geniuskentyk-1 Reviews

Easy A (2010)

Easy A is Easily an A!

[9/10 · 18 September 2010]

In a world where the teenage-high school film genre is a worn out and tired formula, 'Easy A' shines by offering something new. It's funny, smart, witty, and never settles for the cliché. 'Easy A' is easily an A!

Emma Stone stars in her breakout role as the film's main character, Olive Penderghast. Olive, is apparently a "nobody" at East Ojai High School, and her best and only friend, Rhiannon (Aly Michalka), is obnoxiously foul-mouthed. At the start of the film Rhiannon invites Olive to her family's camping trip for the weekend. Olive lies and says she has plans that weekend, going on a date with a guy. Lying is the central aspect of 'Easy A.'

After the weekend, in which Olive did nothing but stay upstairs and listen nonstop to a song she hates (Pocketful of Sunshine), Rhiannon insistently asks for details about her "date." Olive ends up lying and saying she lost her virginity over the weekend. However, a problem quickly arises when the school's extremely religious Christian classmate, Marianne (Amanda Bynes), overhears Olive admitting she lost her virginity. Soon enough the entire school learns of Olive's lost virginity. Olive may have been "invisible" before, but now all the attention's on her.

Olive hasn't told anyone the truth yet, but when she's in detention (for calling a fellow Christian extremist a bad, bad word) she ends up revealing the truth to a fellow detention-mate, Brandon, who is gay and gets bullied for it every day. When Brandon asks Olive to fake having sex with him, she initially rejects his proposal. However, the nice and helpful girl that she is, Olive agrees to the plan to help end Brandon's bullying. The two enact their plan at a party, where there are sure to be many witnesses, and soon enough everyone believes and falls for the plan. Days later, more and more guys, mostly the "nerdy" or "loser" types, pay Olive to pretend they did a variety of things with her in order to raise their high school social-status. Olive is now opened for business.

See, Olive's problem isn't that she's a pathological liar or anything. Olive just wants to help people who are down in the dumps. She downgrades her reputation to improve others'. Throughout all this trampy and trashy mess, we still like Olive because Emma Stone's portrayal of her is charming and confident. Emma Stone has also starred in 'Superbad' and 'Zombieland.' I've only seen 'Zombieland,' but she was great in that, too.

'Easy A' boasts a strong ensemble cast that includes a variety of hilariously memorable characters. Olive's parents are some of the many highlights in the film, hilariously portrayed by Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) and Patricia Clarkson (Shutter Island). Olive's parents are the parents that every teenager wished they had. They're carefree, yet at the same time supportive and trustful of their children. Olive's favorite and likable teacher, Mr. Griffith, is portrayed by Thomas Haden Church (George of the Jungle, Spider-Man 3, Imagine That), and his wife is memorably portrayed by Lisa Kudrow (Friends). Kudrow may seem like just another funny character thrown into the mix, but she's actually more important to the film as it goes on.

The film may have one big conflict, which is Olive's lies and downgrading reputation, but this one conflict soon causes many more problems for her. She loses old friends and new friends. Many guys have payed Olive to pretend to do many things with her, but not one guy has asked her out on a real date, and she wonders why. Another problem arises that concerns Marianne's also extremely Christian boyfriend (Cam Gigandet), and it's a pretty shocking one and will surely catch you off- guard.

'Easy A' is never clichéd, not even with it's romantic side. There's a guy (portrayed by Penn Badgley from The Stepfather) Olive has had a crush on for years, and there's a part in the film where they seem to be closer and their relationship seems to escalate. How come, of all the guys at her school, the one boy Olive likes doesn't believe all the rumors? The guy's reasoning and explanation for this is a good one, and it makes sense because it ties into something Olive indistinctly mentioned to us early on in the film.

Six years ago we were given 'Mean Girls', which offered something new to the teenage-high school-comedy genre. 'Mean Girls' was hilarious and clever, and 'Easy A' is pretty much in the same league as it. This is the first film I've seen by director Will Gluck, who also directed 2009′s 'Fired Up!'. Gluck's next film, 'Friends with Benefits,' is to be released next year, and once again features Emma Stone and Patricia Clarkson, as well as Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis (That 70′s Show), and Woody Harrelson (Zombieland, Seven Pounds).

PS: 'Mean Girls' is one of the most quotable films ever. 'Easy A' is probably just as funny, and also has some quotable lines, though not as much as 'Mean Girls.'

PSS: 'Easy A' features cameos that include: Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange), Lalaine (Lizzie McGuire), and Fred Armisen (Saturday Night Live).

PSSS: If you don't believe me that 'Easy A' is an amazing comedy film, or with my friends, here's some extra commentary: Justin Timberlake – "Wanna see a movie that's great??? Go see Easy A tonight!!! E. Stone rocks in it. 'Nuff said" Taylor Swift – "Just saw Easy A. Easily, definitely, absolutely my new favorite movie."

Memento (2000)

Christopher Nolan keeps up his wonderful track record!

[9/10 · 11 September 2010]

Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) has a problem; he has anterograde amnesia, which means he can't produce new memories. The cause of this is from an accident, one which viewers will be able to find out about near the middle of the film. Leonard can remember everything before his accident, but anything after he can't remember; he can only go on for an uncertain amount of time until his brain restarts, making him lose memory of what just happened.

Leonard's problem allows director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, The Prestige) to create something truly unique with the film by presenting it in a reverse-chronological order. 'Memento' is presented in two different ways throughout; the parts presented in color are played forward, but are ordered chronologically backwards; the parts presented in black-and-white are played forward, and are also ordered in chronologically forward. Some may get slightly confused by this style, but it shouldn't take long until the concept catches on and is understandable.

'Memento's' backwards-storytelling style is what keeps the film interesting. The viewer only knows as much as Leonard knows, at the beginning, but we gradually know more than him as the film comes to a close (though, we don't know that much more than him). When new scenes come up, they're usually funny and entertaining because it makes us wonder how Leonard got himself into that situation; of course, we find this out when the next scene comes up, which ends with the beginning of the previous scene.

The film's unique style forces viewers to constantly think, question, and assume about many different things within it, which is good. 'Memento' forces viewers to pay attention on what's happening on screen, as well as what those scenes could mean or be leading to.

Throughout the film, Leonard has relationships with different characters, and we never know who is Leonard's ally or enemy, not what their motives are until the end. Leonard has a close friend, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), who helps Leonard in his path to find and kill a specific person, but is Teddy really trying to help him or not? Leonard also develops a close relationship with a woman named Natalie (Carrie-Anne moss), whom is also trying to help Leonard find and kill a specific person, but who is Natalie? What's her motive, and is she truly helping him? Leonard believes someone's trying to make him kill the wrong person, but since we only know as much as he does, we never know if Teddy is that person, or if Natalie is that person, of if neither of them are the ones trying to lead Leonard in the wrong direction. This confusion and possibility keeps the film entertaining, and opinions regarding Teddy and Natalie will surely switch multiple times throughout the film.

When the film ends (which is technically the beginning), many things are explained. However, these explanations are open to interpretations; just because the film answered certain questions asked throughout, it doesn't mean those specific answers are the right answer. The ending of 'Memento' makes you think about possible scenarios that could have happened before the events of the film, and how those could be important to the film. 'Memento', by the end of the film, is pretty straightforward, but like Inception, the film is left open to interpretation.

Director-writer Christopher Nolan does an excellent job at setting up the film's premise and style. 'Memento' is actually adapted from the short story, 'Memento Mori', which was written by Nolan's younger brother, Jonathan Nolan. Christopher Nolan is always skilled in his psychological-thriller type films, and his skill is definitely not missing from 'Memento', which is one of his early films.

PS: 'Memento' might take some viewers mutiple viewings in order to like. Personally, I didn't like the film the first time I saw it. The second time around, however, I loved it! Some might like the film the first time, like some people I know.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

"Shawshank" is probably the most perfect movie ever!

