It’s just so tired…

2 opposite-sex best friends decide that their friendship can handle the added excitement of having sex and so they do it expecting everything to be the same except…everything changes! It’s a worn out storyline that has been used time and time again HOWEVER…I don’t know that I’ve ever seen 2 actors as likable as the two that grace the screen for this little gem of a romantic comedy.

Jamie (Mila Kunis) is a headhunter in New York City. She is hired on by big companies to find talented prospects for job opportunities. Dylan (Justin Timberlake) is an online magazine editor and workaholic living in L.A. but looking for opportunities elsewhere. And so Jamie finds Dylan for GQ magazine, flies him into the city, shows him around, he gets the job and the 2 of them start a friendship that is based on witty conversation and slight neuroticism. So what can happen between friends who are beautiful, single and readily available in New York City? Well…great sex, of course. And with no strings attached (oh wait…that’s a DIFFERENT movie…). Or so they think.

And that’s pretty much it. You know the rest from there. But the question is…does it work? Well…I’m happy to report that it DOES work and it works very well! Mila & Justin are made for this kind of romcom and when they are together, they shine. The banter is witty, the escalating love affair is well-paced and the supporting cast (consisting of Patricia Clarkson, Jenna Elfman, Woody Harrelson and Richard Jenkins) are perfectly matched for the style of writing in this movie. And with guest appearances by Andy Samberg, Shaun White and Emma Stone, there’s a LOT of firepower here! And it is VERY funny in most cases!

Obviously there isn’t much more to say about this film simply because you already know the drill, however I WILL say this…for your dollar, you can’t go wrong with this movie as a stay-at-home date night! It’s got a great cast, it’s got great writing and it’s directed by the same guy who brought us “Easy A” last year (Will Gluck, who is the new “It Guy” when it comes to romantic comedies like this). Rent it today and here’s hoping these 2 stars get together again someday. Maybe not so much for a sequel but for a different movie altogether that will show off their acting chops!

Overall Rating: B+

Here’s the thing about the Mission: Impossible series…you have to suspend belief as the hero, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), gets thrown from cars, gets blown up and, in the case of this movie, finds himself hanging 100 stories up a Dubai skyscraper with only a rope and a sticky glove. If you can pretend that THAT is gonna happen and he’ll survive without a scratch (well…okay…a scratch or two), then THIS is a roller coaster ride that you are gonna love. However if realism is an important part of the movie for you? Then Mission: Impossible is not gonna be your cup of tea. Except maybe if you like political nuclear disaster storylines…because this one is a beauty…

Russian extremist Kurt Hendricks has detonated bombs in the Kremlin, setting up a possible nuclear situation between the United States and Russia. His plans include stealing Russian nuclear missile codes so that he can bomb the United States. Ethan Hunt and his IMF team have been framed for the bombing and the IMF has been discontinued by our government. So their “final” mission? Get those codes and stop a nuclear disaster.

And oh what fun it is as the team rushes all over the eastern hemisphere, from Moscow to Mumbai, trying to chase down Hendrick and stop a nuclear disaster. But try as they might, every plan they come up with is thwarted in some way. So will the IMF team finally catch a break and defeat the bad guys?  Well…I’m thinking we all know the answer to that. But that doesn’t stop director Brad Bird from having a good time as they head toward their obvious conclusion. Bird keeps the pacing fresh and the action non-stop. Hell…even the opening title sequence is exciting. Bird is a great addition to this series, especially since it could have very easily gotten a bit tedious seeing as how this IS #4 in the series. And shooting this film strictly for IMAX is a GREAT idea! Usually I’m not a fan of the “gimmick” movies (i.e. 3D and IMAX) however this movie is a MUST SEE on IMAX!

The fact that it’s not just a Tom Cruise movie also helps as Hunt’s team is an important part of why this flick is so much fun. The addition of Jeremy Renner is a huge boost for this franchise. He’s a great actor and with his appearance in the upcoming “The Avengers,” he is being primed as the next big action star. Simon Pegg is the comedy relief tech op and it’s his humor that gives the movie an added light-hearted touch. And newcomer Paula Patton is a kickass agent who is hellbent on avenging the death of a fellow agent.Throw in a couple more good performances by Michael Nyqvist (Hendricks), Vladimir Mashkov and what you have is a tightly wound thriller on the same level (if not better than) most James Bond films. If anything, this might very well be THE popcorn movie of the year! Too bad it wasn’t released in the summer, when films like this usually do great business in the theaters. As it stands, this is a MUST see on an IMAX screen! But you may wanna bring your earplugs. Not only is it bombastic visually…it might be the loudest film I’ve ever seen…and that is a compliment!

Overall Rating: A

After a slam bang first adventure with Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson, I came into this one expecting a lot of the same. And it was. A LOT of slam bang but without the storyline of the first and inevitably, that’s what does this movie in.

Sherlock Holmes (once again played with psychotic glee by Robert Downey, Jr.) is facing off against a foe who matches his intellect and has money to burn. The villain is James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a professor at one of the most prestigious colleges in the world, and a man who is looking to get rich off a world war that he is attempting to create. It’s up to Holmes and his trusty sidekick (once again played by Jude Law) to thwart his villainous attempts and keep the world safe from the clutches of an evil villain.

