The Counselor

I had no idea what this movie was going to be about. All I knew was that it had Michael Fassbender and was directed by Ridley Scott, so I loved it already. What I was hoping for was a sleeper hit, a film that wouldn't get the most attention but would manage to fascinate me or at least keep me entertained, especially after Prometheus really won me over.

By the end of the movie, I was mildly satisfied. But man, it took a heck of a long time to get to an interesting story. It starts with a heck of a lot of exposition, a lot of character development used solely to get us to know the characters before the story really started. And each actor gives a solid performance throughout, even Cameron Diaz who I generally don't like (who is also FAR sexier than I ever remembered her being...yeah I'm really not her biggest fan). But I feel that great story telling doesn't need to spend so much time establishing characters outside the context of the tale. And this movie didn't take advantage of that much. It more often had extra scenes establishing character even between important moments. I guess it could work, but considering the movie's length, it didn't really work for me.

But then again, that's not Ridley Scott's fault. That's Cormac McArthy's fault. Ridley Scott gives the actors and cinematography fantastic direction. We're talking Fassbender's third best performance I can remember. Yes third, I'm sorry but Prometheus and Shame have to top it. Javier Bardem plays an awesomely egotistical and money obsessed jerk. Cameron Diaz plays a delightfully twisted but irresistibly sexy crazy woman. Brad Pitt plays...well, kindof himself. But he's a good lookin dude, I can handle it.

So that all being said, I liked the Counselor for it's story. Rotten Tomatoes complains that it's a bit wordy, but I didn't really have a problem with the dialogue heavy script. I can imagine that in the real world, more words are exchanged than actual gunfire between the higher-ups of the cartel. What did bother me was the amount of time it took to get there. It was incredibly dull. At the point the movie shows Fassbender and Cruz engaged, it's maybe 10 or 15 minutes in, and we're supposed to care. Not to mention it's kindof a dead giveaway that one of them is going to die, like the reveal of someone about to retire, or someone who's survived so many near death experiences. I dozed off a bit during the exposition, and still had no problem understanding the story.

Let me be honest - I found a lot to enjoy in this movie. But I don't think many other people will. Maybe this is the rare movie to rent or get on netflix, and maybe take two nights to watch. But I can't say I recommend it to general movie watchers. It's heavy, and not exactly viewer friendly.

Rank - 3/5

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

........................................................................ugh.

Yeah, so, you think you know what you're going into with this. And it starts exactly as you'd expect, someones genitalia in jeopardy. But then...Ugh.

What is this film called? No, it's not called Bad Grandpa. It's called "JACKASS PRESENTS Bad Grandpa." This is a JACKASS movie. It's not "From The Creators Of Jackass," "From The Studio That Brought You Jackass," or, even more awkwardly, "From One Of The Many Creators of Jackass" (which, yes, was a thing. Check out the DVD box for Epic Move). This is a JACKASS movie. I hate Jackass as it is, but even I find some strange fascinating with watching people get their balls in trouble. Where was that? There was barely any. Really, there was almost nothing! Most of the jokes were based in bad pun related humor! And not even good puns!  Bad puns!

That's right, puns. Obvious, "of course it's going to happen" puns. No spoilers, at all. Because you'll see it coming a million miles away. What happens when Grandpa is at a funeral standing next to the open casket? Yeah. THAT obvious. What happens when Grandpa crashes a wedding and stands next to a tower of glasses of champagne? YEAH. THAT FREAKIN OBVIOUS. This isn't Jackass! There were barely any nut shots, barely any pain, it's all stupid bad slapstick. Depressingly, cowritten by Spike Jonze. Yes, THAT Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, Where the Wild Things Are).

Now, let's get real here. When you go to see a film called "Bad Grandpa" starring Johnny Knoxville, are you looking for a drama about a grandpa looking to save his grandson from an abusive, money grabbing father? That's right, you weren't. Too bad that's what you get. Yes, I'm serious. The movie is horrendously weighed down by awkward scenes of the grandson asking to stay with grandpa. It was awful. Why on earth would you put drama in a film like this? No one is going to care, and any amount of it in a brisk hour and a half film is just terrible, awkward, and unnecessary. I hated every second of it.

The story itself was, ready for this, too prominent. I would have had far more fun with this movie if it's premise was "Johnny Knoxville dressed as an 80 year old man runs around with a little boy and hijinks ensue." No, this is a story. We don't want a story in a movie from Jackass creators. Especially not one that to some people might be an incredibly emotional one. This is terrible. A complete waste of 6 dollars. That's right. My six dollars was wasted by a Jackass movie.

I love zany stupid humor as much as the next guy. I love Family Guy, Jackass makes me laugh, and I just recently started to really get into Bobs Burgers. This is a complete mess, even from a genre that has no structure. It was a waste of time and money. Go watch regular Jackass movies and TV and you'll feel great.

Rank - 0.5/5

The Fifth Estate

There's one word I think effectively describes this movie - plain. Bear bones. I felt nothing special at all during this movie. And that's incredibly depressing.

I really hate to think that this movie is poor. Wikileaks is such an important story, one that is so revolutionary to our culture now especially for journalism and general knowledge for the public. It was an exciting reveal, a tense situation for everyone involved and one that caught the eye of general news watchers. So...where was any of that? The movie substituted story telling and drama for sortof edgy or artsy images. Completely unnecessary ones I might add. Why are there a million desks filled with smiling Cumberbatches? Because unnecessary symbolism...?

