

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark
Terrence Howard - Jim Rhodes
Jeff Bridges - Obadiah Stane
Gwyneth Paltrow - Pepper Potts

Plot (contains spoilers): Playboy and super genius, Tony Stark, has built a multi-billion dollar empire based on making weapons. While in the Middle East showing off a new weapon he is captured by terrorists and forced to replicate the weapon for them. The terrorists have managed to accumulate a giant stockpile of Stark Industries weapons and so Tony has all that he needs to rebuild the weapon. Locked in a cave Tony decides to build something different, a giant mechanical suit. With this suit he breaks out of his cell, kills many terrorists, and destroys all of his weapons that they possess. When he returns to the states, he calls for a press conference where he tells the media that due to his eye opening experience his company is no longer going to build weapons and instead help people around the world. To aid his cause he decides to remake the iron suit with improvements. Obadiah Stane, second-in-command of the company, angry over Tony's choice to stop making weapons, learns of what Stark is doing and builds himself a suit but for the purpose of making the ultimate weapon. Tony Stark flys around saving people but the real show down is when Iron Man goes head-to-head with Stane's creation. Iron Man wins.

Reason why I didn’t like it:

• It would have been cooler to see more Iron Man gadgets. Though I am not familiar with the story at all, I'm sure that there were some sweet things that didn't get shown.

Reasons why I liked it:

• Robert Downey Jr was perfect for this. He was really a fun to watch.
• Special effects were great. They rivaled the effects of Transformers, which in my opinion was the best special effects of last year.
• Good story telling. One of the things that really make me dislike a movie is when a character goes through a transformation and it seemed to happen over night with out much prompting. This was the opposite. Stark's transformation was logical and realistic. When you do things like that it helps people to get involved in the story.
• Great ending. It just seemed perfect for the character.

Final Notes: This was an excellent choice to start the summer with. It is going to be difficult to top. However, if this is considered one of the worst blockbusters for this summer, it is going to be an awesome summer of movies.

21

By Nathan Young

Gambling is one of the few ways to quickly generate a large sum of money. Unfortunately, there are even fewer ways to quickly lose money.

Find a way to guarantee victory, however, and you can find yourself rolling in cash. That is the jumping off point for '21', which is adapted from Ben Mezrich's bestselling nonfiction book 'Bringing Down The House'. The film is both entertaining and well-done, and is certainly worthy of a 'thumbs up'.

The story follows Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess of 'Across The Universe') as he struggles to come up with the money he needs to go to Harvard Medical School. A student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), he stumbles across a group of students who count cards at Las Vegas blackjack tables on weekends. Under the tutelage of professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), the students team up to beat the system and stockpile cash.

Ben is one of Mickey's students and catches the professor's eye after an impressive mathematical display in class. Ben is reluctant to sign up until team member Jill Taylor (Kate Bosworth), a co-ed he has admired from afar, makes a convincing plea to join them. What follows is a master's class in deceit, greed and excess.

Screenwriters Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb create a tightly woven script for director Robert Luketic. Luketic, more known for helming romantic comedies ('Legally Blonde', 'Win A Date With Tad Hamilton' and 'Monster-In-Law'), seamlessly transitions into the dramatic genre.

Whether it's the budding romance between Ben and Jill or a hilarious reference to the card counting by Dustin Hoffman's character in 'Rainman', the film finds a nice balance of dramatic and comedic elements, with a dash of mystery and suspense thrown in. The film, shot entirely on location, is also aided by the wonderful work of cinematographer Russell Carpenter. The opening scene of Ben riding his bike through Boston to get to school is awe-inspiring, as are the many shots of the pageantry and pomp of Las Vegas.

Not to be outdone by the magnificent off-camera work, the cast shines as well. Sturgess deftly handles Ben's progression from a shy overachiever into a person convinced of his own invincibility. Bosworth continues her pattern of fine work as Jill, even lending a Julia Roberts vibe to the proceedings during a flirtatious scene with Ben at a nightclub. Laurence Fishburne is perfectly cast as Cole Williams, the casino security person who won't rest until he catches and punishes Ben.