This is, of course, an abbreviated version of an extremely cumbersome plot that has our heroes bouncing all over the place, avoiding death in some of the most unbelievable ways (when director Guy Ritchie slow mo’s bullets and gun parts, the movie starts to feel like a remake of the first one) and exchanging barbs about Holmes’ psychosis and Watson’s recent nuptials. This is all well and good in the early parts of the movie, however as the time passes, it all starts to feel a little stale, almost as if the writers decided to lean on the obvious instead of coming up with new material.

With the introduction of Noomi Rapace (from “The Girl With A Dragon Tattoo” original version) as a gypsy, the writers have an interesting character who goes without much to do (except in a cool early fight sequence) and the death of a major character goes without much fanfare. So they had 2 opportunities to create something a little more interesting in the plot but let them go by the wayside in an attempt to give Holmes and Watson more time to bicker with one another.

If I had to say one thing about this movie it’s that it’s a disappointment but not on a colossal level. If you LOVED the first one, you’ll be disappointed. If you LIKED the first one you’ll find this one to be mildly amusing (like I did). But if you didn’t get the first one at all, don’t even bother with this one because it’s more of the same…unfortunately.

Overall Rating: C

As I sit here attempting to define this film, I am realizing that it isn’t as simple as saying there is a storyline with a beginning, a middle and then an end. Although there IS a starting point in this movie, there are such complex characters and so many different emotions happening throughout the film that it defies simple examination. On the surface it’s about how a family deals with the emotional impact of a mother and wife being comatose after a boating accident. Underneath though, there are many other things happening, and it’s in the development of the multiple storylines that the characters grow together and make the final moment of the film the most poignant.

If there is one thing that Alexander Payne can do, it’s paint ordinary life. In this film that he has written and directed, he creates lives that are shattered but then puts the pieces all back in their places by the end of the film. It’s masterful storytelling and he does it almost effortlessly. Much like his other films (which include “Election,” “Sideways,” and “About Schmidt”), “The Descendants” is more of a study of human nature than it is entertainment. And that’s what makes it special.

George Clooney is Matt King, a lawyer who lives in Hawaii with his family and who is, by default, the heir of a huge chunk of land in the Hawaiian islands. While trying to negotiate a deal to part with the land, his wife is in a boating accident, causing him to have to deal with not only her hospitalization, but also with renewing his relationship with his daughters (played wonderfully by newcomers Shailene Woodley & Amara Miller). Add that his wife has also been cheating on him (which was unbeknownst to him) and things get very complicated.

The cast is top notch, the videography is beautiful (how can you go wrong in Hawaii, after all?) and the script is excellent. This will be high on the list of Oscar nominations at the end of the year, I’m sure.

Overall Rating: A

With the trailer for ‘The Hunger Games” hitting theaters and with everyone wrapped up in Hunger hoopla (it’s scheduled to open March, 2012), I decided it was time to check out the one film that many have said inspired the story. “Battle Royale,” is Japanese violence at it’s worst and so is the storyline. But there are a few decent action sequences here and the “idea” behind it IS a lot like the basis of “The Hunger Games.”

Starring no one I had heard of other than Chiaki Kuriyama (Gogo Yubari from “Kill Bill Vol. I”), there isn’t a lot of storyline other than a bunch of kids who have been drugged and stranded on an island by their teacher. They are informed that only one may survive and they have 3 days to kill each other or else explosive gadgets strapped to their necks will detonate, killing everyone. This sets up 2 hours of nothing but kids killing each other in sometimes ridiculous ways and mass confusion. The funny thing about this film is that it starts off showing us the ending first…and then at the end of the film? It’s a totally DIFFERENT ending? It’s ridiculous!

Anyway, I can see where people would draw the comparison. It IS a story about kids killing kids in an enclosed area. However I’ve read “The Hunger Games” and I can say that there is absolutely nothing about “Battle Royale” that reminded me of the storyline of “Games.” “Games” follows one teenage girl as she is forced to fight for her life. In “Battle Royale,” there are no developed storylines. It’s just a bunch of 7th graders who are forced to kill off one another and we never really care for any of the characters. I can’t recommend “Battle Royale” because, quite frankly, it’s not a very good movie. It’s more like “Saw” than it is “Hunger Games.” But I CAN see why there have been comparisons made…but that’s all they are…comparisons. I imagine “The Hunger Games” will be a much better film and a lot more interesting than this film could ever hope to be.

Overall Rating: D

Here’s “The Hunger Games” trailer. I’m getting jazzed up already!

Okay…in order to explain the plot of this flick, I’d have to go into a lot of mumbo jumbo about the Greek gods and their war against their enemy known simply as the Titans. So…here it goes…

Millions of years ago, the Greek gods battled the evil Titans, defeated them and confined them in a magical cell deep below the earth’s surface. Thousands of years later, the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Roarke) goes in search of the one legendary weapon that can unleash the Titans, a magical bow & arrow called the Epirus Bow. In his rampage across Greece, he murders everyone in his path, including the mother of Theseus (Henry Cavill), who, unbeknownst by him, has been in training by Zeus himself to fight the battle against Hyperion and to save the earth from the Titans.

Following so far? Okay…

So Theseus meets an oracle (Freida Pinto) who can see into the future (as long as she is a virgin). In her dreams, she sees Theseus with the bow, so she helps him in his quest to find it. As you can imagine, that quest is not an easy one and there are a lot of beheadings, deaths by spear and some other rather violent proceedings. Needless to say, between the bloodshed and Hyperion’s sadistic ways, this film definitely earns its R rating. So from there the race is on as Hyperion and Theseus race to find the bow as the gods watch with interest from above. If Hyperion unleashes the Titans, it will mean another war, so of course they want Theseus to win. Will he get to the bow and defeat Hyperion? Or will Hyperion have his day and unleash the Titans, destroying earth and beginning another million years of war in the heavens? Oh the fun!

