Thoughts on 5 Films

1. A Good Day to Die Hard - I'm a fan of the Die Hard franchise. Not like a huge fan (a "die-hard" Die Hard fan?), but I find all of the movies entertaining.  The first one is obviously the best, but the rest have been sufficient fun.  I was planning on watching A Good Day to Die Hard in the theater when it was released on Valentine's Day, but the terrible reviews deterred me.  I don't think it was as bad as the reviews suggest and I even preferred it to the previous one, Live Free or Die Hard (mostly because I can't stand Justin Long). The plot felt a little lazy and the dialogue consisted mostly of John McClane yelling out "But I'm on vacation!!", but the action is fun and that is really all I was expecting. It's clear that this was an attempt at setting up Jai Courtney to take over the franchise. No thank you, he's no Bruce Willis.

2. Spring Breakers - Overall, I like this movie.  I'm not sure I agree with the praise that it has received (I've seen it on several "Mid-Year Best of 2013"), but I do agree that visually, it is stunning.  The beginning is basically a really beautifully shot "Girls Gone Wild" video. There are some really cool shots throughout, my favorite is the shots of the girls in the hallway with their legs against the walls.  I didn't like the repetitive dialogue, but now I understand why people constantly quoted the film. It definitely gets under your skin.  As soon it was over, I actually turned to my cats and asked "why y'all actin' 'spicious?". While the film is commentating on the current state of our youth, it conveys a bit of contradictory sentiment.  While it criticizes youth (and mostly women), it continues to glorify guns, violence and rape culture, instead of delving into any real depth of the problems in our society.  The whole "spring break" thing is not really my scene (shocking, I know), so it left me a little confused.  I spent a lot of the movie going "wait....what?".  For instance, "wait...what..." they are in college?  I thought spring break was a high school thing? These girls seem really immature for college (one of them is carrying a backpack that is a teddy bear. I don't understand.).  Another, "wait...what..." do they think James Franco as "Alien" is hot??? Because...um ew. I don't even think he's hot without the gangster getup.  I agree that Franco really went all out for this role and he killed it.  One of the best performances he's ever done, but if he was supposed to be "hot", then he failed miserably.  Also, "wait....what...." why the constant Britney Spears references?  I've thought about this one, at first I was confused because I think of Britney as being "my" generation and not the current generation of young girls, but I realized that these young girls were actually the ones that grew up with her (while I was already in high school).  It all makes sense now and it is actually a brilliant commentary on the sexualization of young girls.  It also gave us the greatest scene in the history of movies: James Franco singing "Everytime". Absolutely fucking brilliant.  Last one, "wait....what...." is that Heather Morris from Glee?  How did I not know she was in this?  (Unavoidable side-note: Speaking of Glee, I woke up to some terrible news this morning with the death of Cory Monteith.  If you look under the "Glee" tab at the top of my blog, you will see my love for Cory. Writing about Glee was just an excuse for me to gush over Cory. I am heartbroken.  Seriously.  I'm not one to get upset about the death of someone I don't know, but this one hurts.)

3. The Giant Mechanical Man - I appreciate that the title is explained within the first 5 minutes of the movie.  I really like the idea of this movie; its main theme is finding what you love, be passionate about it and find someone that appreciates you for your passion.  It's not as easy as it sounds. Tim (Chris Messina), finds this out when his girlfriend tells him "I never believed in you Tim, I just thought it was charming".  Jenna Fischer plays Janice, a woman who is struggling to find her passion.  You can guess how the story ends and in all honesty, there isn't much to the movie.  The whole thing is boring and obviously predictable.  The actors are likable enough.  I really like Chris Messina, he's one of those typical, genuine New York guys. Every time I see him in a movie or show, I think, "wait, I know him!" but I don't.  Topher Grace is probably the most memorable part because he plays the creepiest of all creepy guys (a motivational speaker).  He gives advice like "If you don't know what to talk about, then talk about yourself". Worst advice ever.

4. The Imposter - This is one crazy, unbelievably real, true story.  I'm not a huge fan of documentaries.  As a Film Studies student, I had to take 2 classes on the subject and I referred to those classes as "nap time". I'm usually fascinated by the story, but I just hate the style in which the story is told.  What struck me about this film, is that it plays like a typical documentary, but then there is a twist!  It's quite thrilling to watch, and it held my interest for its entire run time. I guess, it's not a twist if you know the story, but I didn't, so it all played out very well for me.  The story is about this guy, Frederic Bourdin, a French man who pretended to be a missing child from Texas. The beginning will leave you baffled as to why his family would believe that this man is their child.  None of it makes sense. The family isn't really portrayed as being at all intelligent - the sister actually asks the question "isn't that like across the country?" when talking about Spain. But really, the missing child had blue eyes, blond hair and a Texas accent - he comes back 3 years later with brown eyes, dyed blond hair and a French accent and they believe him? No one is that stupid. Then, the film reveals some theories that make a whole lot of sense, although we still don't know what actually happened, which is ultimately frustrating.