This movie tries to be like The Social Network, with just as much drama and story as artistic vision, where the story is made intriguing not just through fantastic writing but through a visual method that compliments the story. This film does not. Instead of an interesting story, this movie cuts the script to bear basics and the occasional edgy line, but not necessarily well written one either. It was so boring, so weighed down.

Performances in this might be great. Cumberbatch is particular is getting fantastic reviews for his performance. But I couldn't tell. This is a rare instance where a film is so boring that I simply can't judge anything about the rest of the film. Cumberbatch felt forcibly angry, faux angsty, awkwardly fake. But I could tell it wasn't for a lack of effort, it was from obvious plot points and stupid characterizing lines. We get it, movie, he's zany and weird. But it's not like Zuckerberg's character in Social Network where his abnormality was fascinating or different. It felt so fake. It's sad to say, but it really feels like the story was thought to be too boring, not dramatic enough for a film. Which raises two points. One - Who on earth wouldn't see the significance of Wikileaks, and see it's potential story to be told? And two - if you don't find it interesting, or think it needs bad imagery to spice it up, why even make the movie?

And that's the problem with the cinematography as well. It's plain, it's only used to show the actors. It doesn't take advantage of its own artistic merit, unless (you guessed it) it's one of these terrible cutaway shots. Then, for no reason, the cinematography shines. Again, do you really think a story to be so boring or simple that it need no effort, and that the only way your story will shine is if you force bad symbolism down the throats of viewers. It doesn't work. Nothing works. And it's a real shame.

Rank - 1/5

Carrie

Carrie as an AWESOME movie. It's an amazing of relatable teenager in a completely foreign situation. It has a great sense of adventure in a graspable way, we feel Carrie's journey from awkward high school social pariah to almost normal teenager, and it really feels like an epic journey. When I heard there was going to be a remake, I was SUPER excited. Carrie is a story to me that can be told and retold dozens of times, with so many new ways to tell it. Maybe it's a new time period. Maybe it's a different type of social pariah - example, maybe instead of a religiously overzealous mother, she comes from a politically overzealous one. Maybe that example won't work today, but it could work in another year. There could be far more creative twists then I'm thinking of. In fact, I just had a thought - you can almost see Chronicle as a similar adaptation to the Stephen King Carrie idea. And, in my opinion, that was a brilliant movie.

So was Carrie brilliantly retold? No. Not really. But it wasn't bad. It unfortunately became what I hate in remakes. That's not to say a complete change of the story; I really believe that change is necessary in any remake. No, there was just no interesting change in the story to keep me interested. It was spot on. And, with this being one of the few book adaptations of a book I've actually read, I can honestly say it's CLOSER to the book than the 1976 film. But to adapt a book written in 1974 about a girl struggling through relationships in high school to a 2013 premise should involve more work. Sure, the initial struggle for popularity is there. But we just recently saw in the surprise it 21 Jump Street how high school social hierarchy's, while still existing, are changing depending on the circumstances around the students forming them. I would have been interested to see a change there. But instead, we get the same girl, ostracized for the same reasons.

Chloe Grace Moretz was fascinating in the Carrie role. I've always loved her performances, seamlessly going from child actress to great actress, taking on roles most child actresses wouldn't touch. Granted, most of my bias for her comes from Kick-Ass, but here we see her shine in a completely new role. It was also a bit of an Emma Stone quality in her role too; a girl who we know is physically good looking, but who manages to make a character we believe is average, plain, or even ugly. Watching this movie, I easily believed that Carrie would never be asked to prom, that boys wouldn't find her attractive. It works super well, and I'm super happy with that. Julianne Moore also manages to me a delightfully creepy and uncomfortably spot on overzealous religious nut. She manages to make me feel both upset at Carrie's upbringing and strangely frightened of Carrie's ultimate fate, both at the same time. It works super well.

But again, these great performances simply aren't enough to carry the film to new heights, or even new places. It was successful enough at telling it's story, but for a remake, I want more than "enough". It was clear that the team making this film was probably just a group of diehard Carrie fans, who wanted to put their name on an official remake. So I'll chalk it up to a fun night at the movies. Maybe my rank is a bit unfair. But I don't want any remake to be just "okay".

Rank - 2/5

Captain Phillips

There's a huge amount of controversy around this film, apparently. I did some quick research before writing this to see how it faired in accuracy. Apparently, the captains crew has deemed this work to be a complete work of fiction. Apparently Captain Phillips was a cruel, unforgiving leader, going so far as to force his crew to complete a life boat drill while pirates were coming towards them, completely exposed. I can't really seem to figure out how much of this is true or fabricated. So, unfortunately, I don't really have a choice but to review this film from solely a film stand point, imagining it to be a complete work of fiction.

From that standpoint, it was pretty damn fantastic.

