George Clooney leads The Descendants in true Clooney fashion. He comes across as he does in most other movies: cool and calm. This time, however, he is less collected. His wife has been in a fatal accident. He has to find a way to (in descending successful order) connect with his daughters, confront his wife’s lover, and make a huge business deal.

Without a doubt, the highlight of this film is Clooney’ relationship with his eldest daughter, played by Secret Life of the American Teenager’s Shailene Woodley. The two spend most of the film together, which results in dynamic chemistry and human connection. The younger daughter Amara Miller provides the comic relief, but is cast aside when it’s time to get serious. Her emotional pinnacle is somewhat shrugged off and done in a style that has to be chalked up to laziness or lack of faith in the actress.

Second, Clooney’s wife has been cheating on him. Poor good-looking George Clooney. But, also, seriously, poor guy. I’m not sure why the better part of the movie is about finding her affair partner, but I believe it meant to represent some closure for Clooney. Matthew Lillard, not known for his dramatic acting, was fine. He didn’t have a big role. This felt too much like a B plot line brought to the forefront.

Last, the land developer aspect of this movie was slow and predictable from its introduction. I’m sure this was to be a big metaphor (he gets the land from his ancestors), but really seemed like they needed to have a reason for the Hawaiian setting besides Woodley in a bikini. It didn’t work.

The Descendants is a perfect example of why this Oscar season appears boring; it’s pretty run of the mil. Critics can glorify Clooney’s performance all they want, but, when it comes down to it, it’s clearly not his best work. Movies like J. Edgar and The Iron Lady come across as nothing more than indulgent star vehicles. War Horse is the story of a boy and his pet. And don’t even get me started on a silent movie possibly winning Best Picture in 2011, no matter how good it is.

Slow and sad doesn’t make a film Oscar worthy. I thought I was going to enjoy this. What I found was a lot emotional close ups on Clooney’s face.

Contagion is a fictional take on the world’s reaction to a deadly new disease. After the hike in deaths due to the strange disease, the CDC contracts a group of doctors to help solve the mystery and figure out a cure to save the world. Fear takes over the public, eventually leading to a fight or die situation where it’s every man for himself. The film tracks the lives of at least six different characters: Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), a blogger and conspiracy theorist against the government and pharmaceutical drugs, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), an infected wife and mother, her husband (Matt Damon), Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne), Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard), and Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet).

The best way to describe this film is as a slow and long roller coaster ride. It’s basically an apocalyptic film, so there are lots of thrills and the filmmakers do not hesitate to show really gross (for lack of a better word) imagery. In fact, if you don’t have a strong stomach or if you’re a germaphobe in even the slightest way, beware. This may not be the film for you.

The pace is very slow and can make the film seem like it’s never going to end. And although it was a great treat to see the ensemble cast, the interweaving of so many characters’ lives works against the film by adding to the slow and long pace. That being said, I did appreciate that the characters were extremely well developed, and therefore, the film will touch your heart in one way or another. Also, I personally loved the message of the film. Even though it was fictional, it had a lot of truth hidden throughout. It has a great way of showing, how shall I say it…how the world works.

This is definitely not the usual Hollywood flick, but I would deem it worth a watch. Everyone who watches this film will walk away with something.

SEE IT.

This shouldn’t sound that exciting to you considering it’s been done plenty of times before (‘Freaky Friday’ and ‘The Hot Chick’ come to mind). Surprisingly, this film managed to take a worn-out plot and make it fresh again, and while I was not utterly blown away by the film I definitely enjoyed it.

For me, ‘The Change-Up’ was not laugh-out-loud funny the entire time, rather I just had a smile on my face the whole time. Don’t get me wrong, there are a few moments where I was definitely laughing (the audience even more-so than myself), but for me this was just a step below ‘The Hangover’ and ‘Bridesmaids.’ Part of the reason I think is the beginning of the film which wasn’t all that funny and the film tried too hard to be humorous by using excessive amounts of vulgar language, drugs, and gross humor. However, once the “switch” happens the film was solid from that point on. I especially loved Ryan Reynolds in this movie, even though I’m not always a fan of his I found him to be extremely charming and convincing in this one.

