4 Films That I am Glad I Skipped in the Theater

I caught up on some DVD's this week - all of which were disappointing. Here are my thoughts...

1. The Green Hornet - I admit that I am not familiar with the original but the idea of a superhero film starring Seth Rogen directed by Michel Gondry was very appealing to me. Then the trailer features them rapping along to Coolio's 'Gangsta's Paradise' and I was sold. Unfortunately, this little scene is probably the only entertaining part of the whole film. My biggest problem with the film was probably the acting. First, it is a good thing that James Franco was only in the beginning because his over-acting was off the chart. Second, Seth Rogen is not the best actor and like I have said before - he is better in smaller doses (like Superbad) and his voice becomes grating after about an hour. Also, he spends the film wondering why he can't nail Cameron Diaz - it's because she is Cameron Fucking Diaz and you are....you. Third, the guy that played Kato gave possibly the worst performance I have seen all year. Broken English is not funny unless you are Chang from The Hangover. I did appreciate that they gave Edward Furlong a job - poor guy is such a mess. I miss his talent and am rooting for a comeback. Other than the acting issues, the overall film was pretty dull - there was one really cool fight scene (the first one where Kato identifies all of the items that can be used for potential weapons). I got really bored after about an hour and the film just never recovered.

2. Sucker Punch - The best way I can describe this film is by quoting from The Australian Sun Times "consider yourself punched, sucker". That is exactly how I feel - because the film started out with such beauty and emotion - it was sort of breath taking. Then it turned into something so truly awful I don't even know how to describe it - it was like being punched in the stomach. The film revolves around "Baby Doll" who while trying to protect her sister from her evil step-father ends up killing her by accident. Her step-father then puts her into a mental institution. Then the film turns into another film about a group of dancers (which is really just the girls in the mental institution - imagining a different reality for themselves). Then a third film comes into play - the video game, eye candy extraordinaire. While "Baby Doll" dances - she imagines a world where she is fighting off dragons and robots in order to acquire things she will need to escape. I think I am making the film sound more interesting than it is because in theory it sounds awesome. In reality, it is painful - the action sequences are beautiful and boring at the same time, the acting is non-existent (although I think Emily Browning did a fantastic job at the beginning and the end of the film. On a side note: doesn't she look like Dianna Agron? The resemblance was distracting) and the film really had no point - like at all.

3. Source Code - This film wasn't actually that bad - I just read some really good reviews so I was expecting better. The plot was weird but not as original as it pretends to be (it reminded me of Premonition and Deja Vu). Instead of time travel they use fancy terms like "time reassignment" and "parallel reality". The problem with these types of films is that you are forced to sit through the same scenes over and over again. Yes, they are all a little different each time - but none of it is all that interesting. I predicted who the bad guy was after the second go around - it is pretty obvious. I do love both Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga - but both were underutilized. It was pretty mediocre on all accounts.

4. Insidious - The most disappointing of all - I had heard nothing but great things about this film. Reviewers claiming it to be a throwback to great horror films like Poltergeist and The Omen. The opening credits were nothing short of brilliant - the beautiful and creepy black and white still shots of the house each with something askew like a swinging ceiling light or a crooked picture. I could literally just watch 2 hours of that. It definitely set an incredibly high expectation for the rest of the film. The turning point of the film happened when the family became stupid (wouldn't you call the police when your house alarm goes off and the door that you just locked is suddenly opened???!). Then my attention for the film completely disappeared when they started talking about "travelers" and "astral projection" - it just became a silly ghost movie that was hardly scary. Even my theory that "kids are always creepy" is ruined here because the kid spends most of the film in a coma. I do love Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson - they are the only reason I continued to watch.

3 Things That Surprised Me About 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'

Even though I listed 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' as a film that I would not be seeing this summer because of its sheer ridiculousness - I ended up seeing it (blame it on convenient timing). Here is what surprised me about the film:

1. It was better than I expected - I wasn't expecting much, so that doesn't really mean anything. I guess I just had such a bad taste in my mouth from the 'Planet of the Apes' remake that I assumed this would be just as bad. However, this prequel had a whole lot of heart, impressive special effects and such an intriguing story that it actually left me wanting more.