Needless to say, I really enjoyed “Immortals.” I’m a fan of “300″ and I thought this was a pretty good follow up to that film. Is it as good as “300?” Well…I don’t know about that. But the addition of Roarke definitely takes this one up a notch. As the evil king, Roarke shows his superior acting ability and pretty much owns this flick as he kills and maims anything and anyone in his path. It’s a good role for him and he handles it with ease.

As the hero, Henry Cavill does a good job looking like a warrior. This guy is gonna make a great Superman in 2013. Pinto is good as his oracle, Phaedra and Stephen Dorff plays his thief pal, Stavros, with a gleam in his eye that brings a little bit of light-heartedness to a pretty heavy-handed film. Luke Evans shows up in his 2nd Greek God movie (he was in “Clash Of The Titans” last year) as Zeus and John Hurt plays Zeus in his human form, an old man who befriends Theseus and trains him to fight.

As for the other aspects of this movie, I thought the production design was excellent! Cities in cliffs, the God’s watching from above the earth, the Hyperion camps that span for miles. Everything looks top notch! And the dialogue could have been a lot cheesier than it was, even though there were a few scenes that had me rolling my eyes a little bit.

So for the price of admission…this was a pretty good movie to see on an IMax screen! But don’t bother with the 3D. There’s nothing in it that stands out as a 3D experience and I wouldn’t waste your money…

Overall Rating: B+

Ryan Gosling is on a roll! Unlike “The Ides Of March” where he had to be charismatic and energetic through most of the film, this movie has him in an entirely different role that captures his ability to convey depth and personality in a character that lacks quite a bit of both.

In this movie, Gosling plays a stunt driver in Los Angeles who is also a getaway driver who transports robbers and thieves away from the police after a heist. He also works at a car repair shop for a man (Bryan Cranston from “Breaking Bad”) who is in with L.A. mobsters (Albert Brooks & Ron Perlman). The stuntman also gets to become close with a neighboring mother (Carey  Mulligan) who is waiting for her husband to be released from jail. She becomes attached to him (even though he says very little) and so does her son. When the husband (Oscar Isaac) is freed, he returns with a debt that must be repaid in order to buy his freedom and to keep his family safe. He asks the stuntman to drive him to and from the heist. Once there, the entire thing goes to hell in a handbasket and the stuntman must go into hiding to find out who is trying to kill him while also protecting the mother & son from vicious killers who will stop at nothing to get their money back.

This might sound like a typical “shoot ‘em up” kind of thriller, but this one is different in a variety of ways. First off, the direction on this movie is awesome! Nicholas Refn is a director that I had never heard of but he is mostly known for his “Pusher” films that he wrote & directed. He uses a variety of styles to give LA that “80′s” feel including a keyboard driven soundtrack and lots of neon and night time shots. It could have easily come across like a bad version of “To Live & Die In L.A.”, but this movie is more like the old Bronson or Eastwood films of the 70′s. With it’s lingering camera work and a slower pace than most action thrillers, this is a new twist on an old style of movie-making that deserves recognition at the Oscars next season.

And the cast is top notch! Gosling is perfect in his role as the stuntman. Mulligan and Cranston are fantastic as his closest confidants and friends. Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman are excellent as the mobsters and the city of L.A. plays a role also, often as a background character but always there, glistening in all it’s bright lights. If it weren’t for “The Ides Of March” being brilliant in its own right, I would say “Drive” might be the film that gets Gosling more notoriety. But with both sharing time at the multiplexes, you can’t go wrong with either. Although not as interesting as his role in “March,” the stuntman definitely delivers the goods as a subtle ride with violence and mayhem. If you are a fan of thrillers that take their time setting up the story, this will be right down your alley. Think “History of Violence” without the sex scenes and you have “Drive.” And it’s awesome!

Overall Rating: A

The critics raked it across the coals this past summer so without much fanfare, this DC Comics superhero came and went pretty quietly as far as I was concerned. Although I was a huge DC Comics fan when I was a kid and I like Ryan Reynolds as an actor (best part of “Wolverine” if you ask me), with so much bad press I decided to wait. So I rented it on Direct TV one day when my son was sick and home from school and I gotta tell you…other than the time it took to set up the storyline (which is expansive, I will admit)…I kind of liked this movie. It’s not a DEEP film by any means and it isn’t as good as the “Iron Man” films or “Captain America” but it definitely holds up against some action movies and the CGI is pretty darn good (in my opinion).

The story follows fighter pilot Hal Jordan as he is selected by a Green Lantern to take over his super powers (supplied by a glowing green ring) and to protect a section of the galaxy that includes earth. Meanwhile, there is a nasty villain that has been released from its slumber on a planet that is now swallowing planets in its path. It feeds on fear and the Lanterns must now fight their biggest threat ever. Can the newly appointed HUMAN Lantern help in conquering such a strong foe? Well…of course he can! And with some nifty effects (he turns a falling helicopter into a race car and rushes it over hundreds of spectators at one point) and the charisma of Reynolds, Green Lantern succeeds on many levels as quality entertainment as far as I’m concerned.