Spacey offers another piece of evidence that he is one of the finest actors alive. Mickey is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and Spacey strikes the perfect balance. A scene where he removes a member from the team for erratic behavior reminds everyone why he gets paid the big bucks.

This movie succeeds on every level. It refuses to be just another good film based on a true story. It rises above it's potential limitations to tell a compelling story in an entertaining way.

10,000 B.C.

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Down

Notable Characters:
Steven Strait – D’Leh
Camilla Belle – Evolet
Cliff Curtis – Tic Tic

Plot (contains spoilers):
We find ourselves somewhere in the snowy mountains close Egypt with a primitive tribe of woolly mammoth hunters. A group of warriors on horses come in and raid their settlement and run off with a beautiful woman, Evolet. Her one true love D’Leh sets off determined to get her back. Eldest hunter, Tic Tic, knowing what dangers lie ahead, commits himself to travel with D’Leh on this epic journey. Along the way they catch up to the warriors but are unable to complete their quest due to the presence of prehistoric beasts. They meet other African tribes who join them in their quest to take down the Egyptian empire. Once they arrive to the city, they convince the slaves to join their army and we watch as the Egyptian city burns and love birds are reunited.

Reasons why I didn’t like it:
· The story was lame and not exciting.
· If you are going to have characters speak English, please don’t make them have an accent that focuses on mumbling. I couldn’t understand half of what they main characters were saying.
· The dialogue seemed like it was written by high-school kids. Then again maybe that was purposeful because they did want to portray primitive beings.
· If you are excited to see the saber tooth tiger because of the two scenes in the preview, be prepared because that is all you see.

Reasons why I liked it:
· Visually it was great. The woolly mammoths, saber tooth tiger, and the Egyptian city were wonderful to watch.
· I got to see Jim Haslett, the defensive coordinator for the St. Louis Rams, with his family. I didn’t talk to him because I get nervous in those situations, but it was nice to see him about.

Final Notes: I apologize for my lack of effort with the Plot. This movie was so bad I could not muster up the strength for quality recapping. This was a bad movie, please don’t encourage Hollywood to make such crap by paying to see this.

Vantage Point

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Dennis Quaid – Thomas Barnes
Matthew Fox – Kent Taylor
Forest Whitaker – Howard Lewis
William Hurt – President Ashton

Plot (contains spoilers):
President Ashton is attending a global summit in Spain that would that will put the world on the same page as it deals with Islamic terrorism. At this summit the president is assassinated and a bomb is unleashed. The story is told repeatedly but from different perspectives: the news, American tourist Howard Lewis, a local cop, secret service agents Thomas Barnes and Kent Taylor, and the terrorists themselves, each time giving a little piece of the puzzle.

Reason why I didn’t like it:
• The way the movie was shot was cool and unique, however it did seem to get a little repetitive.

Reasons why I liked it:
• The way the movie was shot was cool and unique. I really enjoyed seeing the story from the different perspectives and the way it was done really added to the mystery surrounding the events.
• Entertaining and fast paced action and Dennis Quaid can still move and hit pretty well for a 54 year old.
• It was a good plot, interesting story though I think they gave the terrorists a little too much ingenuity. I just don’t think that they are that smart to pull off something like this.

Final Notes:
It is a good action movie for anyone who enjoys action movies. You do need to pay attention though so go to the bathroom before it starts and go easy on the soda so you don’t miss a thing.

Jumper

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Down

Notable Characters:
Hayden Christensen – David Rice
Samuel L. Jackson – Roland
Jamie Bell – Griffin
Rachel Bilson - Millie

Plot (contains spoilers):
David Rice one day discovers that he has the genetic ability to teleport or “jump” to any place he has seen with his own two eyes. After he mother abandoning him at age five and growing up with a neglectful father, David decides to run away. He travels the world living the life the luxury while using his powers to rob banks to finance his life. Unbeknownst to him there is a secret agency, headed by Roland, that desires to rid the world of these “freaks”. He learns of this truth when touring The Coliseum in Rome and he meets fellow “jumper” Griffin and the two of them fight with some secret agents. Tired of running for their lives, the two decide to end it with one final battle and emerge victoriously.