[10/10 · 11 September 2010]

What would you do if you were convicted of murdering your wife and her lover, and sentenced to two life-imprisonment terms? Would you just give up? Would you try to escape? How long would you have to live in prison before you lose hope? Writer-Director Frank Darabont (The Mist, The Green Mile) explores these situations, and the themes of integrity, hope, and freedom.

Tim Robbins portrays the character of Andy Dufresne, the man who's situation was described earlier. Andy claims he didn't commit the murders, but strong evidence overruled his claims. Did Andy really not do it? We never really know for sure until later on in the film. When Andy first arrives at Shawshank prison, he's antisocial, and goes along with the prison's routine for months. After a few months, however, Andy starts developing a friendship with Red (Morgan Freeman), a man who can get practically anything from outside the prison to inside, for a price. Andy asks him for a rock hammer. The importance of this rock hammer is evident later on in the film. But Andy's request for this rock hammer at the beginning of the film allows him to make a new friend at the prison to keep him company.

Andy's time at Shawshank prison causes it to change dramatically. Within a few years, Andy becomes an important aspect to the prison. His accounting skills help him receive benefits for himself and his friends by helping the prison guards with their taxes and other financial issues. The warden of Shawshank prison also takes interest in Andy, and soon uses him for a complex money scheme. Andy's role in the prison allows him to have a library established in the prison, as well as get beers and other things for his friends. Andy is basically making a new life for himself in the prison, but he still wants to get out. However, how many years does it take in the prison for him to give up? How many years does it take until the prison is your only way of life? This becomes a problem for many prison inmates, and even to a friend of Andy's.

One of the prisoners, Brookes (James Whitmore) is in this predicament. Brookes has lived in the prison for so long, for many decades, that it's all he knows. In the film Brookes gets released out of Shawshank prison, and is allowed to live a normal life; he has a job and a home. However, how does one live in a world that has drastically changed over the past decades? When Brookes was a little boy, cars were rare, but when he gets released from prison cars were everywhere. It's difficult to cope with, and Brookes is unable to deal with it. How long until Andy is the same way?

The film portrays two decades of Andy's sentence, with many different interesting story lines and conflicts mixed in, with many different characters. 'The Shawshank Redemption' has one important plot involving Andy's life in the prison and his hopes to escape, along with numerous side plots involving new inmates and such. The third act of the film is the quickest, and one of the most interesting parts. It involves a strong, yet completely unpredictable, resolution to the film. It also wraps up the lives of the main characters within the film in satisfying ways.

'The Shawshank Redemption' does an excellent job at portraying the themes of integrity and freedom, and how the prison can sometimes be some peoples' freedom, with the outside world being feared. Andy's integrity and hopes to escape from the prison is also a major part of the film. 'The Shawshank Redemption', adapted from the Stephen King novel, 'Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption', is a strongly-acted, well-written, and wonderfully-directed film. It's an amazing and inspirational piece of work, and probably the most perfect film I've ever seen. The plot is always at the same constant pace, and is never slowed down and boring. Every single part of the film is strong, entertaining, and thoughtful. It truly is a perfect film (this doesn't necessarily mean it's the the best film ever in the history of cinema).

PS: 'The Shawshank Redemption' came out around the same time as 'Forrest Gump' (1994). Both films are amazing and one of the best, but 'Shawshank' was overshadowed by the popularity of 'Gump.' But years later, 'Shawshank Redemption' was placed even higher than 'Forrest Gump' on AFI's 100 Years… 100 Movies list. 'Shawshank' is also currently the #1 movie of all time on IMDb. Go figure.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has everything you could possibly want in a film!

[10/10 · 16 August 2010]

Director Edgar Wright ('Hot Fuzz', 'Shaun of the Dead') has given "the world" something truly special. He's given the cinematic-world a visually appealing, eye-candy, adventure of a movie! 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' is truly a unique film, and one of the best this year!

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a 22-year-old guy with relationship issues. His last serious relationship ended with his heart broken, and now he's dating a 17-year-old high school student, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). However, we're never sure if he truly likes Knives, or if he's just desperate. But when he meets the girl of his dreams, literally, his world is forever changed. This girl is Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and for some reason, Scott has a thing for her – he thinks she's the one. However, to truly be with Ramona, Scott has to defeat her "Seven Evil Exes;" he literally has to fight and battle with each one.

The most exciting moments in the film are these seven battles. The film keeps these battles interesting by having a variety of characters, each with their own unique personalities. Before seeing the film, I knew that the battles would be video-game-esquire, but I thought that the battles would all be similar, and eventually get tedious. However, I was gladly wrong. Each and every one of the battles were unique in their own ways, depending on who the "Evil Ex" was. One is Bollywood inspired, one music-inspired, and more. Some battles are more memorable than others, but each is visually stunning, and unique.

I loved the personalities of each of the "Evil Exes." All of them were hilarious in their own way; one was a vegan-powered jerk, another was a Hollywood actor. They're all so unique; one was even a girl! Ramona's female ex, Roxy Richter (Mae Whitman), was totally badass and had a slightly special speech pattern. I loved how some of these battles required Scott Pilgrim to use strategy to defeat the exes, and not just simple brute force. Some of the battles required Scott to use what he knows about his opponent's background and personality, and it's gratifying to see how Scott pulls off some of these victories. These "Evil Exes" are, for the most part, portrayed by unknowns. The most popular, to me, were Chris Evans ('Fantastic Four') and Brandon Routhe ('Superman Returns'). However, the celebrity-status of the actors in the film didn't technically affect the way we viewed their characters. For example, Chris Evan's character of Lucas Lee was, to me, the least interesting of the "Evil Exes." 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' had many, many characters, each different, and for the most part, are likable and enjoyable.

Scott has a gay friend and roommate, Wallace, played wonderfully by Kieran Culkin. Culkin's portrayal of Wallace truly stole the film. Culkin's character was funny in almost every scene, and many of his lines were quotable-worthy. Knives was a crazy character that could have been portrayed in two different ways – annoyingly or awesomely. Ellen Wong does a great job at making Knives appear obsessive and crazy, while at the same time innocent and lovable; her character could have easily been seen as annoying, but Ellen Wong pulled her off the right way. Also, Knives is totally badass by the end of the film. Aubrey Plaza ('Parks and Recreation') portrays a memorable minor character, Julie Powers. Julie is one of Scott's friends and has the unique ability to censor her speech, which is hilarious.

The film has so many different characters that are so different and unique, that it's hard to choose a favorite. However, there are some characters that could've been better. To me, Ramona Flowers seemed too distant and not-right for Scott Pilgrim. Her character just had a straight-faced, uncaring personality throughout the entire film. I didn't sense any chemistry between her and Scott Pilgrim, but hey, maybe that's what her character's supposed to be like. The twin "Evil Exes" barely had any screen time, and had a short battle; they literally didn't speak one line.

'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' has an extremely fast pacing, and it works great. Straight from the beginning of the film, you can tell that everything happens fast in the film. The dialogue is even fast at some parts. This fast-pace requires fast transitions, and I felt like the transitions were well-done. The visuals in the film were also amazing and well-done. I loved how well the film managed to pull off a video- game feel, and make it not cheesy. The film had "pee bars," "coins as rewards," "health points," and so much more. All of these things fit naturally in the film, and they're awesome. The weapons were amazing, and the fights were all well-choreographed.

'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' has everything you could possibly want in a film! It has wonderful actors, memorably unique characters, an interesting plot, quotable dialogue, a unique style, spectacular visuals, and so much more! It's truly, truly unique (I know I've said that a lot, but it really is!) and is definitely a stand-out film from most that are currently out. No other film this summer, or this year, has been this stand-out since Inception. Both films are definitely on the top of my "Best Films of 2010″ list, for sure!

PS: Who doesn't like Michael Cera? He's such a lovable actor, and has that unique ability to be "liked" in any film he does! He's awesome.

PSS: 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' is ridiculously awesome. Go see it! You don't have to be "nerdy" or "geeky" to like or understand the film's concept and unique style. I went with a lot of friends, and most of them surely weren't the gamer-types. The film's appealing to males as well as females, for sure!