So in the case of critics for this summer blockbuster who panned it and seeing as how it DID make $206,142,554 at the box office even though it cost over $200 million to make, I wouldn’t call this movie a “failure” simply because it didn’t break $300 million and make a huge profit. The visuals are well done, the acting is pretty damn good considering (Peter Saarsgard and Mark Strong are excellent as scientist Hector Hammond and Sinestro) and I was entertained throughout. Maybe this would have fared better if there hadn’t been so many OTHER superhero films clogging the market this summer? I dunno. But rent it if you’re in the mood for an entertaining action flick. It’s worth the price of the rental!

Overall Rating: B 

Seriously? This needs no introduction. And you’ve probably already seen it 25 times…

George Clooney sure knows how to pick his roles and this one is right up his alley. Shot almost entirely in Cincinnati, this political drama (based on the play “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon) is a great exhibit of doing a lot with a little. I can’t imagine the budget on this movie was all that much but with an excellent script and some top notch names, “Ides Of March” is very entertaining and never gets too heavy-handed in political jargon.

The entire film is set during the Ohio Primary where Gov. Mike Morris (Clooney) is running for the Presidency. His staff, led by his campaign manager Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and his second-in-command, Steven Myers (Ryan Gosling), are always trying to stay one step ahead of his Democratic competition. The competitors campaign is being run by Tony Duffy (Paul Giamatti), a grizzled campaign manager who has become somewhat jaded on the political process through the years. In an attempt to thwart Morris’ campaign, Duffy meets with the younger Myers (at one of my favorite Cincinnati bars, Head First!) and attempts to hire him for their campaign. This, in effect, sets off a chain of events that could only happen in the political arena.

I’m dumbing down my critique of the film because I don’t want to give anything away. It is a complex little web that is woven here which includes a campaign intern (played by Evan Rachel Wood), a New York Times reporter (Marisa Tomei) and a state Senator (Jeffrey White). Needless to say, it is a story that plays out well over the time of the film and there isn’t a dull moment in here. Clooney directs and does a fantastic job of using Cincinnati locales (including Xavier & Miami University) to help tell the story. It’s fun for me to see places I see every day in a film and Clooney, being a native, does a great job of highlighting our city. He also does a great job framing his subjects, allowing each actor to do their job without any flash or gimmicks.

There really isn’t a role in here that doesn’t deserve praise. I really enjoyed every aspect of this film but I will praise Ryan Gosling the most. His role demands everything from confidence to uncertainty in a matter of seconds and he can convey both with a single raise of his eyebrow. His Steven Myers is a new kid on the political block and he lets his ego get the best of him. Paul Giamatti is fantastic as the smarmy competition and Evan Rachel Wood is fantastic as the intern with a secret.All in all, a job very well done by this group of fantastic actors!

So far, this is the drama of the year!

Overall Rating: A

Adam is a normal guy. Lives in Seattle, works in public radio, hangs with his buddy, has a hot girlfriend, has cancer…

Wait. What’s that last part? Has cancer? Oh man…what a downer! Or…is it? In this film, which is based on the real life of writer Will Reiser, Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt)  is somewhat of a recluse but manages to find a little hope and humor in his situation. With the help of his best friend Kyle, they hope to beat the odds…which aren’t bad considering the internet gives him a 50/50 shot of recovering from the cancerous tumor that has attached itself to his spinal column.

This realistic look at cancer and how it affects a person is a unique perspective given that it’s such a dire topic. Director Jonathan Levine takes Reiser’s script and gives it life, following Adam through his daily routines and introducing him to others who are suffering from cancer as well. With the help of Seth Rogan, who plays Adam’s best friend Kyle, this film blooms in a way that few do simply because of the humor that Rogan brings to the role. The banter between he and Gordon-Levitt make the situation bearable and both bring their own styles into the roles with Gordon-Levitt making Adam a quiet, inward personality and Rogan’s Kyle bringing the sarcasm and humor that draws him out.

I pretty much liked everything about this movie. It definitely has a personality that allows it to shine like a really good indie should. Great performances throughout that include Bryce Dallas-Howard as Adam’s selfish girlfriend Rachel, Anjelica Houston is perfectly cast as Adam’s mother and Anna Kendrick seemingly reprises her role as Natalie in “Up In The Air” as therapist Katherine. She has almost the same “ticks” as Natalie and its a role that works well for her. And, of course, Rogan and Gordon-Levitt shine in their roles as well.

A few added bonuses to this movie…the soundtrack and the location. With the location being in Seattle, this allows for a top-notch soundtrack, highlighting alt-rock bands such as Pearl Jam, Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeroes & Cut Copy. So that is a plus!

Overall Rating: B

I have to admit, few movie topics get me geeked up like “end of the world” virus movies (with the mother of them all being “28 Days Later”). So when I see a flick that not only contains that theme but also features a bevy of Hollywood big-hitters I have to get excited! Until…I see the PG-13 rating. Here’s the thing about PG-13 films…they do not make decent end of the world movies with a PG-13 rating. This is pretty much a standard that has been set ever since the rating came around in 1984. When the end of the world happens, whether it happens virally or by alien attack or by a zombie apocalypse or by the rapture, it ain’t gonna be pretty. Human instinct is survival and, as a race, we have a tendency to get pretty ugly when the whole world goes to hell in a handbasket. So in this film, what starts out promisingly enough turns midway through the film and my brother and I both agree that the turn it takes is the wrong one.