2. The apes outshined the humans - Taking the Avatar route, this film uses motion capture to "create" the apes. Andy Serkis portrays the main ape, Caesar, with a heartbreaking emotional resonance that has never been done before. The humans, however, were a complete contrast - completely lifeless, most of them downright evil and cold. It would have been nice to blur the lines between good and evil, but this film decided to go the way of a very clear right and wrong which was ultimately the only problem I had with it (oh and it dragged a little in the middle - I think it could have gotten to the point a bit quicker).

3. It had no voice - The original film was a sociopolitical allegory for racism and equality, while also debating the theory of evolution versus creationism. This film is just a linear tale of the literal rise of the apes that involved a science experiment gone wrong. I am not sure if it was meant to raise questions about the cruelty of animal testing - if that was the goal then they failed. As an animal lover, I am sad to admit that I fully believe in the use of animals for testing because I also believe in survival of the fittest. We will never find cures for anything if we didn't use animal testing as a resource. The film will surely pull at your heart strings but it doesn't really raise any new questions or lend a voice to anti-animal testing. The reasons that things go wrong is because the humans in the film are dumb and make incredibly careless mistakes NOT because they went against "nature".

'Crazy, Stupid, Love': 2 Reasons to See it; 2 Reasons to Skip it

I had high hopes for this film - the trailer was super cute, Emma Stone continues her career high and Ryan Gosling gets naked (I'm there!). Ultimately the film fell a little short of my expectations but overall I thought it was still super cute - it just could have been much better.

Reasons to see it:

1. The acting - Ryan Gosling has been one of my favorite actors since The Believer. I love that he chose to try something different - like a romantic comedy (especially since most "serious" actors try to avoid the genre). I think he did a fantastic job - he created a very "real" ladies man character while avoiding all cliches (mostly due to the fact that it is totally believable that most women would go home with him) but he also had the daunting task of taking that character and realistically changing him into a man who falls head over heals in love with Emma Stone's character (who wouldn't fall in love with her?) Julianne Moore was also great at creating sympathy for her character that normally would be seen as a cheating shrew. I didn't hate her at all. Very impressive work from everyone.

2. The surprises - The one thing that I LOVED was the fact that it had 2 "big" revelations that were not anticipated. While, I would hate to give anything away - I just want to discuss one thing....***minor spoiler*** I really should have seen the biggest shock coming, and I am somewhat mad at myself for not putting 2 and 2 together. In the beginning of the film, I thought to myself how refreshing it was to see 2 non-traditionally beautiful women (i.e - not blond, not tan, not scary thin) as the center of the film. Then the film smacked me in the face with the explanation. Very well done.

Reasons to skip it:

1. The kids - I completely hated the whole kids plot. The 13 year old "in love" with his 17 year old babysitter was really over done. Who cares that the age difference won't matter in a few years...it matters now and right now it is gross. Even more disturbing was the 17 year old babysitter "in love" with this kids father. Sure, I know of girls who develop crushes on older men - but I hardly find it funny (I would call it dangerous). AND do we really need a film encouraging young girls to take naked photos of themselves?? Not cool.

2. The lack of comedy - Blame it on the trailer - there are no laugh out loud moments except the ones featured in the trailer. It was "cute" in its entirety but with such great comedic actors like Steve Carell and Emma Stone - I expect them to be fully utilized for their talents and they weren't. The film needed to move a little bit quicker, have some lighter comedic moments and add a touch of whimsy to be considered a "great" romantic comedy.

3 Reasons to See 'Another Earth'

I hadn't heard much about 'Another Earth' except that it won some festival prizes and was creating some buzz around the film industry. I purposely did not watch the trailer (which I think definitely heightened my enjoyment of the film) so I went in the theater a blank slate. It was a beautiful film, with an incredible mix of indie drama and science fiction that was downright perfection. A few minor plot problems exist, but overall the film is a delight.