Captain Phillips, for those of you who somehow missed the trailers, Captain Phillips is based on a true story about the captain of a freighter ship who's ship was captured by Somalian pirates in 2009. The story deals with the capture of the ship and pursuing Navy to handle the situation. In the film, Phillips is a cool, collected man who recognizes the potential dangers of piracy despite his crew's initial skepticism. He remains a voice of reason and confidence for his terrified crew, however due to his leadership and faith in his comrades, they do well to cope with such terrifying circumstances. Again, this is the MOVIE'S portrayal of Phillips. Apparently the real captain Phillips is a bit hard headed and uncompromising.

It's hard to talk about this film knowing how controversial the film apparently is. But I can tell you that I felt the suspense and fear that the written character felt every second of the film. It did a great job at allowing us to respect and admire him, while still showing us his humanity and weaknesses. The pirates have enough story to sympathize with their motives and feel pain for their plights, but only enough to recognize them as human. We see their wrong doing and cruelty, and recognize that enough to hope for their failure and consistently support Phillips. In other words, we have incredibly well written villains, with humanity but very little audience sympathy.

The action in this film is unceasing. Similarly to Argo, with very little violence or action, the movie continues to keep you feeling claustrophobic, frightened, even though the outcome of the story might be known to you. It had me crossing my fingers, tearing up, breathing incredibly quickly. At no point in this film was I ever bored, and I never thought about how long I had been in the theatre. The script was fast paced enough to keep the audience interest high, but slow enough and long enough to recognize the gravity and time consumption of the situation.

I really don't know what else to say. It was great. I highly recommend it.

Rank - 5/5

Runner Runner

I'm so disappointed. I had such high hopes for this movie. I love Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck is back and ready to prove himself, Gemme Arterton won my heart as Gretel in an awesomely bad movie, and Anthony Mackie has never done wrong. I loved the idea, too. A man using a computer formula that proved dirty gambling going to confront the man who took his money with physical evidence? That's awesome. I would have loved for this movie to be great.

But that being said, this is a perfect example of a misleading 8% Rotten Tomatoes score. Critics aren't necessarily bashing this movie. And I'm glad. Affleck in particular gives a strong, convincing performance, and I found Timberlake as likable as ever. Moreso, I didn't necessarily mind the script. I actually distinctly liked a few lines of dialogue that popped up as the film went on, lines that I'll remember at least for a while as great lines. And I'll absolutely defend the first half of the film as being pretty interesting. Sure, it wasn't great, but there was nothing so bad about it that I got angry.

No, Runner Runner had 3 major flaws for me, flaws that kept it from being the satisfying movie I desperately was hoping for. One was the music. There's far too much of it, and it's far too generic sounding. Party music in the film consisted of two chords and a lame keyboard beat. It sounded like someone pressed the demo button on a keyboard. For a movie that's trying to be real, that's pretty lazy. The second problem was it's pace. I was checking my watch every few minutes. That's pretty bad considering the movie clocked in at only 93 minutes. It felt like 3 hours. And for a movie with attempts of brutality and shock, mixed with some attempts at suspense, to feel so long is pretty bad. I saw the audience members around me clearly getting antsy as well, some of them actually walking out.

But no, the biggest problem was the ending. It was so thrown together, so predictable, and just silly. It was like the creators decided that no one would be interested after the first hour, so it was time to throw together a fast, stupid, hollywood perfect ending and hope for the best. That was the worst part. The first part of the movie had me checking my watch. The next half had me scratching my head from plotholes, lack of explanations, and forced drama. Story lines were left open ended, there was no sense of finality or even justice, and it had no sense of joy or passion to the ending at all. It felt so uncared for, like the writers literally had given up.

But that aside, I can't hate this movie. It's just such a great idea executed in such a mediocre way for the first half, followed by an atrocious second half. And again, with such likable cast and such a cool idea, I found it difficult to not feel joy at parts of it. But realistically, this movie isn't worth your money or time. If you really are interested, check it out when it hits netflix.

Rank - 1.5/5

Enough Said

I was in an abusive relationship once. It was horrible. I hate thinking about it. She was incredibly cruel to me, often criticizing what I did or things that were my personality in hurtful or cruel ways. She really let my little quirks bother her, making no effort to accept my apologies, and any time she would complain about my quirks, I would try to fix them to the best of my ability. That just brought about more complaints. Looking back on it, I was never really happy. But I forced myself to be okay with it. Even through sometimes physical conflict, with her punching me in the chest while she cried from panic attacks, I had to be okay with it. It sucked so much to feel that way. But the hardest part is admitting that even though she was incredibly cruel to me, she is not unlovable. I believe all people are good people, even if good people don't realize what they're doing is cruel or wrong.

That's the problem that's addressed in this film. How can a man who's ex wife sees him as absolutely repulsive, inconsiderate, clumsy, stupid, what have you, have any appeal to any other women? It's a tough question to explore. I don't want to think any man will ever fall in love with the girl who cheated on me with an internet fling, then demanded I be okay with their friendship. One character in this film couldn't bear the thought that her husband would ever date any attractive woman again either. That's a tough topic to explore, and the movie does it incredibly believably. It's a huge eye opener, and one that's probably hard for a lot of people to think about.

The film follows Julia Louis-Dreyfus' character, as she meets and falls in love with James Gandolfini in one of his last roles before his passing. She finds herself in love with his strange appearance, one she describes as not necessarily attractive, but someone she's attracted to. After hearing only negative things about the man, she starts questioning her attraction at all, seeing all of his newly noticed flaws rather than seeing the charm she originally saw in him. It leaves you wondering, is what you say about your ex right, no matter how cruel or sadly true it may be?