The movie starts out with a woman returning from Hong Kong with what appears to be a cold. But quickly she takes a turn for the worse and dies a shocking death. Along the way, she passes it to several others who have come in contact with her, including her son, and the virus is soon on its way to becoming global. As people start dying in various spots all over the world, the Center For Disease Control is put into a action and works double time trying to find a drug that can kill it. Of course that kind of science takes time and while the process gets underway, the world is in a state of panic. Pharmacies and grocery stores are looted, people start fighting for food and provisions and everything starts to shut down.

Not a bad start, right? But then the movie changes and instead of taking it one step farther into the hysteria, it backs off and instead of focusing on human nature, it focuses on the science and the defeat of the germ. Why Steven Soderbergh went this direction, I have no idea. It takes the movie to standard “made for television” fare instead of full blown “Dawn of the Dead” type of chaos and it just sort of sits there on the screen. We never believe that the end could be near and it all becomes very lazy as far as the outcome is concerned which is too bad because there are some decent performances that are totally wasted in this movie.

Of all the people involved, I would have to say Laurence Fishbourne gets the bulk of the screen time as he leads a team against the germ. His Dr. Ellis Cheever is the primary scientist at the CDC and he chews up many scenes talking about the effects of the germ and how it could be the end of our existence. Jude Law gets a juicy roles as a independent internet blogger who claims the government and the pharmaceutical companies are in bed together, creating a hysteria about the germ when the cure is available. Beyond those 2, there are a slew of great actors who make appearances (such as Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow, & Elliot Gould) but whose roles are so short that they are here and gone in minutes.

What does this all boil down to? Well…it’s like the film is 2 parts. The first half is pretty damn good stuff and probably one of the better beginnings to a film such as this that I’ve ever seen. It zips along at a good pace, telling the story without making it overly complicated. But then part 2 happens and it drops off quickly, never really making strides to become a great look at human nature under stress. Instead it becomes a unfulfilled promise of a movie that could have been great. Instead it’s average at best and with the best part happening early in the film, it takes away all the positive things that I could have written about it and instead earns a…

Overall Rating: C-

10-second review: Promising idea turns south as Steven Soderbergh takes a lot of talent and does very little with it. This very easily could have been a 5-part mini series on network television. Don’t waste your money…wait to see it on TBS in the near future.

I am being honest when I tell you I had zero interest in seeing this movie which is based on the story of mountain climber Aron Ralston. In 2003, Ralston was hiking in the Blue John Canyon in Utah when he fell into a crevice and a boulder trapped his arm against the mountain wall. He remained in the crevice for 4 days until, facing starvation and dehydration, he amputated his right arm and climbed out of the mountains with his left. Needless to say, there really didn’t sound like much here for me to enjoy and the idea of watching someone slowly die and then cut off their arm just didn’t sound like entertainment to me. However, left in the hands of director Danny Boyle (who directed “28 Days” and Oscar Award winner “Slumdog Millionaire”), I am happy to say I was totally wrong. This movie is VERY entertaining and James Franco (who plays Ralston) is fantastic!

Truthfully, there’s not a lot more than what I’ve already told you about the film. I mean, the guy falls into a crack in the earth and survives. But the way Boyle envisions the entire situation is what makes this movie so entertaining. The visuals are excellent as he uses split screens, editing and great music to move the story at a pace that keeps you interested. He uses hand-held cameras, jibs and all kinds of camera tricks to put you right there with Ralston as he hikes, bikes and runs through the mountains. The cinematography is fantastic and the connection that he makes with the landscape is what really keeps this movie on pace.

Franco plays Ralston as a freebird. He enjoys being alone and has grown up hiking. He loves mountaineering and has no qualms with disappearing for days at a time without telling anyone where he is going. This gets him into trouble as he finds himself trapped without no one around to hear him scream. Franco was up for an Oscar for this role and deservedly so. His boyish charms are what make you identify with him and he uses them to the hilt as he runs into a couple of women who are hiking early in the movie.

Needless to say, I was very impressed by this film. I don’t know why I didn’t expect much seeing as how it was up for so many awards last year. But this is a very good movie and Boyle once again succeeds on every level. As far as I am concerned, the man can do no wrong and is one of the premier directors of today. I highly recommend “127 Hours” and for those who are squeamish like myself, you should know that the amputation scene is not very long and, although a little gross, nowhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be.

Overall Rating: A

10 Second Review: James Franco is Aron Ralston, a man who loves hiking and bike riding. One day he falls into a crevice and a rock falls on his arm. This is his story as he is trapped for 127 hours. Between Franco, director Danny Boyle’s vision and the sweeping cinematography, this film is a must see for film lovers!

It’s no secret that in baseball there are the “have’s” and the “have nots.” In 2001, the Oakland A’s made a run at the playoffs. After they were defeated in 5 games by the Yankees, the top 3 name players left for bigger money in bigger markets. So what’s a small market team like Oakland to do in times of financial distress? Play “Moneyball,” of course, and this is the story based on the popular book by Michael Lewis.

What is “Moneyball?” Well…it’s a series of mathematical quotients that effectively break down a baseball players’ stats and then formalize them into one stat that simply states whether or not a player is worth the money he is making. This may seem analytical and it is. But the good thing about this movie is that it doesn’t get TOO bogged down in numbers. It does go into the formula but for the most part it stays away from the boring aspect of HOW a player is broken down and simply states it in a way that is entertaining. So how does a team replace 3 superstars with 3 guys who, quite simply, “get on base?” Well…that’s where the idea of moneyball succeeds. And where this movie succeeds is by having Brad Pitt play A’s General Manager, Billy Beane.