Reasons why I didn’t like it:
· Definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen in the theater. I was excited to see this but it was awful.
· The acting was horrible, even Samuel L. Jackson was bad. Hayden Christensen needs to be praising George Lucas everyday. I don’t know how it happened but Hayden getting the part of Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) was the jackpot for him because seriously, he is a bad actor.
· Special effects were not special.
· It was bad. I don’t know how else to put it but I left the theater with a sick feeling in my stomach which could only be remedied by Casa Gallardo nachos.

Reasons why I liked it:
· It was only an hour and a half instead of two hours.
· My friend bought my ticket so I didn’t have to waste my money on it, though I do feel guilty and will make it up to him later.

Final Notes: Please do not see this movie. I didn’t see this on Saturday and so Nate hasn’t seen it. Usually he is mad when I go to something with out him but I think I am doing him a favor on this one.

Untraceable

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Diane Lane – Jennifer Marsh
Colin Hanks – Griffin Dowd
Billy Burke – Detective Eric Box
Joseph Cross – Owen Reilly

Plot (contains spoilers):
FBI cyber crime agents, Jennifer Marsh and Griffin Dowd, spend their time working nights tracking evil doers on the internet. One day they get a tip on a website Killwithme.com where a serial killer shows a video, in real time, of a kitten surrounded by heat lamps and the more people that tune in to the site the more heat lamps are turned on and the faster the kitten dies. Unfortunately for the FBI, this killer’s site is “UNTRACEABLE”. Very soon after, a local man is taken and shown on the site. This time the man is cut up and is being given an anticoagulant, doesn’t let your blood caught, and the more people are tuned in the more he gets and ends up bleeding to death. This goes on for some time until Marsh learns the connection between all the victims which is that it has to do with a troubled teen’s suicidal father. Sadly this revelation puts her in the cross hairs of our killer but like all good cat and mouse games, the cat wins.

Reason why I didn’t like it:
· It was a typical cat and mouse movie. The situation was unique, a serial killer on the internet, but the general story is the usual.

Reasons why I liked it:
· I was worried that it was going to be the type of movie where the killer turns out to the best friend or someone close to the main character but this one let you know who it was early on which let you focus on the chase.
· Joseph Cross has a creepy demeanor. When you first see him, within a split second you know he is not right.

Final Notes: This was an entertaining movie. It was suspenseful, there was action, and it had a happy ending. Not the best movie out there but worth seeing if you like this genre.

Young's Review

When watching a murder mystery, one expects to have to figure out the killer's identity.

What makes 'Untraceable' so good is that it lets the audience know early on that it can dispense with the guesswork. The movie is not as much about who did it as it is about how it's being done. The killer is revealed relatively early, clearing the way for some edge-of-your-seat tension that doesn't stop until the final credits. The movie grabbed me early and never let go, and I am giving it a 'thumbs up'.

Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) is an FBI investigator in Portland who specializes in patrolling cyberspace looking for criminal behavior. She and her partner Griffin (Colin Hanks) are tipped off to a website unlike anything they have ever seen. The site, www.killwithme.com, is designed to kill a person with the help of the people visiting the site. With every hit the site gets, the victim is driven closer to their death.

The killer turns out to be Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross), a creepily psychopathic young man. His sadistic tendencies turn him into a celebrity on the web for all the wrong reasons. As Jennifer gets deeper into the case, Owen draws closer to her and her young daughter. It all adds up to some genuine suspense and a tense final scene.