5. Dead Man Down - I was really excited for this movie.  Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace and the director of the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; I thought it would be a slam-dunk.  I wanted to see it in the theater, but it was gone before I could blink.  I didn't think that meant it was bad, just that it was poorly marketed.  It wasn't really bad; it just wasn't all that exciting.  There's a whole lot of tension, but none of it develops into anything memorable.  The film suffers from bad lighting - most if it takes place at night, so most of it is really dark.  How are we supposed to see how hot Colin is when everything is so dark!!! Also, while Colin does a decent American accent (and actually it's supposed to be a Hungarian accent that is pretending to be American...which had to be difficult), he's just not as hot.  I have huge problems with Noomi's story line.  She is supposed to be a disfigured woman, from a tragic car accident, but painting some scars on her face hardly makes her a monster (plus you barely see the scars because everything is so fucking dark!!). She is definitely supposed to be seen as physically flawed (kids throw stuff at her and call her names), but she is still more beautiful than an average woman (scars and all).  I can't relate to her need for revenge, instead I see her as being ungrateful and vain.  His need for revenge was real and gut-wrenching, hers was petty and unnecessary.  The movie could have easily fit into a compact 90 minute action-thriller and it would have been a much better movie.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Oz the Great and Powerful - Really cool idea with some interesting references to The Wizard of Oz.  The movie tackles all kinds of questions that one might ask about The Wizard of Oz and answers them. Some of these answers are downright genius. However, that's all the positives I can think of.  It's a terrible movie.  The beginning is torturous.  I find it hard to take James Franco seriously after his appearance in General Hospital (yes, I watch that show. I have been watching it for over 20 years).  He's given some great performances in the past, but this isn't one of them (neither was GH; truly horrific).  In fact, despite a fantastic group of actors, most of the acting was horrendous.  Rachel Weisz is the saving grace.  I've never hated Mila Kunis before, but this was a terrible performance; her crying scene was rough to watch.  Also, it seemed like it is supposed to be a surprise as to who the "wicked witch" is, but Entertainment Weekly gave that shit away months ago when they plastered her on the cover.  The basic plot of the movie is how the witch turns "evil", and of course it's because she is heartbroken - "I want him to know he made me this way". Fucking stupid.  Visually, it is also a bit disappointing.  CGI overload.

2. Deadfall - The movie has a lot of potential, but there are too many things wrong with it.  The plot is really strong - a brother and sister rob a casino, but during their escape they get into a car accident near the Canadian border, during a white-out blizzard.  The beginning starts off really intense but the inconsistencies are obvious right from the start.  I questioned their accents - Olivia Wilde was doing a Southern accent, while Eric Bana was trying to hide his Australian accent (First, taking away his accent is taking away half of what makes him great. Second, I'm still not sure what accent he was going for.  Even worse, by the end, I think he gave up altogether).  I assume they were in Michigan (that's the only place that makes sense) and the Michigan accent is pretty distinct.  Sure they can be from somewhere else (should have been addressed), but if they are siblings they would have similar accents.  I was also really distracted by the dried blood stain on Bana's forehead (which can be seen on the poster) because it kept changing in size and consistency.  Things like that drive me insane.  The reason that I was able to focus on all these little errors is because the movie (after the initial crash) is really boring.  Then the end picks up and goes way over the top.  I'm sure I won't remember anything about this movie a year from now.

3. Safe - Really boring for an action movie.  I hate movies that have people fighting, but you have no idea who they are or why they are fighting each other.  I love action movies, but I like my action movies to have a basic plot.  I gathered from the trailer that this movie was about this tough guy protecting this young girl from mobsters.  This is, indeed, part of the movie but it feels more like a subplot with the main plot being fight scenes that have no point.  I seriously questioned what was going on at least 3 times.  Sure, I could have paid more attention but it's the movies job to hold my attention and this one didn't.  I really like Jason Statham, but I rarely like movies in which he is the star.

4. Beautiful Creatures - The consensus seems to be that it's "better than Twilight", but I don't think that is saying much.  It's practically the same thing just switch the gender roles, swap "vampires" with "witches" and set it in the deep south.  It reminded me more of True Blood than anything else and I hate True Blood (amazing concept, poorly executed and acted.  I actually gave up watching it after the second season and it takes a lot of terrible for me to give up on a show).  In regards to the cast, the actors are a thousand times stronger than the Twilight crew (which I think accounts for the "better than Twilight" comments). The main guy (don't care enough to look up his name) is actually more creepy looking than attractive, but his acting was decent.  The supporting actors included Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis, Margo Martindale and Emma Thompson - all of whom should have been doing something better.  I don't like Emmy Rossum (it's an unjustified dislike. I have no solid reason, but she has yet to change my mind).  The movie overall was pretty dumb and predictable, but I did laugh when the kids were doing the Civil War reenactments and one of them said "Do you want to just kill each other?".  That made the whole movie worth watching.

5. The Call - Unfortunately, this is a disappointing movie as well (that's 5 for 5! Usually, I like at least one of the movies in these posts. Sad face.).  It's a shame, because the first hour of this movie is excellent.  It felt like something different.  Has there ever been a movie that focused on 911 operators?  Because it's actually a really interesting (and stressful) job. Halle Berry plays Jordan, an operator who makes a totally understandable, but devastating mistake that effects her psychologically and emotionally.  Then, she comes across an emergency call from a teenage girl who wakes up in a trunk.  Jordan comes up with some pretty fantastic ideas to try to save this girls life (I was taking mental notes....you know...just in case).  There were some frustrating moments, of course, *slight spoilers ahead*, like if the car got off an exit and they know which exit, then a helicopter would have definitely been able to spot them.  Also, if you have a chance to scream where someone might hear you, then ALWAYS SCREAM.  You're going to die anyway.  And, if you light a match and throw it in a gas station, the fire wouldn't be contained - the whole station would go up in flames.  OK....I'm done picking apart the plot (I wrote down 7 other things that bothered me...but it's unnecessary to nitpick any further).  Despite all these things, like I said, the first hour is completely entertaining and intense.  Then all of the sudden, it becomes another movie. It's a fast decline into what-the-fuck territory. The the last minute of the movie will make you hate everything that came before it.  It's also completely unnecessary to have Abigail Breslin in her bra for the last 20 minutes. She's 17 and it isn't essential to the plot at all.