Additionally, the two women in this film were also very enjoyable. Leslie Mann as Bateman’s wife and Olivia Wilde as his work crush both completely nailed their respective roles. Mann particularly blew me away as she transitioned from being sexy, funny, and emotional throughout the film flawlessly.

Like every movie there is a conflict and this film is no different. Besides getting back to their respective bodies, the main crisis is Dave making partner in his law firm and Mitch attending his estranged father’s wedding. Furthermore, Dave’s family begins to feel alienated during the switch (obviously it is not really Dave in his body but his family has no idea) and this storyline packs quite an emotional punch but I have to admit it didn’t bring the film down for me. If anything it made the stakes higher for the characters and even though some scenes were sad the comedy was still there.

Overall, I expected ‘The Change-Up’ to be a stereotypical body-switch movie with all the typical clichés, and some of that stuff was definitely in there, but it still managed to be a pretty solid R-rated comedy thanks to some hilarious circumstances and an incredible cast. So should you rush out and see this in theaters? Probably not. If you want to see Jason Bateman in a funny role this summer check out ‘Horrible Bosses’ instead.

RENT IT.

Zack Snyder, the director behind 300 and Watchmen, has an entirely new, but similar, movie out—Sucker Punch. The film stars Emily Browning (Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events) as a beautiful young girl who undergoes traumatizing incidents, is forcefully admitted into an asylum, and chooses to fight in an alternate reality in order to physically escape the facility.

The story is absolutely terrible. Actually, there is no story. Halfway through the movie, you realize you don’t even know who Baby Doll (Browning) is—she does not speak a single word until maybe 20 minutes into the movie. And she’s not the only character you won’t know or care for. All of the young girls she meets have hardly any back story that allow you to connect to them or feel for them in any way.

And Browning doesn’t give much of a performance. My guess is that she got the role because of an innocent sort of quality in her face, but that’s all she had going for her in the film. The whole reason one would want to see this film would be for the fighting. Since she’s the star, she’s supposed to do most of the fighting. She was AWFUL. It is quite painful to watch her try to act like she’s kicking ass. Her movements are so awkward, and I’m not even an expert on this sort of stuff. It takes all of the fun out of her fight scenes. But the rest of the girls are pretty good in their fights. And Abbie Cornish gave the best overall performance.

What also takes away from the action sequences is the fact that we don’t care for the girls to win because we don’t understand the desperation behind their need to escape. I truly wish from the bottom of my heart that I were given some reason to cheer them on. It is like watching your favorite sport being played between two teams that you equally dislike. If you don’t have anyone you’re passionately rooting for (or even against), there’s no fun and you won’t really care. While I’m watching the characters fight the bad guys, I don’t want to just think, “Come on, kill those guys…” I want to think, “Come on, beat the sh*t out of those a$$holes who took every shred of happiness away from you. The bastards who made you suffer so much that you took a stand and said, ‘I’m not going to take this anymore.’ You can do it, rise above it-TAKE THOSE MOTHERF*CKERS DOWN.” There is a huge difference between those two thought lines. It’s the latter that has the ability to put chills down audiences’ spines (I should know because of my column), which will make them want to experience it over and over again. A fight scene is not just about sexy outfits or cool choreography. It’s a part of the story that has to add to the character’s growth and ultimate triumph or failure.

The dialogue is dreadful here and there, too. The whole layout of the film is messy and you’re not given enough time to absorb everything that’s happening in order to enjoy the scenes as they play out. One minute you’re here, the next you’re there, random characters appear and deliver one-liners that try too hard so they turn out funny. And you’ll never see how any of it is connected. The only well-written part is the very last scene. It has the emotions that a scene needs to connect to the audience. By the end of the film, you will understand the message the film tries to get across, and it’s such a good one, but the whole first two acts do not do their job of setting things up so that you can get the satisfaction you need. I think the director and writer got lost somewhere between the fantasy of hot girls and awesome action sequences and forgot about having an actual plot. If the scenes were laid out in a more digestible way that related to the vitality of the girls’ escape, it could have been a great film.