1. It's a 'small' story inside a 'big' story - At the heart of the film, it is about a girl who as a teenager makes a mistake (drives drunk) that ends up killing 2 people and forever changing the lives of herself and the survivor of the crash. On that level - it is a fairly simple story - and has been done before. Yet, in the "world" of this film - a big discovery has been made. Another Earth has been discovered and the human race will also be forever changed. The films success lies in its ability to merge these 2 stories together - focusing more on the two characters while utilizing the science fiction tale to fill the background.

2. It asks the 'big' questions but doesn't answer them- What if there was an actual parallel world with a parallel you living a parallel life? What if you had the chance to meet him/her? What would you say to yourself? What happens when these parallel worlds start to deviate? Is one better than the other? All of these HUGE questions are almost nothing compared to the questions in the smaller story. What would you do if you took 2 lives (a child and his mother)? How would you be able to live with yourself? Rhoda's answer is to become invisible - she gets a job as a school janitor and keeps to herself. She realizes that she needs to apologize to John (the husband/father who survived the crash), but when she sees that this once successful man is on a downward spiral - she decides to help him instead of being honest with him. Is this an attempt to make things better for him or an attempt to feel some sort of atonement for herself? Brit Marling did a beautiful job at portraying pain and confusion with a glimpse of subtle hope (she also co-wrote the film).

3. The ending - ***Spoilerish****- In my mind, the film gives a very clear (and very unexpected) ending - the theory that is presented is the "shattered glass" theory. When the two worlds discovered each other (which happened the exact day of the accident) - the two worlds began to deviate. Rhoda believes that if this theory is true then the 2 people she killed could possibly still be alive. The fact that the "other" Rhoda appears in the end is a definitive answer for me that this is in fact true. She didn't send John in her place because she didn't need to. This still leaves some questions - like how did the "other" her get a seat on the shuttle to "Earth 1"? The reason "our" Rhoda gained the seat was because she was considered a felon - someone who has nothing else. Surely, the "other" Rhoda (if she didn't kill anyone) would have continued a successful life - went to MIT like she planned, etc (you can tell just by looking at her that she is supposed to be more polished than our Rhoda) - but would that be enough to gain a seat on the shuttle? I would have loved to see more from the "Earth 2". Maybe a sequel?

3 Thoughts on 'Friends With Benefits'

I am pretty indifferent about the film…it was far more entertaining than I expected but overall also pretty forgettable. Here are my thoughts:

1. The beginning was rough – the first 30 minutes had me in doubt. It was filled with romantic comedy shtick that bored me to tears - My eyes started to hurt from rolling them so much. Our two main characters meet – she is a corporate head hunter, he is her new target – trying to convince him to accept a job at GQ magazine in NYC (like one would really need convincing to accept a job like that). She shows him the “real” NY – which is exactly what you would expect (and much more like that “tourist” version…but whatevs). Their banter is supposed to be witty - like how silly he is for waiting for the "walk" symbol to cross the street!! Come on a real New Yorker power walks through the city with no concern for speeding cars!! I bet you never heart that joke before!! I don’t know how to pin point it but the dialogue was off, the chemistry was off and the plot was irritating….but only for the first 30, then things started to come together.

2. It’s not believable – it is not very easy to relate to characters who have perfect lives but complain about their lives not being perfect. Yes, his characters father is going through the beginning stages of Alzheimer's (which is heartbreaking – Richard Jenkins is a genius), while her characters mother is a bit loopy and free spirited – but the fact is they both have parents that love them, they are both gorgeous human beings and they both have success in their professional career (and therefore money). Stop complaining!!! It makes my stomach turn. Also, as funny as Andy Samberg is – there is no way in America he can get someone as hot as Mila Kunis let alone would he be the one to dump her….not believable at all!!