PSSS: Once again, go see 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World!'

Charlie St. Cloud (2010)

A strong movie that just needs more emotion!

[6/10 · 31 July 2010]

Zac Efron is a great actor. He's matured and grown so much over the years, especially from his 'High School Musical' days. Since then he's starred in 'Hairspray', which was an awesome musical remake; '17 Again', which I really liked; and 'Me and Orson Welles', which I haven't seen yet, but has gotten remarkable reviews. Efron is a charming actor, and the roles he chooses can do nothing but enhance his acting career. 'Charlie St. Cloud' reunites director Burr Steers (director of '17 Again') with Zac Efron. Like I said, I really enjoyed '17 Again', so I was even more excited to see 'Charlie St. Cloud'.

'Charlie St. Cloud' involves the bond of two brothers – Charlie, whom is graduating high school and has a scholarship to Stanford, and Sam, his 12-year-old-ish younger brother. The two brothers are extremely close. They spend lots of time together, and Charlie promises Sam that they'll play baseball every day until he goes to Stanford. Unfortunately, Charlie and Sam get into an accident, and Sam passes away. Charlie died with Sam, too, but he was revived by the paramedics. Since Charlie was technically dead for those few moments, he's now gained the ability to interact with his dead brother – he's able to keep the promise he made to Sam before the accident.

What I've just explained occurs within the first 30 minutes of the film. That's the most emotional part of 'Charlie St. Cloud.' I found myself slightly teary-eyed. The rest of the film isn't as emotional as I had hoped, or as much as the trailers made it seemed out to be. Things happen too fast in the film. We know that there's going to be a romantic aspect to 'Charlie St. Cloud', as seen from the trailers, and that it would cause a problem for Charlie's relationship with his dead brother. However, that conflict wasn't dealt with enough – it wasn't as emotional nor deep enough. It felt more like: (1) Charlie plays baseball with his dead brother every day, keeping his promise. (2) Charlie falls for a girl, Tess (Amanda Crew), and starts to have a relationship with her. (3) Charlie's brother, Sam, gets mad at Charlie for slowly forgetting him and his promise. (4) Charlie now must choose between Tess or Sam. I swear, the pacing of the film felt that fast and abrupt. There's not enough time in between each of those events for us to feel the emotion or even care much; I did care, but barely.

'Charlie St. Cloud' actually has a lot of supernatural elements to it, considering the main character can interact with his dead brother. There's more supernatural elements than I had expected. The biggest supernatural moment occurs in the film's third act, where we discover a big and unexpected twist. I was 'wow-ed' by the twist. The twist caught me completely off-guard, and it was a really good twist. Now, I wouldn't compare it to the awesome twists from 'Inception' or 'Salt', but the one in 'Charlie St. Cloud' is solid and works for the film.

This plot twist in 'Charlie St. Cloud', however, is where I found myself confused and have mixed-feelings about the film. The twist wasn't the bad part. The events and circumstances that caused the twist to be discovered is what I was confused about. I can't really say anything else to further explain what I mean without spoiling the film. If you see the film, I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about.

The actors and actresses in 'Charlie St. Cloud' are very strong and are able to keep the film interesting, even during the slow and slightly boring parts. Zac Efron does a wonderful job at portraying an emotional and disconnected character. Charlie Tahan is convincing as a loving younger brother. The beautiful Amanda Crew is a strong actress opposite Efron. Heck, even Charlie's paramedic, whom has a small, but important role, is portrayed by a good actor – Ray Liotta.

For the most part, I enjoyed 'Charlie St. Cloud.' It's a good supernatural-romantic-drama film. The film's odd mixture of genres didn't bother me at all; the technique just wasn't there. 'Charlie St. Cloud' is a strong and good movie, with a nice twist and strong leads, just with a slightly confusing aspect to it. The theme the film presented is also something to live by: "Live your life – for something."

Inception (2010)

INCEPTION is the kind of movie most directors DREAM of making!

[10/10 · 17 July 2010]

'Inception' is an amazing, imaginative, innovative, clever, exhilarating, and (there are way too many positive adjectives to describe the film) bad-ass film. I think Christopher Nolan has finally found, no, created, his magnum opus - an amazing feat, considering how early Nolan really is in his directorial career.

In 'Inception', director Christopher Nolan takes us into a world where entering peoples' dreams is a reality. In this world, there are people called 'Extractors' whom are able to enter peoples' dreams and steal any type of information from practically anyone. Leonardo DiCaprio's character, Dom Cobb, is the most skilled Extractor, and he has a very important job to do - a job that the basic plot revolves around. Dom Cobb is hired by a very powerful Japanese businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe) to do the impossible - implant a brand new idea into another person's mind; this task is called inception. The target is another businessman, a rival of Saito's, named Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy). The task of inception requires in-depth planning, and requires experts in a variety of fields. Thus Cobb must assemble a team of top- notch professionals in those certain important fields.

The remarkable Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrays Arthur, Cobb's right-hand man, and has the important task of researching and learning about his targets. The lovely Ellen Page portrays Ariadne, an architect whose sole responsibility is to create the complex world of the dream. Tom Hardy portrays Eames, a wise-cracking shape-shifter, of sorts. And Dileep Rao portrays the chemist, Yusuf, who provided the special drugs that enabled everyone to enter dreams - he's also important for driving that van; you'll know what I'm talking about.

Cobb's team is amazing, and each and every one of them is unique and likable in their own ways. These characters' unique-ness and likability is helped by the fact that they're portrayed by a bunch of strong actors and actresses. The ensemble cast in 'Inception' truly is remarkably strong and superb. So many characters in 'Inception' are portrayed by well-known actors and actresses that I'm glad none of them were wasted. From the trailers, I figured the characters of Saito (Watanabe) and Fisher, Jr. (Murphy) would have minimal screen-time, because I figured their characters (the former the client, the latter the target) just wouldn't be focused on as much. However, I'm glad I was wrong. Watanabe's character stuck around for the entire film, and is actually important, though you won't know it till the end of the film. And Murphy's character was also featured a lot and important to the overall movement of the plan. Gordon-Levitt's Arthur is very charming and goofy, and the funny scenes that were actually included in 'Inception' were all funny because he was in it.

I loved Ellen Page's character. Christopher Nolan was actually very smart for putting a character like Ariadne in the film - her character helps us understand the film better. Since Ariadne is new to the concept of entering other people's dreams (as are we) and all of the complex rules that apply to them, it's extremely helpful when she asks questions since she's as confused about certain things as we, the audience, are. Page's Ariadne is like our senator or representative for the film, since she practically does represent us, and raises the same question as we do.

The complexity of 'Inception' is purposely frustrating and confusing. The film works because of that. And I love movies that make the audience frustrated and make them have to work with the movie in order to enjoy it (if they're done right, which 'Inception' definitely did). Films like 'Inception' are more enthralling when they're challenging, because you become even more satisfied when you actually succeed in understanding them.

The only major problem I had with 'Inception' was the fact that many times I couldn't understand what Saito was saying, and most of the time he was saying something important. It's important to pay attention to every single line spoken in the film, so when I couldn't understand Saito in his many important scenes, it left me clueless and confused. Also, I couldn't get over the fact that Saito promised Cobb that he would be able to fix all of Cobb's problems with just one phone call. How is he able to do that? Although I'm disappointed that the film never really explains this, I think it's actually better that it didn't.