Not since “Bull Durham” in 1988 has there been such a commanding character on screen for a sports movie. Pitt is the star here and even though he has a great supporting cast, this wouldn’t be anywhere near as entertaining without him. He plays Beane as a “winner-take-all” type of guy who has absolutely no interest in cowering to anyone. He buys into the system that Yale graduate Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) sells him and he goes for it full throttle. Disregarding what his scouts and coaches tell him, Beane buys “lower than market value” players and puts them on the field to start the 2002 season.

From there it really is all about how the season plays out. At first, no one believes. But then as the season progresses, the team starts to win and everyone hops on the bandwagon. At one point, the A’s win 20 games in a row, finished 1st in the A.L. West but lose in the Division Series 3-2 to the Minnesota Twins. So that’s the history of “Moneyball” and where the movie plays out. Now…does it make for entertaining moviemaking?

Sort of. If you’re a baseball fan. Or a sports fan. Or a Brad Pitt fan (which I imagine every woman in the world is) then you’ll have something of interest in this movie. But if you’re not into the nuances of baseball? Then it might make for a long film. Because it is pretty much entirely set in the baseball clubhouse or on the field. There is some family drama set up when Beane’s ex-wife and daughter are introduced into the story, but it seems almost thrown in by the writers and doesn’t take up too much screentime. For the most part, this is a movie about baseball and the numbers of baseball. If that is your thing, then you will enjoy “Moneyball.”

Oh yeah…or if you’re a Brad Pitt fan. He’s pretty much in every scene so…it has that going for it also.

Overall Rating: B

10 second Review: Brad Pitt plays Oakland A’s G.M., Billy Beane. Can he field a team while having the lowest salary in major league baseball? Using the “Moneyball” system he can! Let’s watch and see how it plays out…shall we? Oh yeah…and Brad Pitt is in it. That is all.

Made for a paltry $17,000, this fascinating indie is the handywork of director/writer/editor & lead character, Evan Glodell, and is difficult to explain. At its heart, it’s a love story (of sorts). But with the combined elements of a 1970’s grindhouse movie and violence that reminds me of “Fight Club,” this movie takes you on a roller coaster ride and right when you think you’re ready to get off, there’s another drop.

The story is that of best buds, Woodrow & Aiden, who have moved from Wisconsin to live in star-studded California. They have dreams of creating their own apocalyptic gang, driving hot rod muscle cars and building flame-throwing weapons to fight off zombies. They are your average twenty-somethings…party-hard, drink harder and never let a woman come between your friends. This way of life is put to the test when Woodrow meets Milly. She’s a loud-mouthed, buxom blonde who can party with the best of them and when they meet at a local bar (in a grasshopper eating contest. YUCK!), it is obvious there is chemistry. For their first date, they drive to Texas to eat at the grungiest restaurant that Woodrow knows and it’s on their journey there & back that they bond and share a first kiss.

From there the movie kicks into a blur of drunken nights and lonely days as Woodrow & Milly date, then break up (the movie never really touches how long they are together) and the rest of the film is how Woodrow deals with his anger over the breakup. The question is…what is his testosterone-fueled fantasy of what he WANTS to happen and how it really happens and that is where this film is unique. Using lots of different lenses and gels, Glodell creates an atmosphere of pandemonium with creative camera angles and stylish editing. Meanwhile, he has given us characters that we identify with and as the relationships begin to crumble, our allegiances start to fall into place.

Although there are no big names in this film, they all deserve some recognition for a job well done. Glodell plays his Woodrow in 2 parts. Initially he’s reserved and shy. Then he becomes angry and unsure as the movie goes on and his relationship with Milly falls apart. Milly, played by Jessie Wiseman, is a flippant character, not ready for a steady relationship and unwilling to settle down for any one person. Their friends are Aiden and Courtney, played by Tyler Dawson and Rebekah Brandes. Aiden is the loudmouthed wingman that every 20-something male needs. He’s unabashedly vulgar and relentless when he gets going. Courtney is the exact opposite. She’s quite and wants to be noticed but isn’t quite sure how to find the affection she craves.

As the movie goes on, “Bellflower” becomes a mish-mosh of creative film-making and violent fantasy and it becomes difficult to tell reality from fantasy. Anyone who has ever been in a broken relationship will probably identify with the way it all falls apart and Glodell is definitely a director and writer who I’ll be looking out for in the future. This fascinating film is Tarantino-ish in its delivery but quite unique in style and Glodell delivers a great indie that I’ll be remembering for a very long time!

Overall Rating: A

10 Second Review: A fascinating indie that does Tarantino justice. A twenty-something’s testosterone-induced fantasy takes hold when his girlfriend breaks up with him. What’s real or what’s fantasy? We may never know…

The last of the Harry Potter series goes out not with a whimper, but with a large BANG as Harry & the gang (but mostly Harry) take on “He Who Won’t Be Named” (aka Voldemort) in a showdown of epic proportions. Not only is this the showcase ending to an amazing run of Potter films, it has also been considered as THE best of all the rest and I am here to tell you…I don’t necessarily agree…however I can see where Potter purists are coming from.