3. It makes fun of itself, its actors and its characters – One of the things that I enjoyed was that it doesn’t take itself to seriously. It sort of made fun of itself in all of its romantic clichéd glory (yet, I think the creators were attempting to do something different and they did not succeed). The characters weren’t exactly the most original – as they point out in the film several times – he is emotionally closed off and she is emotionally damaged. It points out the “rough” beginning I referred to by comparing her to Grace from Will and Grace. (Look at me!! I’m a strong, powerful woman but I am also clumsy and soo adorable!!!) My absolute favorite part of the film is when they make fun of the actors – Justin is lucky enough in H-Wood to have a lot of friends…like Shawn White, Andy Samberg and John Mayer. Shawn White took most of the punches – all of it was hilarious (unless you don’t know who he is). John Mayer wasn't in the film but he took a pretty good beating. Justin was also a pretty good sport – showing an actual picture of him with his Kriss Kross braids (I totally remember when he used to dress like that). This scene where he fully busts out with his favorite Kriss Kross song is Justin at his best - which is why I think he should focus on things like SNL and hosting gigs (and go back to making some music!!).

3 Things That Would Have Made 'Horrible Bosses" A Better Film

'Horrible Bosses' was adequately entertaining - but I thought of a few things that would have made it better....

1. A less informative trailer - Aside from the fact that they shoved most of the funny parts in the trailer (always a mistake) they also gave too much away. One of the aspects of this film that sets it apart from other comedies is it's surprise casting choices - Jennifer Aniston as a crazy, sex addicted, dirty talking, manipulative bitch and Colin Farrel as a balding, coke addicted, douche bag. I think if they held this back - people would still see the film but they would be delightfully shocked causing a "word of mouth" buzz around the film - "you have to see how hilarious Colin and Jen are in this film!". Instead - we already see it from the trailer and it becomes less funny in full length form.

2. Re-cast Kurt - Jason Sudeikis is funny. Not hilarious...but adequately funny. What he is not is a hot "ladies man". Yes, somehow he made it into January Jones pants and now the world thinks "he must be hot". But no. It was awkward to see him in this role. I think they should have had a suaver, hotter guy - and someone who is more distinguishably different from Jason Bateman (they were pretty much interchangeable - minus the ladies man part).

3. More Charlie Day - Guess who just added the entire It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia series to their netflix queue? ME!! I've watched a few episodes but never quite understood what was going on - and it never really peaked my interest enough to start from the beginning. If Charlie is even 1/2 as funny on the show as he is in this film I will be satisfied. He is freaking hilarious - accidentally coked up, singing "That's Not My Name". I almost peed my pants. More please!!

4 Thoughts on the Big 'Glee' News

Lots of big casting news in the 'Glee' world over the past few weeks.....as a huge fan of the show i have some opinions:

1. Chord Overstreet not returning as a "regular" - If you have read any of my past Glee posts then you know I am not the biggest fan of Sam. That wasn't always the case....I actually adored him in the first episode. I loved his voice (and his version of 'Billionare'), I loved that he was a dork (and spoke Navi and did Matthew McConaughey impressions) and of course...I loved his abs. I don't blame Chord for the demise of his character - I blame the writers. By mid-season his character bored me to tears and by the end I was hoping for his character to disappear altogether (and I questioned Chord's acting after that painful crying scene). I am sort of happy that they realized his character doesn't work and they are admitting it by not renewing his contract. However, it doesn't necessarily mean he will be off of the show - if you think about it all this time Harry and Darren have not been considered "regulars" and they still were on the show....a lot. **Update: So Apparently Chord is leaving the show...after being given the option to stay as a guest, he declined in favor of "other offers". I can't really blame him. It was sort of arrogant and disrespectful for the creators to announce to the world that he was getting let go from his contract. Although - I am curious as to what the "other offers" are?? I can see him continuing a career in music, but I doubt he will go anywhere acting wise....

2. Harry and Darren promoted to "regulars" - Again...they were on the show as often as everyone else so the news doesn't really change anything for me. I am interested to see if they transfer Blaine to McKinley or if they leave him with the warblers (because honestly ....i have just had enough with them....).