'Inception' is a near-perfect film, and requires multiple viewings to truly understand its complexity. Christopher Nolan is an amazing director who hasn't made one bad film yet! I trust his ability to continue this streak. Freaking-A! I cannot get over the very final scene of 'Inception.' That final moment, I think, was the perfect way to end off the film. It's the kind of ending that will frustrate people, but it's also the kind of ending that's debatable, and is either praised or hated. I, personally, loved the ending. However, I did, along with almost everyone else in the theater, go "Awww" and "Omg" after that last, important scene. I just love how that ending teases everyone. 'Inception' definitely lives up to, or even surpasses, the hype surrounding it! The film is amazing on multiple levels, and in multiple ways, for multiple reasons. It's the movie of the summer. It's the movie of the year. And, quite frankly, it's one of the best movies of the decade.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

A horrible sequel to an amazing film

[5/10 · 9 July 2010]

I went to see ROTF in IMAX, and yes, the movie is much bigger, louder, and crazier than the first movie. However, all those things together doesn't make the sequel better than the first 'Transformers' movie. The first movie was better than ROTF (like 9/10). It had a more human aspect to the film, while ROTF has a more mechanical/robotic feel. In the first film, the robots were toned down in favor of character development for the human characters. I liked that it didn't totally rely on special effects, and that I actually cared for the characters. In the sequel, the human characters, for the most part, just run around as they hunt for something. The robots have more speaking roles this time around, but it's a let down. I hate most of the personalities and the voices that many of the transformers had. The 'Twins' were annoying with their stereotypical gangster slang and attitude, although they did have maybe one or two funny moments. The little blue robot was also annoying with his voice (the voice actor of Spongebob), but I soon grew fond of the character (too bad he's totally left out in the finale and final fight). Jetfire (the old robot) had a stereotypical grumpy/grouchy-old-man personality, and that got on my nerves. His character was over-the-top. I would've liked him more if the filmmakers toned him down a bit. Also, with the addition of so many robots in this movie, the 'Transformers' film franchise has become more cartoonish, which I don't like. There were many 'Frenzy'-like characters in the sequel (frenzy was the crazy small robot from the first film), but Frenzy was more realistic since he didn't have a cartoonish appeal and he didn't speak (in English) that much. Since there's so many new robots this time around (like 42, compared to the 10? in the first movie) most of them either don't talk at all, or get one line in. The big robot in the final fight (Devastator – the one that's made from the combination of six or seven robots) was very underused and a waste. His big character could've been great. Also, there seemed to be two identical robots: the six or seven robots that combined seemed to each have an identical robot fight in the battle at the same time. This confused me, but it probably won't confuse people that don't know the individual characters. {Spoiler Alert: I hated the addition of 'Alice', the hot girl that gets all over the main character. If the robots could transform into humans, why transform into vehicles? It's more convenient to be a human. Spoiler Alert Over}. Although there was a lot of things I felt was wrong with the movie, I still enjoyed it. The fights were better this time around (although i liked the first film's final fight more than the second film's final fight). The forest fight where Optimus is fighting three decepticons was cool, but it was like 5 minutes long. If it was longer, I would've appreciated it more. Oh, that reminds me – I HATE the way Optimus Prime talks. Every word that comes out of his mouth is a cliché! Also, a thought just came into my mind: What happened to the cop-car-decepticon (Barricade) from the first movie. He didn't appear in the final fight for the first film, and he didn't appear at all in the second film! He was my favorite decepticon from the first movie. Since I'm talking about Decepticons now, imma say a little something about Megatron and Starscream. Megatron was badass in the first movie, while in this one he's just a little servant to The Fallen. Megatron is stronger in ROTF but he doesn't do much. The only good part he had was in the forest fight with Optimus. Starscream was also annoying because he does nothing. He bickers with Megatron more, but I hate the way Starscream fights. He stays in vehicle form and just shoots at the enemies. Now, about The Fallen. The concept of him being the main bad guy in ROTF was cool, but the way he was portrayed in the movie was dumb. He was barely in the film, and in the final fight he barely does anything. Also, when he fought, it was for about 2 minutes before it was over. Bummer. The Fallen wasn't even as menacing as Megatron was in the first movie. The villains this time around just suck. The subtitle 'Revenge of the Fallen' is a double meaning. It means the revenge of the fallen decepticons, and also means the revenge of the character called 'The Fallen.' However, in ROTF, neither the Decepticons nore The Fallen were successful in their revenge plot. They all SUCKED. I don't know why I'm ranting about all the flaws with ROTF, even though I liked the movie and I gave it an 7 out of 10. The movie's awesome, but it just has flaws that bothered me A LOT. ROTF is certainly a much bigger movie than the first film, but the first film is certainly better. However, I still enjoyed ROTF and the exhillarating ride that Michael Bay kept me, and the audience, through. PS: Now that the robots talk more, the movie has a lot of cursing/swearing. Do robots really need to swear? Oh, and the parents were back with their comedic selves. Haha, everyone's gotta love the mom! Oh, and there's a lot of dick jokes in the movie. The audience and I saw the giant wrecking balls on the gigantic transformer dude, and we all laughed. Was it really needed? Oh, and NEST stands for Networked Elements: Supporters and Transformers. I wish the freaking movie explained that, so as to not confuse people.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

Not as great or fun as the first

[6/10 · 9 July 2010]

It's hard to believe it was 3 years ago that the first "Night at the Museum" film was released. It feels like it was just last year that I watched the first movie, which was fun, humorous, and had heart. I was disappointed that "Battle of the Smithsonian" was such a bad film compared to the first. This time around, the museum is bigger, there's more characters, and there's a slightly bigger threat and villain(s). Yes, the museum is bigger in this movie (the Smithsonian is actually composed of a bunch of museums), but we only really get to see about two of the museums. There's a lot of characters, and the important ones from the first film come back, but they're not really used. Our favorite characters from the first movie are, for 99% of the film, trapped and locked away by some of the villainous exhibits from the Smithsonian. So basically, the big ensemble cast of comedians are underused and are wasted. The new characters and villains are entertaining at some points in the movies, but they also feel underused. Most of the focus is on the pharaoh villain, while Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Al Capone remained as the pharaoh's dumb lackeys.

Another thing I felt was lacking in this movie is the threat level. Ben Stiller's character never seems to be really threatened by the pharaoh. Whenever Stiller's character gets captured (which is about 2 or 3 times), he looks bored and calm. He doesn't react as if his life's threatened. Also, the villains never act like they're really going to kill anyone. The villains just act like children. This movie uses A LOT of SPECIAL EFFECTS. Sometimes the special effects are used for no real point. For example, the fact that now paintings in the museum come to life. This didn't seem to happen in the first movie, so it feels like the filmmakers were milking the power of the "magical tablet" until they ran out of ideas.

One of the only things in this movie that was worthwhile was Amelia Earhart, played by Amy Adams. Her character is so lively and spontaneous that she brings the movie to life (only when she's in the scene). Amy Adams' character is the only important exhibit on Ben Stiller's side against the enemies. Over the course of the movie, the two fall for each other. It's kind of weird if you think about it, since she's made of plastic and he's human. And I don't understand the ending where Stiller meets a character resembling Amelia Earhart and seemingly falls for her. Does this mean that its okay to love someone else that looks like your other love?

Overall, the movie was a waste and a disappointment. It's a fun family film, and it did keep my attention (although I felt really tired halfway into the movie – maybe that was because it was like 11 or 12 at night). The movie is entertaining and its fun to watch everything in the exhibit, but it wasn't that "good." Also, I do like the ending, which reveals the fate of all of the exhibits from the original museum. Oh, and the Teddy Roosevelt bust (the brown one) had a pretty funny part, even though it only lasted for less than a minute.

Up (2009)

UP lives UP to the Pixar hype!

[10/10 · 9 July 2010]

Pixar always makes amazing films, like Wall-e, Ratatouille, or The Incredibles. The ones that aren't amazing are usually pretty decent, like Cars or A Bugs Life. Finding Nemo has always been my favorite because of how great the story was, the beauty presented in the movie, and the variety of characters it had. Up has two of the three things Finding Nemo has – Beautiful scenery and a wonderful story. Up's story isn't as smart or complex as Ratatouille or Finding Nemo, but it's still entertaining and fun. Up doesn't have that many characters, but it is Pixar's most emotional movie to date.

The first ten minutes of Up will make you want to cry. It sure made me want to give up my god-like manliness. Those that don't give in to Up's emotional beginning don't have a heart. I like how the story isn't all about Carl (the old guy) and his sad story. The movie sheds some light on the other lead's (the little kid, Russel, who accompanies Carl. He also happens to be Asian!!) background. Carl is mourning his wife, while the film briefly explains Russel's issues with his father.