3 Thoughts on Man of Steel

1. My overall reaction - I think very highly of Zack Snyder. He's shown true moments of genius. Seriously, watch the beginning of Watchmen. Sublime. Even with Sucker Punch, a movie that was on my "worst of 2011" list, I can't deny that it has moments of sheer beauty (again, the beginning).  I went into Man of Steel expecting, at the very least, a moment that blew me away.  Instead, the whole movie felt very average (parts of it are even above average, but nothing spectacular).  There's nothing wrong with it, but I didn't find it any different than a typical summer blockbuster.  Part of my disappointment also lies with the cast.  Henry Cavill just didn't do it for me.  He's in the same category as Chris Hemsworth (Thor) and Chris Evans (Captain America) - the "hot but bland" category.  I was informed that I was going to love the bad-ass female villain (because I love when strong women are represented in movies), but I didn't really see what was to love.  A machine could have played that role; she barely even had any lines.  I like Amy Adams but she was practically forgettable as Lois Lane - it was clear that they were trying to do something different with this type of character, by making her stronger and less of a "victim", but they also took out her sex appeal.  There is a way to create female characters that are both "strong" and "sexy", but most male directors can't figure out how. Michael Shannon is probably the best part of the cast, because even though he was a bit over the top, at least he was interesting to watch.

2. My views on the destruction - I think it's really weird that people are criticizing a movie like this for its depiction of collateral damage.  I'm pretty sure innocent people are killed in most summer blockbusters.  Why is it such an issue now? Some of the critics are citing 9/11 sensitivities, but I'm calling bullshit on that.  There have been dozens of films since 9/11 that have scenes in which cities are destroyed.  It's no longer an issue (yes, I realize, for some, it is.  I know someone who will not watch movies like this, but that is her personal decision.  We can't create movies based around the sensitivity of others). Also, superhero movies have thrived in a post-9/11 world because people have witnessed real life destruction and long for a "hero".  How can we create a fictional hero without destroying something first? Isn't that how heroes are made?  Some critics are also claiming it's not in Superman's character to be a part of such mass destruction, but I think that is something that is going to be addressed in the sequel, so let's all chill the fuck out.  This movie felt like an opportunity to "go big or go home".  They went for it, destruction and all.  I think it was a satisfying re-introduction to Superman and I am convinced that the sequel will actually be stronger.

3. My state of mind - Sometimes my enjoyment of movies depends on my state of mind, which unfortunately in this case, I think affected my thoughts on Man of Steel negatively.  I realized this when the movie was over and my friend claimed to "love it".  When I said, "eh...I don't know", he was really surprised.    He knows my taste really well, so I think it all comes down to my mind-set.  First, I was really looking forward to this movie for over a year, but as it grew closer to being released, I actually dreaded sitting through it.  I knew that it would remind me of someone that I am trying my best to not think about (I fail miserably, everyday).  Spending two and a half hours trying to not think about someone is taxing on the brain.  Second, I purposely tried to avoid the crowd by waiting to see it until a week after the release - seeing it really late on a Thursday night at a theater that is usually empty seemed like a good plan.  Yet, the theater was way too packed for my liking.  I was distracted several times by the couple in front of me, especially in the beginning when the girl turned to her boyfriend (I presume) and said "wait...Superman is an alien?", to which he replied "yeah...he's from Krypton".  Her response was golden. "I knew that he was from another planet...I just didn't know he was an alien".  He was stunned into silence for a few minutes, but then spent the entire rest of the movie explaining the plot to her (clearly, she needed help. At least she was cute.).  Third, as much as I love loud, obnoxious, blockbuster action movies, this one gave me a headache within 30 minutes (and I didn't even see it in 3D!). I suffered with a pounding headache for the next 2 hours, praying for some silence. All in all, not a great combination for watching a movie.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Mama - I'm not big on supernatural horror movies, especially modern ones, so I guess it puts this movie at an automatic disadvantage for me.  However, I can usually keep an open mind, plus I adore Jessica Chastain.  It's a well-made movie, for sure, but it just didn't captivate me or scare me in the least.  There are some beautiful shots, Chastain is excellent (minus that awful hair cut) and I was pleasantly surprised that the super hot bad guy from Headhunters is in it as well (or if you prefer, Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones. I'm sure he has a real name and one day I will learn it).  The movie just lacked intensity and aside from the creepy kids, I just didn't see anything all that scary about it.  I was pretty bored for most of it, waiting for the conclusion to wrap things up (no surprises there).  It started to pick up at the end, but really, how fucking stupid is that ending? Really fucking stupid.

2. Promised Land - Allow me to gush over John Krasinski for a minute.  He's always been super adorable as Jim on The Office, and I thought Brief Interviews with Hideous Men was really fascinating, moving and thought-provoking (he wrote and directed it).  Then, John went on Jimmy Fallon and did the best lip-syncing contest ever and I fell in love (I've searched and searched for the video and it has been erased from the Internet. WHY!?? Stupid legal crap).  When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I thought, "really, John Krasinski is going to out-charm Matt Damon? No one out-charms Damon, except maybe James McAvoy (because...duh!)."  But he does. And he does it well. I think it was the "Dancing in the Dark" performance that really sealed the deal. Best part of the whole movie!!!  Speaking of the movie, I guess I should write about that now. There are some good elements and some bad elements.  I appreciate that it took on a topic like fracking and delivered more points than just "fracking is bad".  It's actually a much more complicated issue than that, especially when you have these farming towns that are dying - we say that money shouldn't be a factor, but when you put it in non-materialistic forms (i.e better education, better health care, etc - sadly, in this country, you need money for those things) it's hard to ignore. I think the film did a great job at exploring why people would consider the option.  It also did a fantastic job at stereo-typing a group of people (that's sarcasm).  It's an extremely offensive depiction of people who live "2 hours outside of any city" (also if you drive 2 hours in the other direction from Philly...guess what you hit...NYC!).  It's disappointing and insulting, but I guess it's supposed to be funny to laugh at non-city folk.  There is also *SPOILER ALERT* a huge fucking twist in the movie that I wasn't expecting. I won't say what that actually is, but I think saying there is a twist is a spoiler (although some people are so fucking sensitive, saying the movie is about fracking is probably a spoiler, too).  I really liked the twist; it made the film a little less black & white (and also, strangely, more black & white).  The biggest thing that kept the film from falling into complete mediocrity, is the cast. Matt Damon, Frances McDormand, Rosemarie DeWitt and of course, John Krasinski, are all superb.