Director Gregory Hoblit follows up the fantastic 'Fracture' with another taut crime drama. While the premise is far fetched, Hoblit keeps things believable enough to move the proceedings along. He certainly gets the best out of his actors, especially Lane. The handheld camera work in the scenes showing Owen's victims is appropriately gritty. Also, Hoblit throws in enough curveballs to generate a real sense of fear on Jennifer's behalf.

Lane does a great job as Jennifer. She brings strength and smarts to the role and carries the movie. The most surprising thing is that she does so without a romantic story line. Filmmakers often feel the need to validate a female character with a male companion. It is refreshing to see a woman who can be a single mom and a successful career woman without the help of a man.

Billy Burke (who also worked with Hoblit in 'Fracture') capably plays the role of detective Eric Box, who joins Jennifer's team in investigating the murders. He is the typical tough cop at first, but softens as the investigation deepens. His character is an ideal contrast to that of the fun loving Griffin. Hanks makes Griffin into a lovable Casanova wannabe and it is a shame he is not given more screen time.

This movie is a study in irony. It points out our culture's obsession with violence while only adding to it. It is also an interesting character study in that the responses from the website's visitors are both chilling and sadly realistic. This is never more true than in the final scene, which no doubt will leave some viewers feeling cheated. In my opinion, however, the movie finishes in the only way it possibly can.

While this is certainly not a feel good movie, it is an exciting thrill ride that I recommend to fans of the crime/thriller genre.

Cloverfield

Wilsford's Review

Thumb: Up

Notable Characters:
Doesn’t matter.

Plot (contains spoilers):
During a going away party, a monster arrives in New York and starts some massive destruction. We follow a group of four as they make their way through the city avoiding the monster and his minions trying to save the love interest of one of the characters.

Reason why I didn’t like it:
• It was a low budget movie. Which means that you got some low budget performances though I think the performances weren’t that bad.

Reasons why I liked it:
• Awesome! I usually hate using exclamation points but I can’t help myself. If you are looking for something to make you think and/or feel emotional, then you need to 1) stay away and 2) lighten up. This is a monster movie and it delivered.
• Oddly enough I love the way it was filmed. I know it is Blair Witch-esque, but the way it was done kept up the suspense and saved the audience some real gore, which would make this more appealing to wider audience.
• J.J. Abrams knows how to tell a story.

Final Notes:
The last couple of movies that I have been excited about have been lame. Finally the streak has ended. This was a sweet movie that I might actually spend money to see again.

The Great Debaters

By Nathan Young

A film does not have to have an accomplished cast to be great. 'The Great Debaters' is proof of that.

That is not to say the cast is without talent. After all, the film boasts a pair of Academy Award winners in Denzel Washington (who is also the director) and Forest Whitaker. It's the lesser known actors who steal the spotlight, however.

This is a fantastic film that I feel was egregiously snubbed for a Best Picture Oscar nomination. I am giving it a big 'thumbs up'.

Melvin Tolson (Denzel Washington) is the debate coach at tiny Wiley College in Marshall, Texas in the mid-1930's. He whittles down his team to four from 45 and sets out to create the best team in the land.

The team takes some time to gel, but things eventually take off. Samantha Booke, (with an "E", as she points out to Mr. Tolson at the tryout) is the first girl to ever make a Wiley squad. Henry Lowe (Nate Parker) is a street smart kid who overcomes his stubborness and pride to make the team. James Farmer, Jr. (Denzel Whitaker) is the baby faced newcomer who has a crush on Samantha despite being just 14. James is also the son of a famous preacher, James Sr. (Forest Whitaker), who has major influence in town.

The team starts out on fire, winning its first 10 debates. After the departure of a key team member (Jermaine Williams), Samantha (Jurnee Smollett) is forced to be one of the two "starting" debaters. She more than holds her own, delivering an impassioned defense of a black person's right to attend a predominantly white college. The team goes through ups and downs (including the movie's defining moment when it witnesses a lynching on the way to a match) but ultimately lands a chance to debate the best white school in America: Harvard.