Although there wasn't a variety of characters in the movie, there was still a whole bunch of dogs, a colorful bird, and another old dude, who happens to be the villain. The dog, if you've seen the trailer, is Dug. Dug is a very cute, playful, and loyal dog, who appears to be a Lab. Kevin is a beautiful female prehistoric bird that the other old guy, Charles, is searching for. The movie is fun because it offers so many laughs from the four characters of Carl, Russel, Kevin, and Dug. Charles, however, is a different story.

Charles Muntz is Carl's childhood hero. He's a famous explorer that, about 70 years ago, discovered the bones of some kind of bird that no one has every seen before (we, the audience, know that it's Kevin's race). Scientists claim that Charles made up everything, so Charles swore that he would find a living specimen. This is where Kevin comes in. Charles spent the rest of his life trying to capture Kevin, and when Russel and Carl grow fond of Kevin, the two parties are at an opposition. Now, Carl finds his childhood hero trying to kill him.

I respected Charles and his character in the movie, but I soon grew intolerant of him. I understand that he spent his life trying to capture Kevin, and it's his passion. However, Charles becomes an asshole to the other characters when they get in his way. Charles even endangers a little 7-year-old boy, Russel, just to get what he wants. By the end of the movie, I felt that Charles got what he deserved.

Up is the best film I have seen all year, and is the only movie so far of 2009 that I've given a 10 out of 10. I can't think of any animated movie, or live-action, that has been as emotional, sad, funny, and charming as Up has been. I also loved the animated short film that appeared before Up, called Partly Cloudy. I liked how the short film kind of has a similar setting as Up, and I think that Partly Cloudy has a story that Pixar could actually make into a feature film. One think that disappointed me at the theater, though, was the fact that the trailer for Toy Story 3 wasn't shown. Every Pixar movie has a teaser trailer of the next movie that's going to be released, so I kind of felt cheated. Even though I saw the trailer for it already, I still would have liked to see it on the big screen, and also for everyone else in the theater to know about it.

Imagine That (2009)

A movie that means well, but wasn't made well

[5/10 · 9 July 2010]

Eddie Murphy has been off his A-game in 'comedy' lately. The past few movies he's been in have been flops, sucky films, and/or not funny (kind of like Will Ferrel). Well, I was skeptical of 'Imagine That' and thought that I would die from watching a movie that had bad reviews. After seeing the movie, however, I actually enjoyed the movie a little. The actor that portrays Murphy's daughter is a natural and her character has cute moments. 'Imagine That' doesn't really have any 'laugh-out-loud moments'; it's funny sometimes, but not a 'bursting with laughter' kind of funny. I actually read a review that said that 'Meet Dave', which was the last Eddie Murphy film (and was also a big flop), had more laughs than 'Imagine That.' While watching this movie it started to remind me of a kids movie that Eddie Murphy was in a few years ago, called 'Daddy Day Care.' I liked 'Daddy Day Care' a lot more than 'Imagine That' (i don't know if it's because i was younger then…), but I still wouldn't say that 'Imagine That' is a horrible movie. It's an 'okay' movie; not too good, but not too bad.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Doesn't live up to the hype

[6/10 · 9 July 2010]

I expected too much out of Paranormal, that, despite it being a decent movie, I left the theater disappointed. I expected to be frightened and to s*** in my pants, but that didn't happen. I appreciated how different the movie was, and how the director used small, but clever scare tactics, being his first film and all; good thing this wasn't a Hollywood movie, too! That would've ruined it. The movie had wonderful actors, and the couple had realistic chemistry with one another. The thing I didn't like, though, was the fact that the movie was too slow trying to get to the scary moments. The slow parts dragged my patience for so long that I ended up bored for most of the 'scary' moments. Lots of people in the audience freaked out (mostly the women) and hollered at the scary moments, but I didn't', and I'm not that hard to scare. Most of the audience laughed during the scary moments, because everyone expected to be scared out of their minds. Yeah, the movie was funny, because of the guy, Micah, and his humorous attitude, but after a while, I stopped laughing. The best part of the movie, though, is the final act. Things really started to pick up near the end, but the ending was anticlimactic and disappointing. The movie didn't deserve such an ending, but the moment RIGHT before the ending was amazing. The minutes before the movie ended was the truly intense, freaky, creepy part of the movie. If only the film was like that the whole time, I would've been scared and loved it! Although I was disappointed, the experience as a whole was absolutely fun. With the movie theater packed and stuff, and everyone expecting the same thing from the movie, it was fun and exciting. If you truly want to be scare, though, I'd suggest going alone, or maybe with a few other people, on a day when the movie theater isn't packed. Go on a weekday in order to get an empty theater. Hopefully that would heighten the scary parts of the movie.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Twilight definitely caught me off-guard!

[8/10 · 9 July 2010]

I was very skeptical about Twilight even before it was released. The first time I saw the trailer for it, I thought the film looked too boring, the color and scenery of it too dull, and the vampires too pale. While I watched the movie, I got used to the dullness of the background (the skies and stuff looked unusually boring…), and I got used to the Vampires' paleness, cuz I guess it made sense; it's one of the things that define them. While I was watching the film, I started to like it more and more (the beginning I thought the movie deserved a 6, then half way I felt it was a 7, then finally an 8). I like how the director made the film and how stylized everything was. The baseball scene was pretty cool in my opinion. I was confused about some things in the movie, such as how the sunlight makes the vampires look different. How do they go to school without changing in the sunlight? Maybe they explained this and I wasn't paying attention… Also, a lot of people told me that Kristen Stewert (who plays the main character, Bella) was a terrible actor in this movie. Yes, at some points in the movie her acting is weird, but not terrible; I think she just "overacts", like at the part in the hospital. Other than those few bad acting parts, I felt Kristen Stewert was a fine actress in this movie. Was there chemistry between the two leads? Again, most people said no. I personally felt there was chemistry. The chemistry wasn't clearly there, and sometimes the leads looked uncomfortable around each other, but that's how they're supposed to act. The characters ARE uncomfortable! I watched the movie just to see one of the most hated movies of 2008, but I'm shocked to find myself to its liking. A lot of people are going to think I'm crazy for giving the movie an 8 out of 10, but it's my opinion; I really like this movie! I can't wait till the sequel, which is coming out exactly one year from the last movie. Too bad they replaced the director, and also I feel like they're rushing to make this movie. We'll just have to see….

Dragonball Evolution (2009)

A crappy movie, but it's fun

[4/10 · 9 July 2010]

I went in to see Dragonball, not expecting much. The trailer already told me that the movie was gonna be very Americanized, have whack special effects, and a white Goku. Although it was exactly what I expected, the movie was still pretty fun. Everything was pretty lame, like the acting, the jokes, and basically all the characters. I guess the actor who played Goku got it right with the goofiness, but it still felt strange. All the actors were okay; they're weren't horrible like Street Fighter, but not "great." I felt that the actor that played Bulma the best out of the whole group. The actor for Yamcha was miss-casted; he sucked balls. It was weird that Cho Yun-Fat played Master Roshi and an older actor played Grandpa Gohan, when Roshi supposedly was Gohan's master, but whatever. Overall, the movie is just what you'd expect. The resolution and "plot twist" was kinda stupid, and was totally different from the Dragonball t.v. show. If the movie was at least 2 hours long (it was only 84 minutes, what a waste) the plot could've been better and stuff.

17 Again (2009)

Just because it's a Zac Efron film, doesn't mean it's bad!