Everyone in this movie gives a sweet, gentle reading of very real characters. I sympathize with every one of them, feeling each of their struggles and desires and seeing the other side as well. The script allows these characters to go through what we constantly go through - a brilliantly written initial infatuation, followed by the realization that no one is perfect. But finally, it questions the validity of past opinions, of what's really okay in sacrifice in a relationship, and what it means not just as a person, but as a parent.

I really don't know what else to say about Enough Said except that it really gave me a lot to think about. It had me ponder my own life and my own experiences, and wonder how I should treat myself and the people who used to be in my life. It was a strongly written, wonderfully acted, and bizarrely effective film, often very funny as well. I'm very pleasantly surprised.

Rank - 4.5/5

Gravity

Gravity is a cinematic marvel. Two actors delivering flawless performances in the context of a story so realistically terrifying it's impossible to leave feeling unchanged. Two astronauts, stranded in space with total loss of communications, have to figure out the surest path to survival while coping with what should be the inevitable, despite their simple will to press on. It's terrifying and beautiful.

It's not an ungraspable tale, however. It hit me during the movie how similar the premise is to shipwreck and survivalist stories. It's not unlike 127 Hours, Buried, or Castaway in its story telling. Mix that with realism of Apollo 13 with themes from 2001 and, maybe not directly referencing, but a fire extinguisher use evoking memories of my favorite sci-fi film of all time, Wall-E. Thankfully, Gravity doesn't try to be these films. Rather, it pays a respectable passing homage to each, then moves on to distinguish its own identity in an unforgettable way. It works.

Sure, it has its hiccups. Only two, though. One was quickly solved. I found myself thinking that most of this wasn't scientifically plausible. Then I remembered that Apollo 13 happened, so I can believe anything I'm seeing. I also came home and read that the movie was praised for its scientific accuracy, with only a few hiccups. That's amazing.

The second problem was simple. I guess I'll just leave it at this - one of these cops is just 2 days from retirement. It's not subtle. We know what's going to happen. But the way it happens is thoughtful, sad, and beautiful. It was a few unnecessary lines, because the characters are so easy to love. But this is forgiven, thanks to unforgettable performances from Clooney and Bullock.

I have to hand it to Sandra Bullock. This is the first movie I've seen where I really truly loved her. I normally am so impartial, sometimes disliking her. But not this time. This is a movie where I truly believe she could take home an Oscar with no complaining from me. She deserves all of the praise she's getting for this film and more. Add a silly, easily lovable performance from George Clooney and you got yourself two great performances playing off of each other magnificently.

If you're on the edge about this movie, you should know that James Cameron called it the best space film ever done. The 3D is amazing. My jaw dropped with each passing shot of earth, every time debris in space passed I felt the immediate claustrophobia Bullock's character must have felt, having suddenly no room to move or work. Breath taking sunrises, amazingly detailed shots of lighting on Earth at night, terrifying shots of destruction. This movie really truly as it all. Even a few good natured laughs to keep you grounded in reality.

There's no other way to put it. Gravity is a masterpiece, one that will hopefully be studied later on as a success comparable to so many great space films before it. The one or two hiccups are beautifully saved by amazing cinematography, intense action, and two award deserving performances. I'm so glad that I saw it.

Rank - 5/5

Rush

Ron Howard is an unbelievable director. I put a few of his movies out of mind, but Frost/Nixon is an all time favorite. Cinderella Man and A Beautiful Mind are absolutely amazing. Need I mention Apollo 13? He knows how to tell a story in a unique way. We know how the story ends, but he keeps us intrigued from beginning to end.

Rush is no exception. It tells the story of the rivalry between Formula 1 racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda, the latter falling victim to a terrible car crash leaving him brutally scarred. We see an amazing chemistry between our two leads, an awkward sense of self appreciation from Hemsworth and a condescending sense of supremacy from Bruhl, with a fascinating direction style leading us seamlessly through their lives

Daniel Bruhl as Lauda a fascinating character, one driven by passion perhaps not for driving, but for an identity change to distinguish himself from his family. He particularly shines, playing a character type I haven't experienced before - one genuinely passionate, but in the most selfish of ways. On the other end, we have a man driven by a thirst to prove himself for the same reasons, but more for the people around him than himself. The film gives a good case to see this as the main difference between them, and succeeds at letting us love and hate both of them for all the correct reasons. We also see the many women who enter in and out of Hunt's life, all of whom are essentially throw away characters. But we also can see why they are so pointless - they have very little effect on Hunt's life. After a heartbreaking divorce for him, we see perhaps a slight humbling, but certainly not a turn around. That fascinated me, and helped the movie feel real.

Formula 1 is anything but boring. It's actually a very exciting race to watch, filled with turns I would never feel safe making at their speeds, and the potential for serious injury is exponentially higher with the body exposed. Even though I don't think it needed to be handled in such an action-movie way to get across the excitement, I do appreciate and understand why it's there. It made it recognizably exciting for the uninitiated Formula 1 fan, or the occasional viewer like myself. I can't see anyone, even someone fervently against Formula 1, disliking the action scenes in this.