3. Goodbye Lea, Cory and Chris - The news that the creators would be graduating some characters at the end of season 3 has been circulating for months now...so it is no big surprise. I understand the need to keep it true to a real high school - pointing out other shows like Skins and Degrassi that change their main characters. While I like the idea, I honestly don't think it will work for this show. First, as Anderson Cooper hilariously points out in his "RidicuList" the show is not exactly a realistic portrayal of high school (they deal with real "themes" but not real "plots"). One could easily find ways to keep the actors on the show. Second, I don't trust Ryan Murphy. I was a loyal viewer of Nip/Tuck and watched the show go from one of the most innovative shows on tv to one of the most outlandish. Ryan has a tendency to ruin things. The show relies heavily on its actors (and characters) and Ryan lucked out with these 3 - the fact that he doesn't recognize how important these characters are to its faithful audience is disappointing. I am already nervous about the new cast considering that one of them is being chosen from a reality show (The Glee Project - I refuse to watch). But when I really think about it, I honestly think Ryan is doing these 3 a favor - because if they were offered another contract they would surely be obligated to sign it (no one wants to be known as the actor that turns his back on the project that made them famous). Now they are free to move on (along with a lot of Glee viewers..).

4. The others - I am sure that more names will start to appear as being "fired" (which is totally misleading). I just hope that Ryan actually grows a pair and confronts them about it directly instead of telling the media first. Cory talked about how he would probably be one of the ones graduating when the news first broke months ago - but the fact that it still hasn't been discussed directly with him bothers me a lot. Also, why did Ryan feel the need to make the announcement the day before the Emmy nominations - it takes away from Colfer's special day when instead of answering questions about his nod he is forced to talk about this (which he admits it was not his choice to leave....that just makes me sad). Come on Ryan, I willfully admit that you created a fucking brilliant show - but these actors work their asses off and commit themselves 100% to your vision. They deserve your respect. So, when you do announce the "graduation" of Santana, Puck, Tina, Artie etc - give them a heads up first....k? **Update: News from ComicCon reports that these three will NOT be leaving the show and that they have 7 year contracts (Let me repeat that....7 fucking years!). Ryan Murphy opted to NOT keep his mouth shut (surprise, surprise) and expained himself in another interview - he claims that these three actors were in talks for preliminary spin-off ideas. Which is still a contradiction from what he previously stated (he said that he did not speak to Cory about plans for him to leave Glee - "I presume he knows"). AND he has the balls to announce that the spin-off project is now on hold - blaming the actors. He basically states that they should not have spoken to the press about learning of their "firing". However, Chris was nominated for a freaking Emmy the next morning and was bombarded with questions. He was understandably a bit shocked to learn he was "fired" and expressed his feelings professionably and appropriately. As far as I can tell, Lea only made one very short Twitter statement that was also professional stating her love for the show and her fans. While, Cory has been MIA - keeping his mouth shut, growing his scruff, vacationing on islands and banging on his drums. So, to blame them for misconstruing things in the press is absolutely ridiculous. That was ALL YOU Mr. Murphy - telling the press that 3 stars will no longer be on the show will inevitably be sensationalized to them being "fired". You have been in this business long enough to know better. I am saddened that the 3 of them are stuck for another 4 years because I kinda want them to say fuck you and walk away. Luckily, they are much more professional than I would ever be.

Thoughts On 5 New Summer Shows

Summer shows are usually just entertaining enough to hold my attention until fall - but there have been some break out hits (like 'Mad Men' and 'Breaking Bad'). This year's new shows are mostly a disappointment - here are my thoughts:

1. Wilfred - possibly the oddest show currently on tv and I haven't decided whether that is a good or bad thing. I heart Elijah Wood tremendously and I love the idea of the show, but something about it doesn't quite work. I think it is the actor that plays the "dog" - his Australian accent bothers me and his comedic timing is off a little bit. Plus the show isn't quite as laugh out loud funny that I was hoping for and the character development is lacking so far (we only know that Elijah's character is depressed - we have no idea why). I will still keep watching just for Elijah but am hoping for something more substantial.

2. Love Bites - So I watched the first few episodes but then there was a conflict with my DVR and I haven't had any interest in watching the rest. I really like the idea of the little vignettes in each episode - however the cast is just too large and the plots are uneven and confusing (how exactly are all of these characters and/or plots related to each other?) . It doesn't help that the characters were a little bland and cliched - which is definitely a writing issue because the actors are all fantastic. Greg Grunberg, Michelle Trachtenberg, Laura Pepron and Lindsey Price all in one show should be an automatic win. (Side note: I am disappointed that they replaced Pamela Adlon with Constance Zimmer). Eventually, I plan on catching up on the show via the internet- maybe it starts to come together?