Some might cast aside this movie as just another underdog story, but it is so much more than that. The cast is great from top to bottom. The credit for that goes partially to second time director Washington. He gets the most out of his actors and paces the story well, without going overboard on sentimentality.

The brilliance of screenwriter Robert Eisele's script is that it gives all three debaters a chance to shine. They are all so good, in fact, it's hard to say which one stood out.

Samantha's aforementioned speech, given at Wiley's first debate against a white school, is moving and convincing. Smollett portrays Samantha as a firecracker who takes a backseat to no one. Parker brings a potent mixture of defiance and erudition to Henry. He goes from being a top notch debater one minute to a drunk playboy the next. As James Jr., Denzel Whitaker is my favorite character. Despite his baby face, he is a bulldog when the lights go on. James is a likeable character and is the backbone of the team. An interesing aside is that the young Whitaker has the same names of both Oscar winners in the movie (spelled exactly the same) but is related to neither.

This movie is funny, interesting, thought provoking and inspiring. The script is good, Washington's direction is brilliant, and the acting is on a plane which I have not seen from an entire ensemble in any 2007 film (it opened Christmas Day). And that is without even mentioning Forest Whitaker's performance, which is layered and pitch perfect. This movie is right there with the best movies of the year. I highly recommend it.

Atonement

By Nathan Young

Any film that is nominated for seven Academy Awards is bound to be brilliant in some way. 'Atonement' certainly fits the bill.

It is an epic story with tragic undertones, but also a beautiful one to watch. It is certainly worthy of all the Oscar nods and a 'thumbs up'.

Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) is a well-educated son of a maidservant working for a wealthy family in World War II era England. He has secret feelings for Cecilia Tallis (Keira Knightley), the eldest daughter of the house. Robbie writes an explicit letter to Cecilia to tell her of his feelings but foolishly gives the letter to her younger sister Briony for delivery (Best Supporting Actress nominee Saoirse Ronan).

Predictably, Briony reads it first and develops the idea that Robbie is a sex starved predator. After interrupting the couple's first romantic encounter, Briony mistakenly thinks it proves he is a monster. A series of events unfold that cause Briony to accuse Robbie of a heinous crime.

Robbie is forced to go to prison, but is given a chance to fight for the British army in place of the remainder of his sentence. He takes the opportunity and goes away to fight. The film then shifts to the different lives the three main characters are living during the war, leading to a shocking and depressing conclusion.

There is not enough space to cover all of the great things about this film. Director Joe Wright and cinemtographer Seamus McGarvey create a vivid visual experience that starts out light and dreamy and fades to a dull gray. The lighting and costume choices are all well done. Christopher Hampton's adaptation of Ian McEwan's novel is tight and void of drudgery, plus the characters are easy to invest in.

The performances of the three main actors are all good. Knightley and McAvoy have good chemistry together. Whether their characters are together or apart, the bond Robbie and Cecilia share is evident. Knightley continues to show why she is one of the most sought after actresses working today. McAvoy sets himself up to be a major film star, especially with the upcoming 'Wanted' (co-starring Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie) to be released later this year.

The 13-year-old Ronan is wonderful in her brief appearance. Just a 12-year-old during filming, she brings a mixture of jealousy and ignorance to Briony. Ronan is chilling in the scene where Briony watches Robbie from an upstairs window as he is being escorted to jail . Romola Garai plays the grown up Briony and screen legend Vanessa Redgrave takes over the role at the end of the film. Brenda Blethyn, one of the finest British actresses ever, is also noteworthy in a secondary role as Robbie's mother.

This film is well done cinematically. It is an epic romance but certainly does not lack punch. While the ending is both shocking and depressing, the rest of the film more than makes up for it. I recommend it to movie fans who want to see a sure winner at Oscar time.

There Will Be Blood

By Nathan Young

Few films defy convention more than 'There Will Be Blood'. It is undoubtedly the most difficult one to critique of all of the films I have screeened for this blog. The conflicting emotions I feel about it make it difficult to formulate a definitive opinion.