For those of you in the know, Harry Potter and his 2 best friends, Ron & Hermione, embarked on a journey to find the horcruxes in Part I. Where Part I was the setup for this film, it was a slow buildup. In this one, the gang have their sights set on the remaining 3 horcruxes and are set on destroying them before Voldemort can get his horny little paws on them. What ARE horcruxes? Well…if you don’t know, that means you A) haven’t read the books or B) haven’t seen Part I. So let me just say this…go see BOTH of them. Rent Part I and then hustle down to your local theater (yes…I AM late to the game. This movie came out well over a month ago) and see Part II because, quite frankly, these 2 films are the most exciting fantasy films to hit the theaters since the The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. The only difference between them is that we have watched these characters grow since the original Potter back in 2001 and what a ride it has been!

Along the way we have seen so many magical things and one of the MOST magical transformations has been the acting ability of all parties involved. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have grown so much through the years and it has been a joy to watch them on this ride of fantastic film-making. The finale brings them even more into their own as actors and with a great surrounding class (including Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon, Tom Felton and a cast of hundreds), this will likely be considered on par with the Rings trilogy. For MY money, the III film, “Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban,” is my favorite of the Potter series, however this and its predecessor are easily 2 & 3 and should be considered Oscar material for 2011.

Without giving anything away, here are some of the highlights of Part II: there’s a kiss, there’s a few deaths, there’s a lot of ghosts and the school of Hogwarts has seen better days. These are all a part of what is a spectacular summer blockbuster that deserves every rave review it has gotten. Go see “Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II” in the theaters while you can. It deserves to be seen in its full glory!

Overall Rating: A+

Overall Rating with Part I: A+

Overall Rating With ALL Films: A- (the second film kinda sucked in my opinion)

10 Second Review: Harry and his friends have been quality entertainment for over a decade. This is the icing on the cake. Go see it YESTERDAY!

Let me start out by saying that “The Switch” is your typical romantic comedy. It doesn’t do anything differently than most other rom com’s that you’ve already seen. And like so many of those others, my interest in the movie falls squarely on the shoulders of the actors in the film. In this case, that’s a good thing because I’m a big fan of Jason Bateman and have enjoyed many of his bit roles in a lot of great movies (Dodgeball, Love Stinks, Juno, Up In The Air, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). The question was…could he take a somewhat neurotic & pessimistic lead character and make him likable enough to carry an entire film? And I’m happy to report that he does…but barely.

Here’s the premise…Wally & Kassie (Jennifer Aniston in her umpteenth rom com in the last decade) are best friends. When Kassie decides that her body clock is ticking and she needs to have a baby before her time is up, she throws a big “Fertilization Party” and gives artificial insemination a go. Wally is totally against her decision and so, in a fit of drunkenness, replaces her baby daddy’s “stuff” with his “stuff” and then 9 months later she has the baby and we all pretty much know what goes on from there. All rom-com’s have their “situation” but in the end, the only question that remains to be answered is “Will they fall in love?” This movie is no different. But what this movie has that others don’t is Bateman AND the little boy who plays the son. Thomas Robinson is the child actor who is Sabastian, the little boy who is a little dark and rough around the edges. He has some quirks and Robinson is perfect for the role. It’s because of him that this movie succeeds. For the first half of the movie, the Bateman/Aniston combo is good enough to carry the movie but it kind of fizzles out after that. It’s the addition of Robinson in the second half that makes this worth seeing. It’s nothing you haven’t seen before but it’s a decent late-night date rental and I would recommend it on that level only.

Overall Rating: B-

10 Second Review: If you’ve seen 1 rom-com, you’ve seen them all but Bateman and Robinson are the stars that make this one sparkle. This is also probably Aniston’s best movie to date (as far as the ones I’VE seen).

Let’s see…take 10 or so of the 80′s & 90′s biggest action film stars, throw them together and fire off a ton of ammo and you have the ingredients for the mother of all action flicks…right?

Well…kind of.

I’m not sure which is worst. The fact that almost all of these action stars have aged so much or if I’m the one who has aged and these kinds of movies now come across as completely stupid. Either way, something was lacking in this movie and I’m not sure who to blame. Here’s what I DO know…I’m tired of movies where the “heroes” go storming the castle and the bad guys are firing off millions of rounds of ammo and amazingly not one of the good guys gets hit. Meanwhile the good guys can literally throw knives from a quarter mile away while running (in slow motion) and are accurate enough to hit a gunman in the throat. I mean…seriously?

All of this kind of action is obviously catering to a certain crowd and it’s no surprise that with all the action stars, a few of them are gonna get short-changed for screen time. It IS a good thing that the ones who are NOT short-changed are Statham & Stallone. I would have to say that Statham is easily the action star of this generation so it was smart of the producer of this movie to make him a highlighted character. He’s given a bulk of the dialogue and is best man to director Stallone’s character. Stallone is, by all accounts, still an action star. He’s bulked up, veins poppin’ all over the place and he still has that “Rocky” mentality. He’s the underdog trying to do good and even with the odds against him, he’s bigger and badder than even the biggest and baddest. Also playing along are Dolph Lundgren (who is surprisingly good in this movie), Jet Li, Randy Couture, Mickey Rourke (in a limited role…which is too bad), Bruce Willis (also limited…ALSO too bad), Steve Austin plays a bad guy (which is for the best. The guy cannot act at all) and there’s a guest appearance by Ahnuld that gets the 3 big guns from the 80′s together in one scene that was pretty much the talk of the town last summer (2010) when this film was released.