3. That's My Boy - I watched it out of curiosity.  I'm always interested to see how truly bad a movie can be.  I, like a lot of people, used to be a fan of Adam Sandler.  Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer, Big Daddy - all hilarious!  Sadly, I would describe his comedic attempts now as "unwatchable", which is exactly how I would describe this movie. First, his annoying baby-mumble voice combined with the atrocious attempt at a Boston accent was really hard to get through. Second, I don't know how funny it is to have the whole movie based around a teacher having sex with her student (and it wouldn't have been made if the gender roles were reversed because that wouldn't be funny...right?  So, why is this? It doesn't make any sense to me).  Third, who really thought that a Vanilla Ice cameo would be funny? Like, really...who?  Fourth, are three "waaassssuuuup" jokes necessary (it's a joke from over ten years ago! TEN!)? Fifth, this movie definitely wins the top spot on my worst movie of last year list (previous winner was What to Expect When You're Expecting).

4. Gangster Squad - This is a case in which I was expecting something much worse than what I got.  I heard terrible things about this movie, but honestly, I was entertained.  I think people were just expecting something more serious and dark, but instead it is a cartoonish take on the 40's gangster movies.  At first, it's a little jarring (Is it supposed to be funny? Why does everyone look like they are playing dress-up? Why is Sean Penn over-acting his heart out?), but once I got used to it, I found myself immersed.  The rest of the cast is top-notch (I'm a huge Sean Penn fan, so I am just going to ignore this misstep and move on).  The "gangster squad" includes Josh Brolin, Anthony Mackie, Giovanni Ribisi, Michael Pena, Robert Patrick and of course, Ryan Gosling.  Probably my favorite group of men put together in one film, in a long time.  Ryan and Emma Stone have a very natural chemistry, so it was fun watching them together again.  Also, there is a scene with Ryan in a tight white t-shirt that had my attention.  Seriously, I think that's the only thing guys should ever be allowed to wear.  Also, if you've seen the trailer, then you've seen the whole movie.  I hadn't seen it before, but then it played on the Cloud Atlas DVD, which I watched the next night.  It shows the entire movie!!  I probably wouldn't have had nearly as much fun as I did, if I had seen the trailer first.

5. Cloud Atlas - 2 hours and 52 minutes.  I repeat. 2 hours and 52 minutes.  After the first 30 minutes, I knew I was going to have a hard time making it through the whole thing.  Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of beauty to it, visually and thematically.  However, the acting is horrendous, the makeup is distracting and the editing is annoying.  Tom Hanks can not do an Irish accent or a Scottish one for that matter - he attempts both (at least, I think that's what he was going for).  Halle Berry just looks lost for the whole movie.  I'm guessing she has no idea what the plot of the movie is - because there really isn't one.  It's several stories that span time and space, none of them seem very cohesive, until the last hour.  Things start to come together, ideas are expressed more uniformly and it actually becomes a good movie.  It just takes sooooo long to get there.  I would love to sit down and re-edit it (I would actually consider film editing a "dream job" if it didn't involve sitting down and looking at a computer all day).  Having the same actors portray different characters is an interesting concept, but the novelty of it wears off quickly and I don't think it works visually.  I had a hard time with Jim Sturgess as Hae-Joo Chang, because it looked like Jim Sturgess with a creepy mask on.  I found the whole thing distracting.  Like I said, though, visually it is quite stunning.  There are some beautiful scenes, especially the "future" ones.  What I appreciate most is the different themes - all of them are ambitious to put on film, but the one that is done really well is the idea that "each encounter suggests a new potential direction".  I think about that everyday - how meeting one person can change your entire life (or not meeting them).  There is a nice broad theme of the evolution of a killer into a hero, but I'm not sure it entirely worked, considering that it was more based on circumstance than morality.  There are also quite a few scenes in which I have no idea how they relate to the movie at all, so I feel like a second viewing is necessary.  I would love to do that, if it wasn't 2 hours and 52 fucking minutes long, of course.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Jack Reacher - Satisfying and fun action/thriller.  I probably would have enjoyed it more if I liked Tom Cruise, but I am not a fan.  I am most certainly not a fan of him as a person, but I can separate the art from the artist (case in point: Woody Allen).  However, Cruise hasn't impressed me since the early 90's; most will probably argue that he was great in Magnolia, but my response to that is: it's not hard to play an egotistical douchebag, if you are an egotistical douchebag.  He's not bad in the Mission: Impossible movies (especially the most recent one) and he's not bad here.  It just would have been a better movie, for me, if I liked the central star of the movie.  Also, I don't think I've seen Rosamund Pike in anything other than Wrath of the Titans, and I thought she was bad because of the writing, but she was really bad here, as well.  I can't blame the writing because it is a solidly written screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie (known for writing The Usual Suspects, but he also wrote and directed one of my favorite action/thrillers, the criminally underrated, The Way of the Gun).  The story is tense and interesting, the pace is fast and the dialogue is mostly witty (my favorite part: "I can't afford you".  "I'm not a hooker". "Well, then I really can't afford you.").  Yes, there is a fair amount of cheesiness and implausibility but that doesn't make it any less fun.  The only part that really bothered me, plot-wise, is when Reacher is running from the police and the crowd hides him.  I screamed "HE COULD BE A TERRORIST! SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS" at my television.