I have come to the conclusion that I have to separate my enjoyment of the film from my opinion of it as a piece of art. It is this reasoning that allows me to give it a 'thumbs up' while also saying that I cannot envision myself ever seeing it again.

Screenwriter/director Paul Thomas Anderson has constructed a masterful film that grabs the viewer's attention in a nearly 20 minute opening sequence without dialogue and never lets go. While the film is never boring, it is also unpleasantly bleak and features one of the most despicable villains ever captured on film. It is hard to call such a relentless film entertaining. On the other hand, it is one of the most mesmerizing films I have ever seen.

The film opens in the late 19th century with Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) drilling for oil. He falls down a well and gruesomely breaks his leg. Fittingly for a character that lives a solitary existence, Daniel declines to call for help and slowly claws his way back to the surface alone.

Daniel is busy looking for oil when a young man named Paul (Paul Dano) comes looking for him. Paul lives on a large ranch that has lots of oil under the surface. He offers to tell Daniel where he lives in exchange for monetary compensation. After agreeing to the deal, Daniel sets out with his young son to find the oil Paul spoke of. Once he gets to the farm, he meets Paul's twin brother Eli (also played by Dano).

Eli is a fiery young preacher at the Church of the Third Revalation and he wants $5,000 for his church to allow Daniel to use the land. Daniel shakes on the deal, with no intention of honoring it. Thus begins an adversarial relationship between the two that lasts the entire film. The rest of the film follows the only true pursuit in Daniel's life: accumulating wealth.

Deep down, Daniel is cold and calculating. On the surface, though, he is a good salesman. He uses his son H.W. (Dillon Freasier), to prove to potential customers that his is a family business. H.W. becomes deaf and mute around 10 years of age as the result of an exploding oil rig and Daniel never looks at him the same again. At one point, he goes so far as to abandon the boy on a train, but the two are later reunited. A scene towards the end in which a grownup H.W. (Russell Harvard) finally stands up to his father only to be rejected is the only time in the entire film in which the audience feels genuine empathy for a character.

This film is a study in paradoxes. While it is fascinating to watch and Lewis is amazing, the subject matter is unsettling and the ending is both haunting and abrupt. The music is jarringly off-kilter and brilliant at the same time. The cinematography is wonderful but some of the violent images are disturbing.

Lewis carries the film with his performance. He is fantastic as Daniel, and his portrayal deservedly won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Drama earlier this week. Dano, who co-starred in the critically acclaimed 'Little Miss Sunshine', is also very good in his dual performance. He brings the right amount of animation and passion to the role of Eli.

This film is spellbinding, yet I am hesitant to recommend it. While I found it to be a wonderful piece of filmmaking, it is certainly not a feel good popcorn flick. In fact, I walked out of the theater in stunned silence. The thing is, I am still not sure if that is because I liked the film or the fact I was still in shock over what I had just seen.

The Bucket List

By Nathan Young

It's hard to imagine a funny movie being crafted about two men dying of cancer. When you add an all-star filmmaking team of director Rob Reiner and legendary actors Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson, it's also hard to imagine such a movie being a bad one.

As it turns out, 'The Bucket List' is both funny and good. It follows two men on a journey to pack in a lifetime's worth of fun into two weeks. The movie is predictable and at times overly sentimental, but in the end it is a fun and often amusing tale that I am giving a 'thumbs up'.

Edward Cole (Nicholson) is a wealthy hospital adminstrator who is as grumpy as he is rich. He prefers to run his hospitals on a shoestring budget. This comes back to haunt him when he is admitted to one of his own hospitals and is forced to share a room with a dying cancer patient named Carter Chambers (Freeman). Carter is as positive and friendly as Cole is sarcastic and abrasive.

After a brief feeling out period, the two begin to strike up a friendship. One day Edward finds a piece of crumpled up paper on the floor and finds that it is Carter's "bucket list" (so called because it is a lists of things to do before you "kick the bucket").