3. Falling Skies - I feel sort of bad for Noah Wyle because he just one of those actors that will always be a character to me - he is Dr. Carter and I don't think he will ever convince me otherwise (although Joshua Jackson proved me wrong - I no longer refer to him as Pacey...it took a while but he finally broke free). I was excited for this end of days type show - aliens and special effects galore = perfect summer show. Right?? Not exactly....the pilot was mind numbing and it barely held my attention for the whole 2 hours (and I know I probably missed important stuff...). It was fitting that Moon Bloodgood from Terminator was in it because that is exactly what the show reminded me of (with cheaper special effects). So far, I have only watched the pilot - the rest of the episodes are sitting on my DVR and I feel like it is a chore to watch the rest but I will....eventually.



4. Franklin and Bash - Of course I was a Saved By the Bell junkie - but the fact that Zack Morris is in this show was not enough to entice me (I refused to watch his last television venture - Raising the Bar). So what did entice me? Um Breckin Meyer....hellooooo!!! I was a teenager in the 90's therefore I grew up with Clueless (oh how I miss Brittany Murphy...), Can't Hardly Wait (uncredited but soooo memorable) and The Craft. Seriously, I am not sure I can truly express my love for Breckin (the same can be said for Seth Green, Ethan Embry, Donald Faison...) so HE is the reason I watched this show. Unfortunately, I am not that impressed with the show....it is amusing summer fare, but that is about it. The episodes pretty much play out how you expect them to which is somewhat tedious to sit through (kind of how I feel about Royal Pains). I don't think the writers fully utilize the actors they have - I think the show can be much funnier (and therefore more entertaining) than it is. I keep watching...but I am usually doing house work at the same time.

5. Suits - I had my doubts about another law show (especially after the dullness of Franklin and Bash) but was intrigued by Gabriel Macht. He completely bombed in The Spirit but I thought television might be a good medium for him to showcase his charm. He shines in this series as the lawyer known as "the best closer" in the business who only cares about winning. But it is the other character - the new law associate (who didn't go to law school) who really makes the show. I have never seen him in anything before and I always love promising newcomer (and he looks exactly like Lucky from General Hospital which makes me automatically adore him...). Rick Hoffman plays the EXACT same character he played in Samantha Who? but he is still hilarious. Plus - Anna Espinosa! (or if you prefer...Gina Torres) - You just can't go wrong. I wouldn't call it "brilliant" or anything....but I pay much more attention to it than Franklin and Bash).

4 Gripes I Have With The Emmy Nominations

1. Apparently we are not watching the same shows - As much as I appreciate that they finally recognized a fan favorite show like Friday Night Lights (I've never seen it...but I always hear great things) and the ever hilarious Parks and Recreation, I am appalled at the blatant ommisions of fantastic shows - like Southland, Fringe, Cougar Town, Community, Weeds and Parenthood.

2. The 'locks' - I thought for sure Courtney Cox had it this year for her work on Cougar Town. She was snubbed for 10 years in a row with her work on Friends and now she returns to television still hilarious and neurotic, yet completely different than Monica Geller and they still ignore her. To make matters worse, they nominate Matt LeBlanc for Episodes (which he plays himself!! This is always problematic for me - along with Louis C.K's nominations. Really how much 'acting' does that require?!). Other 'locks' that didn't pan out - Anna Torv and John Noble for Fringe. Words can not express how shocked I am at the omission of Torv - who had one of the most difficult roles on television this year by portraying 2 versions of the same character and she was fucking brilliant at it. What more does a girl have to do??