That being said, the soundtrack is amazing!! If there’s anything related to this film that you should put your money towards, it’s the soundtrack. Also, the cinematography and effects are beautiful. Snyder continues to use his slow to fast to slow motion effects during the fight sequences, and it’s as cool as always. The movie is a piece of art in itself, with its stunning visuals.

And yes, the movie is very anime/video game like. Come to think of it, video games have much more of a story line than this movie had.

If you’re a gamer, take a moment to rent this film, but watch it before you play your games. Don’t play a video game and then watch the movie because that will be a complete downer. If you’re looking for a movie with soul and emotions, don’t see this film. If you’re in that mood where you’re fed up of everything and want to punch and kick every living being in sight, you can maybe try your luck with this…

RENT IT.

The movie isn’t obsessed with film like that of Tarantino’s. Here’s where Grit gets it right: brazenly directed, brilliantly scripted, and it’s bold, baby, bold. Releasing a Western in a time regularly reserved for the likes of Yogi Bear and Tron: Legacy, or hell, in general, is a risky task. But every lick of True Grit is a dusty homage to once-booming cinema Americana; in the ways No Country for Old Men was heavy True Grit is breezy and incredibly dry. Newcomer Hailee Steinfeld gives everyone a run for their money as Mattie Ross, still a kid and albeit a girl at that in the eyes of a grungy town who after a public spectacle of a hanging trots down U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn, played with a mix of slapstick and know-it-all elderly cynicism by Jeff Bridges, at a murder trial to help her in finding Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who killed her father in cold blood. Tagging along is La Boeuf, Texas Ranger and a character Matt Damon really sinks his teeth into.

I won’t dance around the point with fancy words and bore you with allegorical phooey the Coens try to manage here – because they don’t. I love True Grit to its blackness of a core, and for perhaps the first time in any of Joel and Ethan’s movies this one isn’t bleak. It’s funny, heartfelt, and confident in pushing its audience not only to accept that they’re not going to let up any on that this is completely a genre film, but to plant them in their seats and give them class-act storytelling at its finest to replace any thumb-sucking for high-flying action. This is not an action movie, nor is it a send-up: the Coen brothers see to it through and through that nothing of the sort creeps in when it isn’t called for. As for it being overrated? Forget about it.

The motivation behind the duo’s decision to translate another interpretation of Portis’ novel for the big screen has been put into question as more an “assignment fulfilled” than anything else, but it might be that True Grit was released today that grants it special significance. The bar’s been raised again. True Grit, one of the year’s absolute best, is a drunken godsend running on token black humor, a dark homage to the long-forgotten Western film genre where its heart for sympathy and retribution should be.

MUST-SEE.

Even an inkling of ‘82’s Tron, made popular for the 20^th century from a YouTube parody video and a brief reference on Family Guy, wouldn’t help you better understand its sequel. The opening half-hour finds 20-something Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), creator of a videogame based on his past experience in the Grid, searching to better understand the reasons behind his pop’s vanishing. It jumps in pretty quickly, as did the original Tron. But once the latter film got started its wits came out, and what followed was a technical blast from an adventure ahead of its time. (Those graphics? Watered down, sure; but man oh man, what a trip of distortion.) Maybe that’s what has Tron: Legacy trip in the other sense of the word so early on; it was sort of buzzed as the next Avatar, but when it comes down to it this movie isn’t doing anything new. When it wants to hark back to something that happened in the past, director Joseph Kosinski lowers the camera to face the floor, and over a grainy lens the backstory is played.

I can see how Disney would have had a great relationship with this – the first Tron, as it’s so obviously clear, exists in a world of pure creation. That’s what made anything animated from Snow White to last month’s Tangled really move. The visuals of Tron: Legacy are frisky, but eventually have it seem as if the entire movie was taking place on the floor of closet someone’s recently closed. In the Grid, everyone’s oblivious to the outside world except for Sam, called as Kevin once was before reinventing his tech dynasty, a “user”. We, the audience, on the other hand, are not. Tron can’t expect to be embraced just because it exists and we’re there to bear witness. In the style of Bridges’ Kevin: where’s the investment, man? Or in that of Sam’s, why the hell am I here?