2. John Dies at the End - I struggle coming up with ways to describe this movie without it sounding awful. "Incoherent mess" comes to mind, but then it seems like I didn't like it.  I did.  It's a fun and wacky, incoherent mess.  Combining horror and comedy with some genuine gross-out moments, it's certainly never boring.  The plot was a little too complicated, but I think that will only be enhanced on multiple viewings.  There's multiple dimensions, alternate universes and a drug called "soy sauce," creating a fantastically chaotic environment that you just can't look away from.  I can't really say anything else, because honestly I'm not sure I understood all of it, but I did have a ton of fun watching it.

3. We Bought a Zoo - I cried. I cried hard.  I can't remember the last time I actually cried real tears during a movie (every once in a while I get a little emotional, like with The Intouchables, but I can usually hold back the tears).  I thought I would get emotional with all the animal stuff.  I get really upset even thinking about animals in zoos. I refuse to go to them, because watching wild animals confined to small spaces is not my idea of a good time.   However, I was actually able to contain my feelings on the matter.  The part that made me hysterical (seriously, it was a flood of tears) was the last 5 minutes of the movie; the "20 seconds of courage" story about Matt Damon's character meeting his future wife.  What the fuck?! Why did I cry about a love story between humans?! What is wrong with me? Really though,  Matt Damon is just too good within the scene and the real reason it made me cry is because it reminded me of the scene in Good Will Hunting with him and Robin Williams ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg_9FQk6UnA - makes me cry. Every time.).  I think it makes me cry because I can't imagine anyone ever loving me that much.  That sounds really depressing, but it's totally true. Anyway, in regards to the rest of the movie, other than Matt Damon, the acting is horrible. The movie makes a great case against Scarlett Johansson, as an actress.  She's awful. Like, truly terrible. I honestly don't understand how no one else sees what I see.  Don't get me wrong, she's an absolutely stunning girl and in interviews she seems nice, intelligent, funny and well-spoken.  She just can't act. Also, the kid that plays Damon's son looks just like him (and a little like a young Brad Pitt, as well), so I understand why he was cast, but I cringe thinking about his emotional scenes.  The movie bordered on made-for-television territory for its entirety.  If I caught it on the Family Channel, I might be impressed; but it's not too impressive for a feature film.

4. Upstream Color - Kudos to you if you actually understood what was going on in this movie without looking it up.  I understood the first part fine, and it is an amazing concept, but the second half started to lose me. I looked it up after I finished the movie, and I still don't fully understand.  If you tell me you do, I honestly won't believe you.  It's obviously meant to be abstract. Even without a full understanding, it is still mesmerizing. Actually, hypnotic is probably a more apt word to describe it. I don't think the audience is meant to fully understand the science behind it; otherwise we would be able to pick apart the flaws in logic. Instead, we can focus on the beauty and intrigue of it all.  There are some really intense "horror" moments as well, which makes me question which genre it really belongs to (Psychological horror? Science fiction drama?).  The sound design is intoxicating and definitely enhances the creepiness.  It's absolutely gorgeous to look at, with themes of human behavior, psychology, post-traumatic stress disorder, genetic manipulation and so much more, this film is surely going to end up in my top 10 list for 2013.

5. Struck By Lightning - As a former fan of Glee, I really want certain stars of the show to succeed in a post-Glee world.  Lea Michele needs to go back to Broadway (when this happens, I will be there. Front row.).  Cory Monteith is a movie star (Trust me. I'm right about these things 95% of the time.).  I really like Chris Colfer, so I was excited to hear that he was doing some writing (this screenplay and he has a book deal, with one book already published).  I thought this movie would be a cute, cheesy high school movie with a great message about accepting people for who they are (that seems to be his thing), and that's what it was.  It just wasn't any good.  Colfer struggled a lot in the main role, because he seemed to be fighting his Glee character so much (a character that was created around Colfer, himself) but instead of becoming a different character, he is still Kurt, just with more snark and attitude (making him unlikable, instead of lovable).  He also stole a lot from Glee (the same type-cast characters, the blackmailing of students to write for the literary magazine).  He seems to think he is much more clever than he actually is, because he really isn't saying anything profound or new about the high school experience.  I hate to say it, but the whole thing is just a bit of a mess.  It's amateur screenwriting, at best, that would never have made it past the interns desk and onto the desk of an executive, if it wasn't for the power of Glee.  The film also, somehow, attracted some great actresses for supporting roles - Allison Janney and Christina Hendricks.  However, their story-line is just plain ridiculous and over-dramatic to even pay attention to.

3 Thoughts on The Great Gatsby

1. The good stuff - This is definitely a movie that is filled with both good and bad elements, so let's start with the good: First, Baz Luhrmann knows how to throw a party.  He is the perfect person to bring Gatsby's grandiose, extravagant celebrations to life.  I didn't see it in 3D, but I imagine that this is where the 3D was used (I can't imagine it being useful for anything else in the movie), but even in 2D, it is in-your-face spectacular.  There was so much detail and depth to these scenes that I wanted my own personal pause button in order to look at every frame in detail.  Second, the biggest reasons that these party scenes worked is because of the amazing soundtrack; I've had it on repeat for weeks.  The music kept the film afloat, keeping it fresh and modern...and alive.  It was also, sometimes, very jarring (the best example of this is when when a car, from the 1920's, whizzes by blasting  "H to the izz-O...". It made me laugh for hours).  Third, Leo is absolute perfection as Gatsby.

2. The bad stuff - I usually try to convince myself that the "good" of a movie will always outweigh the "bad" of a movie, but in this case, the bad just weighs down the movie.  The worst part is Tobey Maguire, and this is coming from someone who is usually a fan.  He gets criticized a lot for being "awkward", but for me, his awkwardness is usually appropriate for the roles.  It's not, in this case. Instead, it is painful.  His narration just caused even more pain.  Second, obviously, the novel would be edited for the movie version, but I'm not sure I liked what was added (the psychiatric hospital) and I absolutely hate what they took out (Nick's relationship with Jordan - who is, by far, a more interesting female character than Daisy).  Third, like the novel, the movie just takes way too long to get to the point.  The ending is superb, but by the time it comes around, I hardly care anymore.