Intrigued by the idea but not with the items on Carter's list, Edward (who's also been diagnosed with a terminal illness) suggests they make a better list and then go out and live it. Carter reluctantly agrees over the loud objections of his wife (Beverly Todd), and the pair set out on a whirlwind tour of skydiving, car racing, and sight seeing every where from Paris to Cairo.

This movie is entertaining, although it falls short of being great. The audience seemed to be genuinely engaged and there were several sustained moments of laughter. The biggest one came in a scene towards the end where Carter explains to Edward where his beloved gourmet coffee comes from.

Nicholson and Freeman, working together onscreen for the first time in their illustrious careers, make a great team. Nicholson plays the cautsic old man that he made famous in 'As Good As It Gets' and 'About Schmidt' and Freeman is the reliable good guy audiences have grown accustomed to. Freeman even provides a voiceover track, reminiscent of his role in 'The Shawshank Redemption'.

This movie is a fun and touching story of two men making peace with their own mortality. I recommend it to movie fans young and old, especially to those who are fans of Nicholson and Freeman.

The Golden Compass

By Nathan Young

Controversy surrounded 'The Golden Compass' before it was even released. Talk of the film's atheistic overtones drowned out any talk of whether or not the movie was actually any good.

The intention of this review is not to discern any hidden spiritual meanings in the film (although I do feel there were some). My job is to review it on it's artistic merit and entertainment value. The film is wonderfully done and fun to watch and I am giving it a 'thumbs up'.

The world in which the film takes place is an alternate universe where the souls of human beings take the form of animals (called daemons). The story begins with Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards), an orphan girl whose soul takes the form of a small ferret. Lyra is approached by the beautiful Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman). When Mrs. Coulter offers her an opportunity to travel to her home in the Great North, Lyra jumps at the chance.

It turns out that Mrs. Coulter is the leader of a secret project designed to kidnap children and take them to an undisclosed Arctic location to have their daemons removed. Once Lyra discovers this and that her best friend is one of the children that was taken, she sets in motion a plan to put an end to Mrs. Coulter's plan. What follows is an epic battle of good vs. evil.

Screenwriter/director Chris Weitz and cinematographer Henry Braham deserve kudos because this film looks splendid. Whether it is the dazzling special effects or the beautiful European countryside, the visual aspect of the film is breathtaking.

The performances of the cast are amazing too. The most noteworthy job is turned in by the precocious Richards. Just 12 years old during filming, Richards reportedly beat out over 10,000 girls for the part in an open casting call in England. There is no way the producers could have chosen a more plucky or courageous actress for the role. She displays bravery, stubborness and fierceness in Lyra while still being a cute kid.

Kidman is a good choice for Mrs. Coulter. The character is all over the emotional scale, and Kidman rises to the occassion. Another performance of note is that of Sir Ian McKellan as the animated polar bear Iorek. While McKellan only lends his voice, the role is a crucial one and he plays it well.

The religious symbolism that ignited the controversy is certainly present. However, it seems to be more of an indictment of the Catholic church more than religion in general. The Magisterium is like the Catholic church and the mysterious Dust that is referred to seems to be sin (these theories are all my own, and not that of the filmmakers).

All of the press that I read prior to screening the film said that the religious symbloism was toned down from author Philip Pullman's original novel. One disclaimer I would add is that I do not recommend the film to children. The PG-13 rating is appropriate because of some violent imagery (especially a particularly vicious fight between the polar bears) and complicated content.

I did not feel the controversy around the film kept me from enjoying it. As a devoted follower of Christ, I was not offended in any way. I enjoyed the film and hope that the trilogy is completed. It is a fun film that I recommend to any fan of the fantasy genre.

Charlie Wilson's War

By Nathan Young

Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are two of the biggest movie stars in the world. Their movies have grossed billions of dollars over the course of their careers.

Surprisingly, 'Charlie Wilson's War' marks the first time they have collaborated onscreen. The results are fun and intriguing. The film is on my top five list of 2007 and deserves an enthusiastic 'thumbs up'.