[8/10 · 9 July 2010]

17 Again was actually a pretty entertaining movie. From the looks of the trailer, it seemed that the main character (Zac Efron) would just experience being a teen again. However, the story is more than that. The main character turning back to a teenager is just something that drives the story. The movie shows his experience helping out his family without letting them know that it's him in teenage form, while at the same time teaching some moral lessons that every teen should follow. The movie is funny and very entertaining, and the acting is pretty good. Zac Efron is becoming a better actor, and the supporting cast are pretty decent. The movie would be the perfect, heartwarming family film if it wasn't for two main problems: 1) The movie fails to show any resolution with the main character's daughter. Even after the lessons she's learned from her teenage father in the movie, she's still the same desperate-for-love daughter by the end. 2) There is absolutely no relationship between the families other than with the father. The main character moved out of the house because he and his wife are divorcing, and his children seem to not care at all. Sure, they're cool with their teenage dad, but why do they hate their old dad so much? Also, it seems like the mom doesn't mind that her daughter's dating a sex-addicted ass hole. The couple act sexual and dirty around her, yet the mom seems to not care. I don't think the mom actually speaks to the daughter at all, only to her son. Near the end of the movie, the daughter speaks to her mom, but the mom fails to reply. WTF? But those are just little problems that most people will probably fail to notice.

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

Kung Fu Panda definitely doesn't let-down!

[8/10 · 9 July 2010]

I was pretty skeptical about Kung Fu Panda at first. I thought a movie about a kung fu panda would be too dumb and westernized. However, I was gladly wrong. Every element of the movie resembles an old Asian kung fu movie. The fight scenes are very memorable and you can tell the animators worked hard on them. One of the things I did hate about the movie is the casting of the voice actors. The "Furious Five" are supposed to be great kung fu fighters and stuff, and are voiced by celebrities. However, they barely have any importance to the story. And it seemed like Angelina Jolie's Lion character was the only important one. Jackie Chan was the monkey, and he literally had only two lines! There was absolutely no point in having these high profile actors. Some parts of the movie are too cliché, but overall "Kung Fu Panda" is pretty good.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)

Madagascar 2 is an un-needed sequel

[6/10 · 9 July 2010]

I haven't seen the first Madagascar movie in a long time, so after seeing the sequel, it almost feels the same. In the sequel, the animals are now stuck in Africa, and the plot is similar to the first movie. The animals must learn to survive in an unknown land, and they each "chill" with their individual species. This movie feels just as funny as the first movie, but the animation in the first movie seems to be better. Also, I don't really understand the title. "Escape 2 Africa" . . . the animals accidentally crash landed to Africa, so it shouldn't called "Escape 2 Africa." One part of the movie seemed too similar to The Lion King, such as the one "bad guy" lion who just happens to be a darker lion than all the others. The story also seems to focus only on Alex the Lion. The other characters, especially Marty the Zebra, have less of a role this time.Although the two movies feel about the same, I'm slightly leaning towards the first movie as the better one, just because the main characters seem to have equal importance.

The Last Airbender (2010)

It's in the running for one of the worst films of 2010!

[3/10 · 9 July 2010]

I've wanted to see 'The Last Airbender' for a long, long time. I knew I shouldn't set my expectations high when I first learned that M. Night Shyamalan was to be the director; he hasn't made a good movie in years! Then, a few months ago, the first trailer for the film was released. From the trailer, the film looked decent. It looked like it was going to be cheesy and stupid, but at least fun. I found out I was wrong. The movie wasn't cheesy, nor was it any fun! 'The Last Airbender' was a stupid, disgraceful adaptation of the original, beloved TV series.

I hated how the majority of the main characters' names were mispronounced. Perhaps the changed pronunciations were more correct, but the fact that the film is based on the show, the original pronunciations of the names should have been kept. Aang in the movie is "Aw-ng". Sokka is "Soak-ah." Iroh is "E-roh." Also, Avatar is pronounced "Aw-vatar." It's annoying.

I hated how Shyamalan chose mostly unknown actors to portray some of the main characters. I hated how Shyamalan chose a boy (Noah Ringer) who has no skills in acting whatsoever to portray Aang, the main character, just because the boy knew martial arts. Personally, I would've chose acting ability over martial arts ability. I hated how all of the acting were wooden and lifeless, aside from Dev Patel and Shaun Toub. Dev Patel is a really good actor, and did a good job in 'Slumdog Millionaire.' Shaun Toub was really good in 'Crash', too. I feel that the majority of the reason why the acting was so lifeless and wooden is because the dialogue and screenplay was lifeless and sucked. Much of the dialogue in 'The Last Airbender' are long-ass narrations – the television show did it much better and shorter. I hated how, many times, the long-ass narrations took the place of actually showing us what happens; we hear about what happens instead of actually getting to see on screen what happens.

I hated how the movie's so dark, while the television series is beautiful and bright. I hated the choppy storyline. The film's supposed to be a type of road-movie, but we go from city to city without any acknowledgment. We never know how many days have passed, or if it's the same day or not. We go from place to place without ever getting the chance to settle down and actually care about the characters and the situations they're in. The choppy pacing of the film never allows us to like anything or anyone in the movie.

I hated how the order that some dialogue and actions take place were out of order. Things should have been said before they were actually said, and things should have happened at another time, or vice-versa. For example, when Aang escapes from the grasps of Prince Zuko early in the film, Aang takes out his glider. After Aang takes out his glider, Zuko tells him, "You have nowhere to run!" Then, Aang uses his glider to fly away. Logically, Zuko should have cornered Aang, tell him that he had nowhere to run, and then Aang would pull out his glider and fly away. It's ridiculous! Some things in the film shouldn't have even been said! For example, in the final act of the film, the Aang is at the Northern Water Temple, and the Fire Nation currently do not know where he is. But then Admiral Zhao (Aasif Mandvi) suddenly tells the Fire Lord (Cliff Curtis) that they think Aang's at the Northwern Water Temple. How the hell do they think and know that!? It's unbelievable. I'm not even finished explaining yet! Right after saying that, Admiral Zhao then tells the Fire Lord that they should attack the Northern Water Temple because the scrolls they found earlier in the film revealed that the Moon and Ocean spirits were located at the Northern Water Temple, and the Fire Nation wants to kill the Moon and Ocean spirits. Now, if the film left just the whole 'Moon-and-Ocean-Spirits' part as the reason for attacking the Northern Water Temple, and just-so-happen to find Aang there as well, I would've believed'em. The first part about "Ooh, I have a strong feeling the Avatar's at the Northern Water Temple" shouldn't have been said at all!

I also really hated how all of the water-bending, air-bending, earth-bending, and fire-bending had excessively long movements, resulting in actually very little happening. In the television series, the elemental bending followed the movements of the characters. In the film, each character does a series of long-ass hand gestures, and then a short burst of elemental bending occurs.

Now, what do I like about the film? The actress who portrays Katara, Nicola Peltz, actually sounds a lot like Katara from the animated series. Also, Princess Yue (Seychelle Gabriel) is really pretty in the film, and looks a lot like her animated counterpart.

'The Last Airbender' isn't fun at all. All of the jokes, joy, and life in the animated series has been left out of the film adaptation. I want sequels to this film only to give Shyamalan a chance at redemption and perhaps have other people write the screenplays for the next ones. Or even better, have a better director reboot the film series.

Mean Creek (2004)

'Mean Creek' is a realistic and solid film.

[8/10 · 9 July 2010]

'Mean Creek' is one of the most realistic depictions of teenage lives I've seen as of yet. The characters are realistic and believable, the dialogue is realistic and believable, and the situation the cast faces is realistic and believable.

George Tooney (Josh Peck) is a school bully who has been beating up and harassing Sam Merric (Rory Culkin) for a while. Sam's older brother, Rocky (Travor Morgan), and Rocky's two friends, Marty (Scott Mechlowicz) and Clyde (Ryan Kelley), scheme up a plan to get back at George for bullying Sam. The plan is simple: invite George to a boating trip for Sam's fake birthday, strip George naked, throw him into the water, and have him walk all the way home naked. The entire gang is in on the plan. However, when Sam's girlfriend, Millie (Carly Schroeder), who's also going on the trip, finds out about the prank, she forces Sam to call it off, thinking it's not a good idea. Eventually the entire group knows the prank's been called off. However, the whole group, including George, are still on the boat sailing through the creek. Marty, the leader of the group, soon decides to anchor the boat and have everyone play a game of Truth-or-Dare. This Truth-or-Dare sequence is what soon causes the troubles the gang will face.