3. Everything in between - First, I would say that aside from Leo's fine performance and Tobey's flat-lined performance, everyone else lands in the middle.  Joel Edgerton was a little too caricature-like as Tom Buchanan, while Isla Fisher was miscast completely, but she did her best.  And, I FINALLY figured out why I am not fully on board the Carey Mulligan express train!!!  I like her, I really do...but there was always something that bothered me about her.  While watching this, I have come to realize that she is one of those girls who ALWAYS seems like she's on the verge of tears.  I picture her as one of those really annoying girls that get super emotional and attached after sex, and I have a hard time relating to girls like that (I would still totally have sex with her, I would just ensure that I had an exit strategy). This underlying sadness works with the characters that she plays - and it works here too, it's just such a repetitive character for her, at this point.  She did a fine job with the role of Daisy, but nothing spectacular. It's probably because I've never been a fan of the character to begin with - a weak, indecisive, self-important, spoiled girl that I just want to shake some sense into (this is also why I am disappointed with the cutting of Jordan's role. I love the contrast between these two women).  Second, I was really hoping for more! Much more! I wanted to be blown away and I left the theater feeling really empty.  I liked it, but I don't think I would recommend it to anyone unless they are a fan of Luhrmann. It's also not a movie I would watch on multiple viewings (unlike Romeo + Juliet, which I have seen at least 100 times).

3 Thoughts on Mud

1. The kids - The reason this movie works so well is because of the kids.  Fantastic characters; fantastic actors.  Sure, the movie is titled "Mud" and the poster is plastered with McConaughey, but the story is told from the perspective of these two young boys.  Two young boys, Ellis and "Neckbone", who don't quite understand the way life (and love) works. Tye Sheridan, as Ellis, is one of the best young actor performances I've seen in a while.  He's everything you want him to be - tough, courageous, inquisitive, vulnerable.  While, "Neckbone", played by newcomer Jacob Lofland, is there as more of a comic relief character; he still displays layers to his character with beautiful subtlety.  I rarely like kids in movies; even though my favorite movies include Stand By Me and The Goonies.  Nowadays, kids are boring on-screen - too tech-savvy, too spoiled, too materialistic (with the exception of Super 8).  I miss the kids that go on adventures!!  They're still out there and they are far more interesting.

2. Mud - Matthew McConaughey is on a role.  A fucking role.  Why on Earth has he wasted so much time making movies like Fool's Gold??  He is perfection in this role.  You could tell he reveled in the role, I mean, he is practically shirtless, dirty and sweaty for the entire movie, which is pretty much a description of McConaughey all the time in real life. I loved that we never get any definitive information about Mud - he is a mystery and will remain that way. I was surprised by the ending of Mud's story, considering that all that we know about Mud is what the kids learn about him (plus I expected more of a Take Shelter ending); but then I thought maybe this ending is what the kids interpret his ending to be - and that makes me love the movie even more.

3. The misogyny - There are many themes of the movie - some say it's a story of love and heartbreak. Others, say it's about a loss of innocence (a coming-of-age story).  For me, the movie tackles a big question: Why do men hate women?  I actually don't think that is writer/director, Jeff Nichols', intention (and that is part of the problem), but from my perception of the story (aka a feminist perception), it's a tale of men learning to hate women at a very young age.  There are three women in the film; all three are villainous, especially from the perspective of these kids. Sure, there are actual gun-toting "villains" in the movie, but in the grand scheme of things, women are responsible for the events that unfold.  The most obvious representation of this is in Juniper, Mud's "true love".  Juniper, played by Reese Witherspoon (aka the weak link of the movie), is a troubled woman who, as told in stories, attaches herself to abusive men and then tricks poor Mud into saving her.  She's given a "manipulative" woman trait and is never given the opportunity to explain herself.  We are given one glimpse of pure emotion from her, that hints to Ellis that there is, in fact, more to her story, but does he really understand that?  From a kids point of view, she is someone who has deceived Mud instead of loving him.  Women in cyclical abusive relationships aren't in these relationships because they enjoy it; and this story is clearly placing blame on the wrong gender (as in real life).  Whether it is because of abuse, molestation, rape, etc, as a child or young adult, women are like this because a man fucked them up.  Instead of focusing on the consequences of male aggression, we teach young boys that women will destroy their lives, and the cycle begins.  Ellis is also dealing with his parents divorcing because his mother wants a better life.  For most of the movie, she has no other characteristic, other than crushing his fathers dreams.  We only get a small glimpse of her side of the story - the fact that she has spent her whole life living for him, instead of herself, and he has done nothing.  Even though we get these small glimpses of something more complicated, I don't think it's enough.  These female characters represent a clear hatred of women all disguised as "love" - you know, women are evil, but don't give up on love because you'll find one who is worth it.  To be clear, despite what it represents, I LOVE this movie.