Tron gets interesting when Olivia Wilde’s Quorra and Clu, a clone of Bridges bent on total recall of the Grid, are introduced, and the movie stops chasing its tail in slow-motion and gets things heated. Quorra has shacked up with Kevin in a meditative dream world the Dude would abide, ignoring the gladiatorial battles during which he accidentally meets Sam, and letting his world go to the pits. But Sam, he sees something better. As he comes on the sight of his lost father, Hedlund scrunches his face and manages a tear without even blinking. Once the exposition’s all dried up, it feels like the movie was contrived from an idea better and smarter than it really turns out to be. If ‘82’s Tron were The Matrix, Legacy is its sequels – uncalled for, tracing the mold left for it and no longer dreaming.

RENT IT.

It’s not because the movie fails as something for kids because it isn’t as charming or funny as it thinks it is; and also too polite to be anywhere near as dark as, say, Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings: it’s the kids – Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Edmund Pevensie (Skandar Keynes), well as the all but brief appearances by sister Susan (Anna Popplewell) and brother Peter (William Moseley) – and how they aren’t used the way they should be. Or rather, the amount of depth to which they’re explored.

In Dawn Treader, they mistakenly enter a painting at cousin Eustace’s (Will Poulter), and soon find themselves on the Dawn Treader ship with Narnia royalty Caspian (Ben Barnes). The folk aboard are looking for the seven lost lords of Narnia, per Caspian’s pledge to Aslan (Liam Neeson, hope he’s enjoying that paycheck.) Plot sound familiar, maybe to that of a certain seventh chapter in a franchise about a boy wizard? I don’t know how much has been changed to author C.S. Lewis’s original installments, written sometime in the ‘50s and considered classic children’s literature by many, but director Michael Apted and his trio of screenwriters grant Dawn Treader with too much excess flab. And only at its flabbiest is the potential of a good movie seen, somewhere amongst a subplot about a man-eating fog which hides diversions that tempt Edmund to go to the dark side.

Yawn. You’ve seen this before. Lewis’s novels, these adaptations need to understand, were used as whimsical escapism (i.e. distraction) in a time waaaaay back, and the trilogy just hasn’t found the right level to relate to it on. With each passing film since 2005’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, arguably the best and most memorable, story and emotion are tossed to the wind, and Dawn Treader more than Caspian feels made for the here-and-now. The movie disappears without saying hello. Potter got the hang of handing out reason to care for its troupe of adventurers as they scurried into territory beyond Hogwarts. Tops to Narnia for trying to keep their magic going, but at a second sequel after already skipping a few novels on the shelf, and with just Lucy and Edmund remaining as protagonists, Voyage of the Dawn Treader ultimately trails to nothing.

RENT IT.

Do NOT believe the nay sayers. The first installment of the final chapter of the Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is by FAR the best film of the series.  I have read several reviews, some of which bashed the film and others that praised it.  For a popcorn movie this movie had it all.  And sure, those who didn’t read the final book might feel a bit confused because the ending of the movie was a cliffhanger.  However, to counter that the Bantress who is also not one of the people who read the Potter books, thought the movie was great.

Yates did a great job of incorporating those scenes important to keeping the story going.  It was exciting, real and gritty.  Deathly Hallows is the first major blockbuster of the holiday season and let me say it is one hell of a ride.  The only thing left I have to say is, man I can’t wait for the final movie.

SEE IT

Check out my video review below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I love romantic comedies.  Just love ‘em.  They’re always happy stories that I know will end well. Structure is almost always the same so the difference in the films is in the protagonist’s situation and the cast itself.

So here’s my problem with Morning Glory.  Didn’t we already see this protagonist? Katherine Heigl’s Abby Richter in The Ugly Truth is a TV executive with falling ratings and a star she couldn’t work with.  I loved The Ugly Truth so I’m content with the revamping of the character, but don’t go into the theatre expecting to see a character you’ve haven’t seen before – you’ll be disappointed.  Rachel McAdams does bring her own sparkle to the screen – a much more and endearing character than Heigl’s, but the similarity is still so striking that it cannot be escaped.