The script is slow and easy paced. Perhaps not exactly the most unpredictable, but we knew what we were getting into when we saw the trailer, and it does manage to keep people like me, unfamiliar with the story, guessing a fair amount about the motivations of our lead characters. It's also really nice to hear Lauda defend the film as "very accurate", thus allowing us to understand that his portrayal was surprisingly close to his own personality, while defending the honor of his friend/rival, notorious for drug usage minutes before racing. That's certainly something to be admired, both from the Lauda and from Howard's brilliant vision of a film.

This movie is truly a masterpiece of a sports movie, one that I think will really be enjoyed by near everyone. It manages to keep you interested in not just the story, but character interactions as well. The cinematography keeps the film exciting for anyone, even those uninitiated to Formula 1, and has graspable, real characters played by brilliant actors who should absolutely be seeing some Oscar buzz. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty damn great film.

Rank - 4.5/5

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2

Anyone who knows anything about me knows I absolutely adored Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. I thought it was an absolutely brilliant adaptation of the book, letting us not only see what happened before and after the food started raining, but also letting us get a great look at the repercussions of such an event on the fictional town. But it was more than that. It was an absolutely brilliant parody of disaster movies, such as Twister, Armageddon, and The Day After Tomorrow. That idea, to parody disaster movies in this adaptation of the famous children's book, is just brilliant. But my biggest fear was hearing that Chris Miller and Phil Lord, the awesome team responsible for the first film, was busy working on The LEGO Movie, and wasn't heading up the production of this film. Even more frightening was the terrifying realization that the team responsible for this sequel gave us The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, a horrendous film and one of my least favorites of the year so far.

With my standards set very high, I have to admit that the film kept me pretty darn happy. While it lost the original charm of perhaps being a bit amateur while also having such a respect for science fiction and disaster films in general, it maintained the same sense of humor. It was zany, a bit raunchy, but delivered in such a way that the adult audience members were laughing just as hard as the kids at jokes about "cutting the cheese" and a "BSUSB" (that one you'll get when you see the movie). It also had a pretty hilarious, if maybe a bit too soon, parody of a Steve Jobs-esque figure that really had me laughing.

The animation looked as good as I would have hoped, but kept the original's unique look and style fantastically. It looks like the team really knew the fans would want to see very little updating to the design style. The characters all looked and moved great, and had the same sense of silliness mixed with believability as people as the first film did. It was really satisfactory to compare to the original. Voice acting was absolutely up to par, with Will Forte taking a dominant role in the Steve Jobs parody, nailing a funny, easily trusted but hilariously twisted villain. Everyone else was awesome as always, and kept me laughing easily.

But my one sad criticism was the lack of parody. It felt like maybe this was trying to parody Jurassic Park, but was doing it almost out of necessity, half heartedly. Granted the rest of the film worked great comedically. But I would have loved to see a parody of Jurassic Park stand out a bit more. I would have also really loved, considering the basis for the characters to go back, a bit of parody of Predators, maybe even an Alien reference. Considering the film shows obvious adoration for sci-fi, this wouldn't have at all been out of place.

As expected, the score of this film is absolutely notable. The music written for the original was charming, funny in places, and incredibly appropriate as both parody and just awesome music. It was a huge score, really reflecting the awesome pans of great moments. But that being said, it simply doesn't have the same scope or necessity in this film as the original. And seeing as that is absolutely one of my favorite parts of the first film, I gotta dock it a bit for that.

All in all, I did enjoy this movie. But where it had its moments of brilliance, the story and lack of parody really made feel that this movie was little more than a movie of the quality of a middle of the road Dreamworks picture. That's nothing to frown upon, but I was certainly hoping for more. But who knows, you'll probably have fun with it.

Rank - 3/5

Baggage Claim

Why did I see this you ask? I'll be honest. It was my first day off in MONTHS and I just missed seeing four movies in a row. And this is the only one that fit the time slot.

Yeah, there's nothing to really expect from this. You all know who she's going to fall in love with in the end as soon as he steps on screen. You know exactly how she's going to find out. There's even a terrible dream sequence that ends in a "it was all a dream" moment. It was bad. Real bad.

Get it? Her name is Montana Moore? Because she wants MORE! And, wait wait, one of her close guy friends is named William Wright?? Could that be because he's Mr. RIGHT?!?!?! ERMAGERD.

But there is a bit of...I guess not terrible things? Paula Patton is likable as ever. Even though she's kindof an idiot throughout the movie. But what do you really expect for a movie obviously made for girls night out? The girl does the one thing every woman wishes they could do and it's successful against all odds. That being said, I really don't believe any woman would want to go and re-connect with her exes the way she does. First of all, it's pretty creepy. But more importantly, most of her exes are pretty obviously terrible people. And just like any movie like this, you see who she's going to fall for and what's going to mess it all up. And yet interestingly, I was one of two people in the theatre. And the other person was a dude.

The soundtrack is definitely a point of hatred for me. Every song was obnoxiously obvious to the rest of the plot. A scene with her and her *cough* "friend" fooling around as "friends" has incredibly corny romance music playing over it. I mean, seriously movie. Can't you have a tiny bit of subtlety? You're a subtle as a Tyler Perry movie. I don't mean that as a compliment.