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. The Impossible - I am one of those people who are bothered by the casting of this movie.  Spanish director, Juan Antonio Bayona, made a movie about the survival of a Spanish family during the 2004 Tsunami, but cast a white family and then described the movie as an "English-language Spanish drama".  Bayona admits that the casting was for financial reasons (he claimed he could only get funding with internationally recognizable actors) and also, that it shouldn't matter what race or social class the family is because the story is about humanity.  That doesn't seem to make much sense...right?  If it doesn't matter, then why not stay true to the story?  Instead, he succumbed to the racist claim that an audience wouldn't care as much if the family aren't white (also, there are PLENTY of internationally recognizable Hispanic actors and there are PLENTY of films that succeed without "recognizable" actors).  It's a cowardly move, in my opinion.  I tried not to let that effect my viewing of the movie, but it's an underlining problem throughout the story.  When you personalize a story by focusing on one family (among thousands...over 200,000 people were killed), then we should actually get to know the family.  Instead, we know very little about them (other than, they are wealthy, white and on vacation).  The tsunami hits very quickly, which I guess is the point - to take the audience by surprise, but I think that is why I spent the film with dry eyes.  I expected to cry. I was prepared to cry. It just didn't happen.  It's not that I didn't care about this family; of course I wanted them to survive (and knowing that it is a true story, I expected that it would have a "happy ending"), but not knowing anything personal about them left me void of any tears.  There was one point, when the son begins to help other families reunite, that I felt a lump in my throat, but it disappeared pretty quickly.  Other than my problems with the story, I will say that the actual tsunami scene is breathtaking.  The amount of detail that goes into shots like those are astounding.  Naomi Watts is one of my favorite actresses and she deserves an Oscar, but certainly not for this role (she should have won 10 years ago for 21 Grams - one of my favorite female performances ever).  This role was physically demanding, but she didn't have much else to do but be "almost dead" for most of the movie.

2. Save the Date - I can't resist a movie starring both Lizzy Caplan AND Alison Brie!! Two gorgeous females who are hilarious and talented.  The movie is about two sisters; Lizzy is Sarah, the sister who is in a bit of a relationship catastrophe and Alison is Beth, the sister who is planning her wedding.  Sarah is obviously the interesting character, while Beth literally spends the entire movie talking about wedding details. She is given nothing else to do, and she is terribly uninteresting.  Plus, the amount of time and money that go into weddings is disgusting; my stomach turns just thinking about it.  Sarah, on the other hand, is a little bit of a heightened disaster.  She turns down a wedding proposal to her current boyfriend, which ultimately means a break-up.  It's impossible to stay in a relationship after someone proposes and is turned down. I've tried it. I can relate to Sarah, in the way that she doesn't see the "certainty" in a relationship that most people find.  She doesn't believe in marriage and finding a (nice) guy who feels the same, is pretty much impossible (even the ones who say they don't want to get married end up changing their minds).  I can also relate to her insights on "careers".  She works at a small bookstore, while her friends all have "real jobs".  She claims "I work in this shitty bookstore, and I sometimes feel like, perhaps, I have life figured out way more than those people do".  I would much rather work at a job that I mildly enjoy, in which I can pay the bills and enjoy my free time with family, travel and relax; instead of having a stressful career, in which I have tons of money sitting in a bank account and no free time to do anything with it.  Other than being able to relate to Sarah, I found nothing else useful about the movie.  It's a little slow-paced, not really funny and I can't really find a point.  I have a really hard time believing that Geoffrey Arend would ever get a girl like Lizzy Caplan (mean, I know), but then I have to remind myself that he is married, IN REAL LIFE, to Christina Hendricks, so there has to be something there. I just don't see it.  Also, I was confused about all of the weird shots of the cat, then realized he would become part of the story - *spoiler alert* - the cat goes missing.  This hurts the story, for me, tremendously because all I could think for the rest of the movie is "WHERE IS THE CAT!??".  I would not be able to function if one of my cats went missing.

3. Hit & Run - I was mildly entertained for most of this movie, even if it was really stupid.  I was never a fan of Dax Shepard, until the television show Parenthood came around.  He is amazing on that show (as is the rest of the cast).  He still wasn't the main draw of this movie, for me. *Cough* Bradley Cooper *Cough*.  It was a small role, but he was hilarious.  I also LOVE Ryan Hansen (from Party Down. I still laugh at this on a daily basis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r_OgEbTzPg).  I wish he had a bigger role in this movie, but he barely has any lines.  He just sort of stands in the background of a few scenes.  I still don't really get Kristen Bell's popularity (I tried watching Veronica Mars once. Painful experience).  She's cute, but not very memorable.  Her character doesn't really make much sense; she is a non-violent conflict resolution expert, yet she is perfectly o.k with her boyfriend racing through the streets putting the lives of everyone else at risk (yes, he is a professional driver, but everyone else around him, is not).  But then again, there isn't much that makes sense about this movie.  Her ex-boyfriend protects her....by putting her life at risk.  The main couple spend the entire movie bickering, even though there are much more important things going on...like people shooting at them! There was very little research done about the Witness Protection Program, because everything about it was wrong.  You get the point.  Just watch it with your brain shut off and you may be mildly entertained like I was.

4. Chernobyl Diaries - Worst movie I've seen in a while.  A group of people visit the deserted town where the Chernobyl disaster took place, only to realize it's not so deserted after all.  I don't understand the point of filming it documentary style unless it's a "found footage" film, but the person recording the story isn't a character and is never referenced.  So, the shaky camera is pointless and unnecessary   The group of people have zero personality or wit.  I never knew who Jesse McCartney was, although I've heard the name before.  His face looks plastic. Is it?  The group seem really excited to visit abandoned buildings (I'm not sure why) and take tons of pictures of....nothing.  Then, they are stuck in a van that won't start and begin to hear and see creepy things outside and they say stupid things like "stay away from the windows!" (in a van...surrounded by windows).  After an hour, we still don't know what it is we are supposed to be scared of. Ghosts? Dogs? Ghost dogs?  It doesn't start to get interesting until the end. Then it's over.

5. House at the End of the Street - Elisabeth Shue!  She plays Jennifer Lawrence's mom, which is sort of sad, but it's Elisabeth Shue!!  It's actually great casting; they do sort of look alike and technically they could be mother and daughter, considering Elisabeth is my mom's age and Jennifer is (much) younger than me.  This movie was exactly the type of movie that I was in the mood to watch.  It's a fun horror movie, with a surprising twist.  It wasn't exactly scary, but I was entertained for all of it.  There are so many moments of "why are you doing that!?" that go along with horror movies (like...why are you putting the key there!), but it was all good fun. Max Thieriot is fucking sexy (He's like a younger Ryan Phillippe). He's also on Bates Motel, which everyone needs to watch - not just because of him; it's a fantastic show.  Plus, I know Jennifer Lawrence has a lot of fans, and she pretty much runs around in a tight white tank top for the last half of the movie. Enjoy!