Throughout the entire film, not just the Truth-or-Dare scene, the themes of misunderstanding and peer-pressure are examined. The entire group, aside from Marty, realize that George isn't all that bad of a kid during the boating trip, and that George just has internal problems. George is peer-pressured into smoking and doing some other small things during the boating trip (although they weren't technically forced upon him). After the accident, the group is peer-pressured by Marty to keep everything a secret. All of the themes presented in 'Mean Creek' and the way they're brought out are extremely realistic.

We learn about each of the characters' background in 'Mean Creek.' Many of these characters have family issues and pasts that they don't want to talk about. The film shows us how us teenagers talk to one another in real life, without knowing that we may be offending one another a lot. We learn from the film that you need to be careful about what you say and what you do. Marty constantly harasses Clyde about his gay parents. George constantly harasses every single member of the gang during the boating trip, though we know he's just playing around. However, George's insults soon go too far, which sets off the main conflict of the movie.

I like how the film is so realistic in its depiction of teenagers and bullying and ways of dealing with conflict. The gang's reaction and aftermath of the events at the creek are very realistic as well. From viewing the trailer, I expected that the majority of the film would take place after the events of the boating trip. However, the majority of the film takes place before the boating trip and during the boating trip. The aftermath of the boating trip is more like an epilogue. I didn't like this at first, since I expected the film would delve deeper into the conflict, but I soon realized that it's a good thing. Since the majority of the film takes place before and during the boating trip, we learn more about George. We start to like him and his human side. Josh Peck does a great job at depicting George as a jerk, while at the same time, depicting him as a likable guy. The film's kind of short to me, and the ending kind of just ends, but it's not a bad ending. I surely think the ending could've been better, but it's okay enough for me. I think anyone would like this film, especially teenagers.

The Stepfather (2009)

This remake is a pretty solid film by itself.

[6/10 · 9 July 2010]

'The Stepfather' is a fairly decent thriller and slightly-slasher film in a time where films like this are horribly made. I've never seen the original 'Stepfather' film, but from what I can tell, this remake isn't too shabby. It has strong leads and a decent and straightforward script with good pacing. I loved the introduction of the film, where it explains how the "Stepfather" killer is able to kill a family and get away with it so many times. I like how there's never really a slow or boring part in the film. We like the main son, Michael, and his girlfriend. I think Penn Badgley and Amber Heard were good in their roles. I especially liked Dylan Walsh as the stepfather. Walsh made the character both likable and hated, and made him interesting. I didn't like how clueless the mom was; she's a complete idiot. One of the biggest problems the film had was the actions some of the characters took that didn't make sense. No one would logically marry someone they knew nothing about; it's just unrealistic. And there's one part where the stepfather walks out to his front lawn while there's a bunch of policemen right across the street. If you're a mass murderer on the run, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make yourself that noticeable to the police. Also, the stepfather should have had the cell phone turned off from the beginning, not when someone's trying to call the cell phone. It's ridiculous. The stepfather's supposed to be a smart and clever guy, but we don't see that when he's with this new family. With all of this said and done, I felt that this remake of 'The Stepfather' didn't offer anything new, but it does entertain. I did like the ending and what happens to the stepfather; I felt it was a fairly good and interesting conclusion to the film. Though the ending may have felt rushed and quick, I was fine with it.

PS: This remake of 'The Stepfather' in a lot of ways felt like 2007′s 'Disturbia' (3 Kents out of 4!). I was constantly reminded of 'Disturbia' while I was watching 'The Stepfather.' However, I like 'Disturbia' more and think it was made better and more interesting. The third act of 'Disturbia' wasn't great, though, which I think the remake of 'The Stepfather' succeeds in – having the film go through a constantly interesting pace.

Moon (2009)

A wonderfully suspenseful film throughout.

[8/10 · 9 July 2010]

Pros: This film, being the directorial debut for Duncan Jones, is pretty solid. The film explores the theme of solitude, as well as life. What kind of life is important? Are clones considered human beings? Or are they considered property? Experiments? Are their lives important? Sam Rockwell does a great job at making his character interesting and at making us care about his character and the situation/dilemma he's in. The film also makes a great job at being suspenseful; the film's suspenseful throughout its entirety. Sam's smiley-faced robot companion, and only companion on the Moon, GERTY (the acronym isn't explained in the film), voiced by the amazing Kevin Spacey, is very suspicious. However, what robot isn't suspicious in any science-fiction film? I'm glad Duncan Jones didn't make GERTY into a cliché robot persona.

Cons: Some may find the movie completely boring and stupid. It all depends on how you view the film. I like the suspense, and one-man-show, and the eerie setting. The film is long for having just one actor on screen the entire time, but the suspense made the length of the film not a problem to me.

Date Night (2010)

Date Night is pretty good!

[7/10 · 9 July 2010]

Pros: I freaking LOVE Steve Carrel and Tina Fey! Carrel is a total bad-ass in The Office, and Fey is a total bad-ass in 30 Rock – 2 of my absolute favorite TV shows!!! Having these two as the leads was a dream come true. They're comedic geniuses. The movie was funny, but I only wish Tina Fey would have written it because it probably would've been 10 times funnier. The characters were funny, the story was straightforward but consisted of quite a fun bunch of characters, especially that District Attorney, who was kinda a sexual freak! Hahaha.

Cons: I only wish the movie could have maybe up-ed the genre and pushed the limit a bit more. It could've been better, done something maybe new, and kept me guessing more, but I didn't mind all of this too much because the entire movie kept me entertained.

Dear John (I) (2010)

Dear John, please offer something worth-while

[5/10 · 9 July 2010]

Pros: I liked the parts of the movies concerning John's dad. The dad's an interesting character, and the relationship the main character had with his dad was the only emotional party I felt in the entire movie. Well, besides the part John gets shot – but even that was not that long. Also, I was really fascinated with the whole coin-mule thing, lol. I learned something new. Oh, also, the directer was the director of one of my favorite movies, 'Hachiko: A Dog's Tale'!!!!!!! OMGGG!!!!

Cons: No chemistry between the two leads. The trailer made the movie seem as if the characters were going to be in love, but face trouble and hardship from being away from each other. That was barely anything in the movie. The two characters fall in love in 2 weeks, get separated for a year, they meet again, get separated again, break up. That's it. I thought the conflict would be deeper, more emotional.

The Karate Kid (2010)

The Karate Kid is a perfect remake!

[9/10 · 9 July 2010]

The 2010 "The Karate Kid" remake was a surprisingly enjoyable movie. I remember when the first trailer for the movie came out; I thought to myself, "Wow, yet another Hollywood remake of a beloved film. It's gonna be horrible! It's gonna suck!" Boy, am I proud to be wrong!

The new remake apparently resembles the original film a lot, and I've seen the original when I was young. I don't remember the original at all, so the remake was fresh to me. The plot follows 12-year-old Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) as he and his mother move all the way to Beijing, China. The move from America to China makes the drama and tension Dre faces all the more real. Dre's first experience with China's a bad one. On his first day, he makes friends, including a young Chinese girl he clearly likes. At the same time, however, Dre meets the local bully, Cheng. Cheng, throughout the entire movie, is such an asshole; he's a ruthless and merciless monster – that's how I would describe him. Cheng's martial arts master is the reason for his ruthlessness, for he teaches his students horrible lessons on martial arts and life in general. There are several scenes of Cheng beating up Dre, and they're just so hard to watch; the scenes were unbearable and so powerful we feel Dre's pain. Luckily, though, Dre's janitor, Mr. Han, is a Kung Fu master. Later on in the film, Mr. Han agrees to train Dre in Kung Fu, in order to defeat Cheng in a Martial Arts competition.

Jackie Chan playing Mr. Han in "The Karate Kid" is unique because it's a more serious role than Chan's usual fun-loving, comedic roles. Jackie Chan does an awesome job at portraying Mr. Han as a serious mentor who has a mysterious and traumatic past. We discover these clues to his past throughout the film, but these clues never connect until the very scene where Mr. Han opens up about the traumatic experience. Jackie Chan was very effective in that emotional scene, and I did get kinda of teary- eyed at that part.