The rest of this movie is, well, what you'd expect. Lot's of guys that seem great at initial meetings. But the first one has a comedic result. Oh man, gurl you dodged a bullet! The second one ends with her demonstrating her strength as a woman. Mhmmmm girl you don't need THAT in your life! Then it moves onto a montage of men. You get the picture. The movie knows its audience. So I guess it has that going for it. But it definitely doesn't think highly of its audience. Its characters are so fake, so badly written stereotypes that I definitely felt like I was being talked down to. Even the last internal monologue is pretty damn condescending to the audience.

In fact, the funniest part of this movie was the very last interaction between Patton's best friends in the film, as they each discuss the date they're going to have that weekend. And that admittedly made me laugh pretty hard. But maybe my standards were just low enough to think that to be pretty hilarious.

Rank - 1/5

Don Jon

The idea for this film is actually one I've been thinking about for a while - what would happen if the extreme negative stereotype for a porn addicted man had a relationship for the extreme negative stereotype for a manipulative girlfriend? Let's face it - men have ridiculous views of what women should be and women have a ridiculous view of what men should be. What would happen if these two met, directed by someone incredibly talented. Enter Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

In the end, the film isn't nearly as interesting as I wanted it to be, and perhaps the slightest bit not believable. But the point certainly gets across - neither one of these extremities are healthy. On one hand, yes every man probably watches porn fairly frequently even in a relationship, but can you really defend porn addiction so severe that actual sex is unsatisfactory? On the other end, is it really okay for a woman to unrealistically search out a flawless man, and then ditch him for such a harmless flaw as watching porn? Is it okay for the woman to make the man stop doing things she doesn't see as attractive, such as cleaning an apartment, even when her significant other very much enjoys doing them? Is it okay to tell a white lie to your girlfriend when she asks you to stop doing something so small, so unimportant, but something you genuinely like doing anyway?

It raises a lot of questions, and answers a lot of them fairly satisfactorily as well. Julianne Moore plays a fascinating, intelligent, and weakened woman, destroyed emotionally by recent events. Yet somehow she manages to make sense for both of them, helping Jon understand why he is the cause of his own problems. Sure, Johansson's character walks away pretty unchanged. But we see closure and understanding, and seeing as the movie is Jon's story, we don't necessarily need to see her grow up either.

But this movie succeeds at a few things from a comedic standpoint as well. First of all, it has a really funny approach to parody silly romance movies, whether it's the direct approach of going to see a cheesy romance starring Channing Tatum and Anne Hathaway, or the silly kissing scenes outside the theatre with corny music (I loved how it focused more on the people walking past). It managed to keep me chuckling. Although I couldn't help but notice the rest of the audience really didn't seem to be as absorbed into it as I was.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is pretty darn hot in this. Did I say hot? I mean talented. You almost believe that his porn addiction isn't severe, until he actually talks about it. The entire cast is looking pretty great. And acting pretty great as well. Scarlett Johansson really impresses with a sexy, but terribly cruel, interpretation on a mans idea of the worst kind of woman. I particularly loved the character played by Julianne Moore, a sweet, funny, and sad middle aged woman, who latches onto Gordon-Levitt for no discernible reason except for her inability to understand the other younger men around her.

The audience reaction is definitely notable. This movie is ranking fairly high from a critical standpoint, however it's also ranking quite low for an audience score. But then again, it works well for me, despite perhaps its hiccups. And those are infrequent.

Rank - 4/5

Prisoners

Other than maybe Gravity, this movie had the trailer that got me the most excited. It looked tense, intriguing, potentially graphic in an appropriate or terrifying way. I was hoping for the best out of what looked like it could also be a cliche mystery thriller. But then again, mystery's can be cliche with elements of horror to keep the obvious cliche's out of the foreground. So, here's to some dynamite performances and a hopefully interesting story.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to love about this film. Hugh Jackman in particular reminds us of his strict acting training, as he pulls off one of the most difficult roles I could perceive. He plays a man driven to the edge of his sanity when his two daughters go missing, driven so far that he takes the lone suspect into his private custody and begins to torture him for answers. It's terrifying how much support I felt for the character, despite his obvious moral dilemma conflicting him as well as the audience. Terrance Howard gives a great supporting performance as a man perhaps more against the idea than for, but more importantly so sucked in by Jackman's charisma and fervor that he too assists in the morally questionable. Viola Davis joins in the debate, questioning the right or wrong but choosing instead to turn a blind eye. It becomes a fascinating character study of these three in general.

Paul Dano plays the primary suspect, a man with a severely low IQ who seems incapable of answering the simplest questions. While I want to say he was killer in his role, he didn't have enough screen time to convince me of a spectacular performance. But he did convince me that he had the ability to bring this characters motivations and personality farther than the script allowed him to be developed. There's definitely something to be said for that. Jake Gyllenhaal is going to get a lot of praise for this movie. Honestly, I didn't feel anything strongly one way or the other. He played himself in the circumstances. And it worked, generally speaking. But that being said, he felt bland sometimes. Perhaps this wasn't his fault, but I couldn't help feeling that it was.