It is Harrison Ford, however, who saves the film.  His gravitas balances out the immense amount of comedy, grounding the film in a way that makes the laughs more brilliant and the seriousness even heavier.  Morning Glory is hysterical, there’s no denying it.  I laughed for almost the entire film.  From physical gags to inside jokes to “On Air” moments, the comedy part of the romantic comedy is definitely there.  The romance, on the other hand…

Patrick Wilson, while a talented actor, was both underused and unnecessary.  He was part of a romance that was not developed.  The couples problems were superficial and the scenes rather absurd at times.  The rest of the movie seems to have been written by another person.  That story is clever and fun, with actions and consequences that are motivated and are reasonable.  This story, of a young professional who falls in love, is a series of moments that have no driving force, no reason to occur.  McAdam’s Becky lives and breathes her work but a hot man asks her out and there we go! She jumps at the chance, despite her overeager protests at the beginning of the film.  She is either a massive hypocrite or someone along the way said there needed to be a love story and it was put in at the last minute and with great reluctance.

And now here’s my question.  What would be so bad about her not having a man? As a professional obsessed with her job, she proves over and over she doesn’t have time for a man.  Maybe at the end of the story, she’s changed enough to let a man in, but the film forces one on her too early – she hasn’t yet changed.  With the world changing the way it is, there are more and more women in executive positions, more women providing solely for their families and more women living alone.  Is it a duty for a romantic comedy to reflect the world or to paint a picture of a lonely woman’s ideal world?

I digress.  This movie is not designed to inspire you to question and reevaluate your life.  But that’s not why you go to see a romantic comedy.  You go to watch a happy story with well-known actors and fun, yet predictable, ending.  And this film definitely succeeds in that.

See It.

Unstoppable

Director Tony Scott just made The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 two summers ago, about a train, sure, but more focused on two people – a dispatcher and a convict (read: 2D guy we root for, 2D guy we don’t.) Alas folks, I never saw that movie, but from what I hear the charge between Denzel Washington and John Travolta’s characters was thrown to the wind. The easy fix to Pelham’s flat line would have been to get the subway it took place in rolling, guns shooting, and people freaking out. Quit whining – Unstoppable is that solution, a movie so noisy whatever audience you happen to be sitting with will be long forgotten by the 20-minute mark, when Scott and screenwriter Mark Bomback introduce a lazy story with barely enough time to breathe: Chris Pine is a newbie from the railroad unions, and doesn’t sit well with resident grouch Denzel Washington, yet the two are paired together to move some cargo. After a royal screw-up by two workers (My Name is Earl’s Ethan Suplee and T.J. Miller) puts a massive freight train down the track heading toward a sharp turn leading to a populated city, it’s Pine and Washington out to head it off. And you’re done. That’s the movie; there’s nothing to spoil.

Of course, that this bat-out-of-hell ride is actually good will come a surprise especially to those expecting Scott and Bomback (he did the last Die Hard) here to messily clash with moviemaking 101. Thing is, they both just hit the pedal and drive. If you’re like me and the inconsistent Salt and Machete’s of the year didn’t distract well enough, Unstoppable is that big, dumb, and damned enjoyable blockbuster we’ve been quietly awaiting. Sit back, and let Scott’s quick but vibrantly-directed string of images sit in your eyes as long as they do. Forget that Washington’s two daughters (played with aware folly by Elizabeth Mathis and Meagan Tandy) and Pine’s wifey separation troubles are misused when they are at all. Rather than give Unstoppable an even quicker pacing a la Salt and watch its exposition jump from plot point to plot point without ever seeing the explored calamity of given situation, everything starts and stops on the fighting star of Unstoppable – the freight train.

With Machete too, much of it breathed on parts where Danny Trejo wasn’t onscreen, and it didn’t work. Scott makes it so every major event traces back to the single disaster aspect of the film, even while there isn’t a huge lot of disaster caused outside of tire screeches and, in one scene, gunfire at various attached cars. Why? There’s a button on the front end of the train able to stop it from kicking. You read that right. A holdover it may be, it doesn’t once settle for less than awesome.

SEE IT.