One highlight I liked from the film was the moment Dre learned that the 'Jacket Routine' Mr. Han had him do over and over again truly did have everything to do with Kung Fu. That scene was extremely well-done and exciting. The scenery of the entire film benefited from the fact that the movie was actually filmed in China. The scenery included beautiful mountaintops, treetops, gardens, and temples. The third act of the film, the tournament, was also well-done. All of the fights presented were exciting, action-packed, and sometimes funny. Whenever Cheng or a member of his martial arts team is on deck, though, it's pretty intense. Cheng's team play dirty.

Now, I'd like to point out a few certain things. Yes, the movie's called "The Karate Kid" even though the movie focuses on Kung Fu. We distinguish this very clearly early on in the movie. Obviously the title was kept the same as the original in order to appear more appealing – "The Karate Kid" franchise is extremely popular, so why fix what isn't broken? I wouldn't have mind, nonetheless, if the title of the movie WAS renamed "The Kung Fu Kid", but for the sake of the original name's popularity, it was kept as "The Karate Kid." Some other complaints involved Jackie Chan not being able to replace Pat Morita as Mr. Miyagi from the original film. I agree that no one can replace the original Mr. Miyagi, but that's why the mentor in the remake's named Mr. Han. Jackie Chan's not playing Mr. Miyagi, he's playing Mr. Han, so haters need to hop off. Also, who DOESN'T like Jackie Chan? Honestly, this movie wouldn't have been as effective without Jackie Chan as the Kung Fu master. Jackie is popular in both America and Asia, and he's loved by everyone! If anyone was to replace Pat Morina, it'd definitely be Jackie Chan, no doubt about it.

I liked the movie a lot, and I would've given the movie a perfect score if it weren't for a few little problems. The movie truly was gratifying and amazing, and I still felt its effects as I left the theater. It felt like a 4/4 star movie because of how well the movie was made, and how strong the cast was. But some things from the story were just short of the finish line. The love story between Dre and Mei Ying wasn't bad, and it moved the story along, but it just wasn't that effective. I mean, they're both 12-years-old, so it's not all that dramatic or important; it's just not that serious. Still, the romance part of the movie wasn't bad, it just wasn't realistic. I don't mind it at all, though. The kids in this movie are so young, all practically 12, so the ferociousness of the fight scenes are pretty unbelievable. They're great and all, but there just can't be kids like these in the world that are so heartless and ruthless. Up until the end of the movie, Cheng and his fellow teammates just seemed like pure-evil bullies. It's hard to see something like that in 12-year-old kids. However the fact that the movie shows us Cheng's mean-ass Martial Arts teacher as the reason for Cheng being the way he is, it'll do. All in all, the new 2010 "The Karate Kid" remake was an enjoyable movie with enough drama, excitement, action, and intenseness to keep me, and anyone else, entertained. It's a really good remake, and, I must say, is one of the best movies of 2010!

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Toy Story 3 is pure genius

[10/10 · 9 July 2010]

Like everyone else, I would have to say "Pixar has done it again!" "Toy Story 3," the SECOND sequel to Pixar's most famous work, "Toy Story," does what most second-sequels would love do – live up to standards of the previous films! "Toy Story 3″ heightens the emotion and the especially the danger from the previous two films. "Toy Story 3″ is included in the "Must-Watch" film category – I'm sure of that. "Toy Story 3″ is one of those films where you know it'll be worth watching, and where you know it'll live up to the hype. "The Dark Knight" was the "must-watch" film of 2008, "Up," "Avatar," and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," were the "must-watch" films of 2009 (although "Up" was the only one that lived up to its hype), and now "Toy Story 3″ is the "must- watch" film of 2010!

"Toy Story 3″ opens with a beautiful and creative scene, seen through the eyes of Andy. The opening shows us Andy's imagination and what he sees and thinks of as he plays with his beloved toys. After this amazing scene, the film goes through a short montage of Andy playing with his toys in the past. But then we realize that a long time has passed, and Andy hasn't played with the toys in years. When the film skips to present day, we find out that some of the toys from the previous two films are gone – they've either been donated or sold at yard sales. Learning this fact was sad to me, and most likely every other fan of the series, for all of the toys are a part of our past, and no longer seeing them is just depressing.

Through a series of mishaps, all of the main toys end up at a daycare center, called Sunnyside Daycare. Of course, a daycare seems like heaven for a bunch of toys since dozens of kids are there to play with them 5 days a week. When the toys first arrive at Sunnyside, we meet some of the main players at the daycare, including the Barbie-doll Ken, and the leader of Sunnyside, Lotso the lovable hugging bear! Of course, all of this seems too good to be true, and it is. Andy's toys received the bad end of the stick, for when they arrived at Sunnyside, they became the new toys for the youngest age group at the daycare. When Andy's toys asked to be moved to the older kids' room, we learn how Sunnyside is really run.

Then comes the part where the film turns into a prison-break movie. While Andy's toys are at Sunnyside and running into trouble, Woody is instead at one of the daycare kids' home, meeting a few more new toys, including a doll, unicorn, porcupine, triceratops, and peas-in-a-pod. When Woody meets another toy there, Chuckles the Clown, he learns of Sunnyside's true nature and of Lotso's dark past. Woody decides to go back to the daycare in order to help his fellow toys escape.

From that point on, the adventure truly begins. The feel of the movie turns dark and edgy, and it feels like another movie. It's amazing how the filmmakers made the daycare look a lot like a real Alcatraz-like prison at night. Andy's toys go through an elaborate escape plan, only to end up at gigantic trash dump, which is the most epic part of the movie. The third act, the last 20 or so minutes, is where the toys face their greatest threat yet, and are the closest to actual death. And the third act is the point where the tears come in.

"Toy Story 3″ has the most dramatic and emotional scene in the series because of its third act, and the third act has two different emotional scenes, though I felt the first (the incinerator scene) was more effective. The ending of the movie is the second half, and is more optimistic and happy than sad to me, even though it is pretty sad – it's the good kind of sad.

The incinerator scene was the best part of the movie for me. The music was just perfect for the scene, and was in-sync with what was happening on screen. As the toys gave up and finally accepted their fate, they all held hands as the music was dramatic (the "dun-dun" part of the music at that scene was perfectly timed, and it added to the emotional effect of the scene). It was just one of the most emotional, dramatic scenes in any of the Pixar films. I truly felt scared – scared for the toys – and my heart was pumping quickly! The incinerator scene is definitely the most memorable part to me. The last-play-time scene was emotional, too, because we see for the last time how much Andy and his toys love one another, and how much history they've had.

The adventure in "Toy Story 3″ was a great one. I'm grateful that Pixar allowed us to grow up with these characters and this series. The "Toy Story" trilogy was a joyful, heartfelt experience that will definitely never be forgotten. "Toy story 3″ gave the series the perfect ending – I honestly didn't predict that the fate of the toys would be like the one "Toy Story 3″ actually gave us for its ending. It's sad to see the series end, but like Andy, it's time to move on, but the memories will always be with us.

Baby Mama (2008)

A flat film carried by its strong leads.

[5/10 · 9 July 2010]

Pros: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are strong actresses and are able to keep the film interesting, even though the plot is predictable and too simple; the two have enough chemistry to keep the film from becoming boring. I liked that there were some shocking or unpredictable parts in the film, like when we find out that Angie was faking her pregnancy. However, there's another twist soon after we discover this truth. Also, the baby shower scene was the best part of the movie, because it has a lot of emotion stuck into it.

Cons: The plot is too flat, too simple, and too predictable. The jokes weren't that funny – I laughed at maybe one or two parts ("Bitch, I don't know your life!"). What happens to Tina Fey's character right at the end of the movie was extremely predictable. This film is really lucky for having such lovable stars as Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. I'm 100% positive that if Tina Fey had written this movie, it would've been a lot better (she did a wonderful job writing "Mean Girls").