The movie keeps itself suspenseful and angry, making me guess what's going to happen next to characters and wondering what Jackman's reaction will be to certain situations. But that being said, my biggest problem was what so many mystery stories eventually succumb to - obvious plot twists. Now that's not to say that I could predict anything that the characters were doing on screen, per-say. But we see every cliche of mystery stories here - the obviously involved, the red herring, the too-innocent-to-be-innocent, the obvious missed clue, etc. The cops in this film are downright idiotic, missing connections and clues that we the audience made in a grand total of, oh, 5 seconds. The whole maze connection took a painfully long time to be made, as an audience member having made it in the first shot of the damn thing. The obviously guilty was there too, as soon as this person was on screen I knew exactly who did it. Sure, I didn't know motivations or reactions. But I wouldn't call it particularly fun to know the culprit, even if motivations are a mystery.

So all in all, there's a lot to respect in this film. But that being said, there's also plenty left to be desired. I wish it was more of a mystery, and I wish it would have left me guessing outcomes a bit more. But, I guess what can I really expect from a mystery based on a best selling novel? At least we got some pretty solid oscar nomination possibilities.

Rank - 4/5

Battle of the Year

You know what my favorite part of the above poster is? Who's face most in the foreground? It's not Chris Brown. It's not Josh Holloway from Lost. It's not even Caity Lotz. No, it's Josh Peck. Okay, fine, he's had a movie or two since his Drake and Josh glory days. So I guess it's okay that he gets a starring role. I didn't know he could dance, did you?

Oh wait. He doesn't dance. At all. He says he can dance. But we never see him dance. He hardly does anything in the movie. I swear to god, he literally has a handful of quasi-inspirational lines at the beginning of the film. And then, nothing. Just nothing. He all but vanishes from the movie, limited to just standing in the background clapping or being unnoticed in the background of dance rehearsals. Really, that's about it. It's actually kindof hilarious how unimportant he was. Let's get real here, we all know that one of the dancers is going to either be disqualified or forced to leave. So that means that Josh Peck, the awkward assistant coach who does nothing, will obviously have to take up the reigns, right? WRONG. Instead, an old dancer is needlessly brought back. In fact, we don't even see him come back. He just appears. Awesome. I gotta hand it to the guy, at least he made probably an enormous pay check from about 20 minutes of screen time.

This movie was about 20 million dollars to make. I'm sorry, but if Cirque du Soleil could make it's 3D film on 25 million dollars, there is absolutely no way your movie needs a 20 million dollar budget. And where did this 20 million dollars come from? I'll give you a hint.

"What's that?"
"It's my new Sony Tablet, it's 10 inches."
"Yo man, check this out, I got a playstation vita!"

At one point, a character hands out gift bags, each of which contain - you guessed it - a plethora of Sony products. What a blatant and disgusting forced product placement. You guys are lucky I just so happen to love my PS Vita...

Onto the actual film. DEAR GOD it was a headache. Cut scenes showing three or four frames littered the movie, showing different aspects of the same damn rehearsal. But at the same time, we never see them suck or improve. We hardly even see them grow as a team the way the movie would have us believe they did. In fact, Chris Browns character has a teary-eyed speech where he declares that (no, I'm not kidding) "at the beginning it was all about me...and now...it's still all about me." Is that supposed to be funny? Because that's literally where the speech ends! And he' s not the only horrendously unlikable character in this film, literally every character just pisses you off. And as if they weren't enough just being themselves to piss you off, try adding a terribly cliche speech about team work and growth and beauty and whatever the hell have you. It's laughable.

Some of my close friends super into the culture tell me that this movie doesn't demonstrate b-boy culture at all. I wouldn't know that. But I will say this - I believe it. And coming from a man with a highly acclaimed documentary on the subject, to have those into the culture reject it for poor representation, bad scripting, and might I mention the incredibly inappropriate 3D, it must be pretty darn terrible.

Rank - 0.5/5

Blue Jasmine

I finally had a chance to see this movie. Seriously, it's been out since July and I never got a chance to check it out. That being said, I probably could have waited more.

I know, I know. Everyone loves this movie. And I love the same things they did. I love the parallels to Streetcar, I love Cate Blanchett. I loved the music. I loved the cinematography. I loved the tone it held, and I loved the supporting cast.

But did anyone else feel a little let down? It didn't have that strong of an effect on me. Maybe that's from comparing it Streetcar, which had me emotionally invested the entire time and absolutely loving and hating the characters at the same time. But I found nothing to latch onto in Cate Blanchet's character, I just did not care about her outcome. And, as always, my biggest pet peeve with any movie is when I need to ask myself why I need to care about the story I'm being told. It doesn't matter if a film is personal or small, like this one is. Why do I need to know the story of Jasmine Francis? By the end of the film, I had nothing except a really spectacular character study on a person I've never known. And don't get me wrong, I loved it for that. But after watching so many other great Woody Allen movies that have such small, personal stories, as well as a definitive reason to be told, this just didn't do it for me.

All that aside, Cate Blanchett is amazing. She takes this completely not relatable role and just absolutely owns it. She makes me want to understand her, but refuses to give me any basis to think that I ever do or will. In a lot of ways, following her felt like an abusive relationship. Sadly, I know what that feels like. But in many ways, I felt the connection - a desire to learn about something, learning more and more, only to know that something is bound to go wrong, to make her snap and potentially hurt you and everyone around you. But at the same time, she means no harm. She doesn't mean to be cruel or hurtful. She simply is. That's fascinating, and I absolutely loved it.