Hanks plays the title character, a womanizing Texas congressman in the 1970's who seems to be more interested in partying than legislating change. That all changes when he is approached by socialite Joanne Herring (Roberts), an honorary ambassador to Pakistan. In between the lavish parties she throws in her Houston mansion, Joanne is deeply concerned with the plight of the people of Aghanistan. The Russians have invaded and are killing the Afghan people.

Charlie doesn't see how he is supposed to impact the situation. Joanne says that the Afghans need money to buy more weapons, and that he is in a unique position to make that happen since he is on the Defense Appropriations Committee. He looks into it and with the help of chain smoking CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) gets the ball rolling for the Afghans.

This film is at the same time bitingly funny and informative (as crazy as it sounds, it is based on a true story). Aaron Sorkin's adapted screenplay is brilliant, and is deserving of the Golden Globe nomination it garnered.

Director Mike Nichols gets the most out of the script and his actors. The latter is not hard when you are working with such an amazing cast. Hanks is an inspired choice for Charlie. Hanks has to balance out Charlie's love of the nightlife with his desire to exact change. It is a fine line, and Hanks is up to the task of walking it. Roberts is good in limited screen time. She steals almost each scene she appears in.

The film's best performance comes from Hoffman. His portrayal of Gust is perfect (not to mention hilarious). Hoffman is one of the top supporting actors working today and he proves that with a Golden Globe nod for his work here (Hanks and Roberts also are nominated).

Despite the overall upbeat tone, the film has a jarring postsript. The ending of the film implies that all the work Wilson did to arm and train Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban. It is a sobering thought and a reminder of the current war the U.S. is involved in.

Politics aside, the film is entertaining. I highly recommend it. If you are going to see a movie in the theater, this should be the one you choose.

Alvin and the Chipmunks

By Nathan Young

The trailer of 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' worried me because I was such a big fan of the television series as a kid. The thought of a live-action version of the cartoon classic seemed like a terrible idea.

It turns out my doubts were unfounded. The movie is by no means a classic, but is much better than I expected. Sure, the biggest laugh from an audience consisting mostly of children came from chipmunk flatulence, but as my wife (a preschool teacher) says, that stuff is funny to a kid. The bottom line is I left the theater entertained. More importantly for the film's bottom line, the nine-year-old that saw it with me loved it. All things considered, I give this movie a 'thumbs up'.

The movie starts off with the chipmunk trio singing Daniel Powter's hit 'Bad Day'. Shortly thereafter, down on his luck songwriter Dave Seville (Jason Lee) makes a failed trip to pitch his music to industry rep Ian (David Cross). One thing leads to another, and before long Dave has three furry house guests. Once the shock wears off that he is in possession of talking, singing chipmunks, Dave composes the Christmas staple "The Chipmunk Song". Once Ian hears the chipmunks sing it, he takes them away from Dave and on the road for a world tour. Life lessons about loyalty, greed and friednship ensue, as do plenty of laughs.

Alvin (Justin Long), Simon (Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (Jesse McCartney) are the only computer animated parts of the film, which makes for an interesting visual experience. The chipmunks are cute and cuddly, especially Theodore (who has always been my favorite chipmunk). There are many popular songs that the chipmunks take on, which adds to the fun. Seeing Alvin and the guys dressed like pop stars and dancing like the Backstreet Boys is also highly entertaining.

To his credit, Lee refuses to mail in his performance on hiatus from his hit TV show 'My Name Is Earl'. He nails the trademark "ALVIN!" line and plays the straight man well. Cross is perfect as Ian. The role requires a smarmy know-it-all, and Cross is up to the task. The former 'Arrested Development' star makes the audience hate him and laugh at him at the same time.

The many children in the theater made for a rapt audience, good news for parents of squirmy kids. More good news for parents: the movie is funny and entertaining for them too. For fans of Alvin, this movie will not disappoint. For those just looking for a fun time, the chipmunks fit the bill there, as well.