3. The 'Modern Family' effect - How fantastic is it that everyone from the show was nominated...right?? Except that the actors now dominate both supporting actor and actress in a comedy category (and will likely split votes anyway). I love the show....love the actors...but nominate Ty Burrell and Julie Bowen - then call it a day. There are plenty of talented and hilarious actors on other comedies.....like Aziz Ansari, Nick Offermam, Adam Scott and Rob Lowe from Parks and Rec (again just choose one....I would go with Scott) or Danny Pudi from Community. The actress category isn't as tied up - and I don't mind Sofia's nomination - but they seriously f'd up with Kristen Wiig and Jane Krakowski (2 of the most irritating women on television). They could have picked Busy Phillips or Christa Miller from Cougar Town or Lea Michele, Naya Rivera from Glee (I'm pretty sure Lea submitted herself as lead actress - which is why she didn't get nominated).

4. Speaking of 'Glee' - The show would obviously benefit from a 'dramedy' category but let's forget about that for a second and focus on the actors - first Jane Lynch is amazing (as I said before - she created a character that will live forever...). However, this season she didn't have much to do. Other people that didn't have much to do....um how about all those nominated 'guest actors'??? How do you nominate Gwyneth Paltrow and Kristen Chenowith for showing up for an ep or 2 work their butts off then leave while you ignore the actors that do that every week? It is not just a comedy - its a freakin' weekly musical, which involves recording studios, dance rehersals, etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both characters (although Gwynny got a little stale) but it is just problematic for me that they are getting more recognition than the regular actors on the show.

3 Reasons 'Monte Carlo' Was Painful to Sit Through

So, obviously I did not expect a fulfilling cinematic experience while watching the teen comedy 'Monte Carlo' but what I did expect was a sugary sweet tale of 3 girls gallivanting through Europe - an empty but entertaining plot (cue doppelganger hijinks). Of course the only real reason I would sit through such nonsense is a hot guy (cue Cory Monteith) - but I have to admit it totally wasn't worth it. Here is why it was painful to sit through:

1. It wasn't a comedy or even remotely entertaining - I've never really understood the worlds fascination with Paris - other than the Louvre, I found nothing exciting at all. This film certainly didn't convince me otherwise....the girls choose a misguided tour that takes them through the Paris sights before you can blink - you would think that through this we would get at least some beautiful scenery but nope..just a bunch of buildings that could be mistaken for any European city. They are disappointed with their trip until they meet a spoiled British heiress that looks exactly like one of them. So she pretends to be her, they get whisked off to Monte Carlo and the film pretty much unfolds exactly how you would expect. There was a lot of potential to be "funny" - like how the 3 girls essentially don't get along but instead of witty bantering we get boring cattiness. There was a lot of potential to be "cute" - like how all three girls learn a life lesson but instead the only thing the 3 girls learn is that life is apparently better with a hot guy. The whole film was just bland, silly, uncomplicated and worst of all unmemorable with a severe lack of character development.

2. The doppelganger hijinks wasn't believable or watchable - I've never been a fan of the whole 'doppelganger' plot device but if done well (like The Vampire Diaries) it could end up being completely delicious. The biggest problem with this film is that Selena Gomez isn't a strong enough actress to pull it off. This is the first time I have seen her in anything and I am sad to say that I am not impressed - that isn't to say that she doesn't have potential. I would say that it was a problematic casting choice to begin with because as adorable as Selena is - she looks like she is 12. When she was trying to portray a British royal heiress - it just looked like she was playing 'dress up' with mom's clothing. Her accent was hard to listen to (the one that was supposed to be "real" was actually worse than when she was "pretending" the accent). I really want to like her, so I will give her another chance (see I am nice...sometimes...). Hopefully she will do something more suitable for her...

3. I would rather sit through 'Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep' - Don't get me wrong, Cory was probably the best part of the film - adorable Texas accent that wasn't cringe inducing (like Katie Cassidy's awful attempt), however he was severely underused - his storyline seemed out of sync with the rest of the film (and could have been easily cut out altogether). I am happy that he is expanding his career into films - and being in a Selena Gomez driven film seemed like a good idea in theory, but I think the film (and his part in it) was beneath his talent. I would also like to point out that every time he appeared on screen there was a wave of screams and claps from the audience which entertained me more than the film did. He clearly has a fan base - now he just needs a meaty role to showcase his talent.