The rest of the supporting cast is phenomenal as well. But I don't understand why I needed to know some stories. Particularly, I didn't understand why we needed to know her sisters random relationship issues, except to understand Jasmine's reaction and look deeper into her structured relationships. But if that was the case, I don't want to see what her sister is doing, I'd rather just hear about it and watch the reaction and probable argument. I suppose it works fine, but it did bother me a bit.

All that aside, I'm sure many people will enjoy Blue Jasmine, and probably a significant amount more than I did. Granted, I thought it was far from a poor movie. But I hope for more out of Woody Allen.

Rank - 3/5

Insidious: Chapter 2

So the horror movie everyone hated this year is the one I liked the most?! We really defend the Conjuring and You're Next over this? I mean, none of them are good, definitely not. But I'll be the first to admit that this movie had me decently scared at least a few times!

Insidious Chapter 2 opens on a very low note - a flashback to the childhood we would have very much appreciated to know about in the first damn movie, with some absolutely horrendous acting from Elise Reiner. I don't know what is going on with her, she was fine in the first movie. But this was absolutely some of the worst acting I've ever seen, even for a horror movie. Every line out of her mouth was forced, silly sounding, took full advantage of making the audience laugh. And whenever she's on screen, it's the same damn thing. Just terrible moment after terrible moment. Really, I couldn't take anything she'd say seriously, even though the movie all but forced me to be dead faced about it. I guess with other horror movies this would be fun, and, like The Conjuring, let me have fun by making fun of the same old horror movie cliche's. But not this time. Her acting  was so forced it actually took away from the joy. That is saying a lot.

But that being said, any scene without her in it was actually generally okay. Nothing great, but the acting was strong enough to at least carry the creepiness of certain scenes that in any other horror film would be the cause of ridicule or laughter. I actually found myself laughing far less during this than I did for the incredibly serious The Conjuring. I also found far more scenes to be at least creepy, one or two even frightening or intense. It lead to a pretty successful climax, mixing horror and action pretty darn well, no silliness at the final actions of the film. Sure, it's a pretty silly conclusion after that, with a pretty god awful sequel set up. But I can forgive that. I was expecting it, so I can get over it.

The film succumbed to the same plot hole issues that so many horror movies do. But I must admit that far fewer of them bothered me to the extent of The Conjuring (I'm sorry, but really, that movie was just horrendously overrated). Not to mention that the movie quickly overlooked them and effectively moved on, leaving no time or desire for me to dwell on them. I wanted to get to the conclusion.

But therein lies another large flaw with this movie. When I see a great horror movie, I want to have some serious amounts of fun with the scary scenes. I love the suspense, I love the idea of waiting to be scared, I never really want it to go away. But while watching this movie, I wanted to get to an ending. I wanted to know what was going to happen, even though I had a pretty good idea throughout the whole movie. The few scary scenes were fun, but once they were over I didn't expect anything more. I suppose that's okay. But with my favorite horror movie being Alien, and memories of loving the fear and hoping for more, I can't call this movie good.

Rank - 2/5

The Family

I honestly can say I knew nothing about this movie going in. I caught the trailer maybe once or twice in other movies, and I constantly saw its release date coming closer and closer. But I never really took the time to learn anything about it, considering Luc Besson's filmography is mixed at best in recent years. Strangely, this movie was produced by Martin Scorsese, so it had that going for it. But I didn't care to read about it, had it low on my priority list, and didn't know what to expect or think.

I can honestly say, I still don't know what to think. It had its moments. It had its really brilliant moments. And its really terrible moments. And some moments that just made me raise my eyebrows. I understand that De Niro was at one point highly ranked in the mafia, I understand that his family is in the witness protection program. But why exactly is his family all extremely violent and unpredictable? It seems like a quirk written to be quirky, but not to have any bearing on the story. In fact, the reason the mafia finds them (oh stop bitching, what else did you think was going to happen?) isn't even related to the violence. Rather it's a silly slip up that frankly, I can't imagine would actually mean anything to anyone. It was one heck of a stretch. So we have this incredibly pointlessly violent family running around being incredibly pointlessly violent for no reason. It's not badass or fun, because there is really absolutely no reason for it. It was actually pretty disturbing. 

Then there's the awful narrative. It jumps between De Niro writing a book to get his thoughts down about his truth, mixed with his wife exploring their new town and getting into wacky shenanigans, the kids at school absolutely brutalizing their schoolmates, the daughter pursuing her math tutor in a particularly creepy subplot, and then out of nowhere the mafia chasing them down. Oh, and Tommy Lee Jones is there...?

That's the best way to describe the movie I suppose. Random. Really random. It never really knows how far is too far or whether or not the jokes are moving far enough. But it's also pretty clear that the creators knew exactly what they wanted this movie to be - a dark comedy, in the vein of perhaps a slower paced Red. But while Red had situations where violence was necessary (at least in its universe of badassness), this movie was trying to grasp too far to reality for me to believe that a family would be this unnecessarily violent. 

So I guess you could say I didn't like The Family. But I didn't dislike it either. It's just for those looking for a certain taste in their mouth, I'd hazard a guess that diehard family guy fans might enjoy the random violence and zany subplots, despite the slow pace. But it didn't necessarily work for me. 

Rank - 2/5