So there you have the main cast. I could get into a plot but why bother? You know the score. If you don’t like this kind of movie (action sequences that defy physics, a hailstorm of bullets and explosions, violent hand-to-foot-to-face combat), you’re not gonna see it. If you DO love this kind of movie, then you’ve already seen it and that’s where this movie fails. I’ve already seen this kind of flick a hundred times and director Stallone doesn’t give me any reason to want to see it again. It’s brutal and over-the-top but the characters are shallow, the action is ridiculous and mission is lame. Which makes me think that the sequel (which is being made right now and scheduled for release in 2012) will probably be pretty much the same thing…except with more Ahnuld. Now that he’s out of office, he’s gotta find SOMETHING to do with his time. Oh wait…we already know what he’s been doing in his spare time…

Overall Rating: C-

10 Second Review: It’s loud, it’s dumb and it’s just what you would expect. If that’s your kind of movie…then by all means…check this one out! Statham and Stallone don’t disappoint but beyond that, it’s the same old, same old.

Will Ferrell is a complicated guy. Just when you think you have him pegged as a goofy lump, he comes along and does something dramatic that proves you wrong. Where most of his filmography can be found in the “stupid comedy” section, he has successfully jumped into drama once before with the film “Stranger Than Fiction.” In this little indie drama, Ferrell plays Nick Halsey, a guy who has his entire life go to crap in one single day. First he is fired from his job. Then he comes home to find all of his stuff on the front lawn and his wife wanting a divorce. And soon after that he returns to the bottle in order to cope.

Sound like a Ferrell comedy? Nope. And it never really tries to become one either. This is heady stuff and nothing here really screams “comedy.” There are a couple of scenes that garnish a laugh or two, but for the most part, Ferrell’s “in-your-face” comedy is toned completely down as he languishes in his own self pity, sitting in his lounge chair on his front lawn drinking himself into a stupor for 4 days as he contemplates his future. This could have easily been one of the most depressing movies of 2010 if not for the presence of Ferrell. Given this material as it is, any other actor would have probably come across as suicidal. But because of his other films, I never once saw Nick as the suicidal type. And as the movie goes on, that’s a good thing. This character is lost…not desperate. And it’s because of Ferrell’s ability to make you sympathize with his character that makes this film bearable to watch.

Not that there aren’t other fine performances here because there are. Nick meets a new neighbor (played by Rebecca Hall) who is pregnant and waiting for her husband to arrive in Phoenix from New York. He also makes friends with bike-riding Kenny (played by the son of rapper Notorious B.I.G. and Faith Evans, Christopher Jordan Wallace), who helps him set up his yard sale and becomes possibly the only true friend that he has. Appearances by Lauren Dern, Stephen Root and Michael Pena pepper the rest of the film and make it worthy of your time.

This movie doesn’t set its goals very high. It is what it is and I imagine it didn’t take much time to get this film shot and in the can pretty quickly. That doesn’t mean its sloppy though. Actually, it’s a tight little drama that doesn’t really answer a lot of questions but fills your time with quality performances and that makes it noteworthy. It’s not Oscar worthy but it’s also not a bad choice for a nightly rental.

Overall Rating: C+

10 Second Review: Will Ferrell is former alcoholic Nick Halsey who gets fired and has his wife dump him on the same day. With all of his stuff in the lawn and locked out of the house, Nick soul searches while others look on. It’s not a comedy…but it’s a lot better than “The Other Guys.”

Although I’m not a fan of musicals, I am a fan of Christina Aguilera. It’s my opinion that she has one of the most natural singing voices in pop music today. So I figured this film, with it’s “small town girl goes Hollywood” storyline, would at least have a decent soundtrack. And it did…and it wasn’t a terrible movie either!

Ali is a small town girl with a big time voice and she knows that she needs to let it out. So one day she hops on the first Greyhound bus outta Dodge (or Iowa) and heads to Hollywood with stars in her eyes. As she job hunts, she ends up at a burlesque show/bar where she takes a job as a waitress. The show’s manager & owner, Tess (Cher), takes a liking to her and before long, things happen and she finds herself on the stage as a dancer. What Tess doesn’t know is that Ali has talent that is more than just her dancing ability. When Ali finally gets the chance to sing, she becomes the star of the show, much to the dismay of alcoholic lead star, Nikki (played by Kristen Bell), and the show becomes a huge hit! But is it too little, too late for the show as the banks and a business tycoon (played by Eric Dane) close in to shut the show down? Well…you’ll have to rent it to find out. ‘Cause I’m not gonna be the one playing spoiler! But you get the drift.

So here’s my thoughts on this little film that is basically a high quality rewrite of “Coyote Ugly.” First off, it’s got good music (Aguilera has quite a few numbers and Cher gets a couple solos). Being a fan of Aguilera’s music, this is really more of a showcase for her vocal talent more than it is a plot-driven film. The acting is far better than some of the dance movies out there today and at a much higher level (most notable is the ALWAYS entertaining Stanley Tucci as Tess’ right-hand man) and the dance numbers are well choreographed and fun. Although she won’t be winning an Oscar anytime soon, Aguilera does a decent  job with her role (she balances small town girl with confident sexy starlet well enough) and there are a few scenes in here that give her a chance to shine as an actress. I can’t imagine a better choice for the lead role and with the rest of the cast being top notch, this was a pretty good way to spend an evening with my wife. I’d say rent it with your significant other, have a glass of wine and enjoy the show!

Overall Rating: B-

10 Second Review: Enjoyable enough as a rental. The worn out storyline doesn’t distract from the real reason to watch…which is watching Aguilera shine at what she does. Cher & Tucci & a host of others make excellent supporting cast members and the choreography is great!