3 Thoughts on The Place Beyond the Pines

1. Part 1 - Overall, I would say this is a solid film. However, the narrative is broken into 3 distinct parts; the first part is sublime, the second part is good, the third part is so bad it hurts.  I could watch the first part on a continuous loop for days and be perfectly happy.  It's centered on Ryan Gosling's character, Luke, a role similar to The Driver in Drive - mysterious, quiet, introspective, with little to no background information.  The catalyst of the story is Luke finding out that he has a newborn son with an ex-fling, Romina, portrayed by Eva Mendes; determined to do the right thing, he quits his job as a traveling motorcycle stunt driver and decides to stay in town to help raise his son.  There are several powerful scenes over the course of the first 40 minutes, the only thing to do is watch in complete awe.  The height of perfection is a scene that takes place at Romina's work (a diner), where she begins to question how exactly he plans to take care of them.    It's an emasculating question, and you can feel his internal struggle (as well as hers) because he doesn't actually have a solid plan.  It was at this point that I thought, "wow, this is going to be my favorite film of the year".  The momentum continues with Luke, partnering with a new friend, Robin (Ben Mendelsohn), committing local bank robberies (totally solid plan..).  These robbery scenes are perfectly intense and thrilling, because at this point, I was reminded "oh yeah, Bradley Cooper plays a cop, and will probably show up any minute".  The first part of the movie, ends boldly and abruptly (it's not exactly original, but it did surprise me) and the focus shifts to Cooper's character, Avery.  Sadly, it all goes downhill from there.

2. Part 2 - Back in 2001, we saw the release of the television show, Alias, one of my all-time favorite shows, co-starring Bradley Cooper and we had the release of the movie, The Believer, which is the film that really launched Ryan Gosling's career.  Both of these guys have been on my radar for 12 years, and when I heard the news that they were going to be in a film together, I had to remind myself to breathe.  That being said, unfortunately, after the dynamic performance from Gosling, Cooper is a bit of a letdown.  Part of it has to do with the story-line, which I won't get into details because it would spoil part 1, but mostly it has to do with his presence (or lack there of).  Why do I root for a bank robber (who let's face it - is also sort of an asshole), over a cop (who falters, but ultimately does the right thing; even if it is for selfish motivation)?? While Gosling exudes a natural charisma and coolness, Cooper gives some wonderfully emotional scenes, but lacks a personality.  The second part of the movie drags a bit and is more predictable, but it is still good (although compared to the first part, it's not even in the same league of cinematic brilliance). Then it all comes crashing down in the third act.

3. Part 3 - Let me start off by saying that I appreciate what writer/director, Derek Cianfrance, did.  The Place Beyond the Pines is an epic story, with classic Greek tragedy themes, while still feeling real and scaled back.  It's not easy to do, and again, overall, I would call the movie a success.  I just can't get behind this third part.  Nothing about it felt right; starting with the casting.  First, the absolute worst part of the movie is Emory Cohen, as AJ (Avery's son).  Everything about him didn't fit; he looks nothing like Bradley Cooper or Rose Byrne, he talks/dresses/acts like he is from the Jersey Shore and he looks like he's in his 30's (he's not; he's 23, but he is supposed to be 16 - some guys can pull this off. He can't).  Someone who is born and raised in Upstate NY would not be like this (I'm from Upstate NY and I've never encountered anyone like this, unless they came from somewhere else). I might have forgiven this odd choice, if the guy could actually act. I was so put off by this entire character, that I spent the last 30 minutes praying for the movie to end.  Second, Dane Dehaan is an excellent actor, but his character didn't really fit for me either.  He is supposed to take after characteristics from his dad, Luke, but instead of an effortless cool, he is the awkward loner.  The main theme of the movie is obviously the importance of a father in a sons life, but I'm bothered by the fact that he doesn't appreciate that he has a father-figure in his life, who clearly cares about him (therefore, I don't sympathize with the character, at all). Third, the pace of this last part was horrendously slow.  I actually began to ask myself whether I was watching the worst movie of the year.  It's just such a drastic drop in quality from the beginning, it makes me sad to think about.  Last, I recommend this movie, but maybe just leave before it gets really bad (you'll know exactly when, I promise).

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. Liberal Arts - I was surprisingly impressed with this movie.  This is only writer/director Josh Radnor's second film, and I think he did a great job at capturing a feeling - that instinctual need to hold on to the past, the paralyzing nature of trying to remain young and resisting maturity/adulthood.  It's usually not a love story that I would root for - the older man, Sam, with the younger college student, Zibby (a 16 year difference), but it ultimately works here because he is clearly interested in her mind/personality as opposed to her looks/body, plus she seems more put together than most college-aged girls.  It also works because as soon as he realizes that she might not be as mature as she appears, he backs off (i.e - he's not an asshole).  I think it was extremely clear how the movie would end (there was MAJOR foreshadowing, but it was oddly subtle), but it was interesting to watch this guy come to the realization that he is actually more of adult than he thinks he is.  The big highlight of the film is Zac Efron (this no longer surprises me, he's actually pretty good.  I've come to terms with it).  He played the typical "stoner"-type student, who seemed to step right out the the 90's (I was waiting for him to pull out a hacky sack...but it sadly didn't happen).   He's there to be Sam's conscience - and I wondered, as did Sam, as to whether the character was just a figment of his imagination.  He spouts really cheesy "inspirational" quotes like "be love", but he is hilarious, so it works.  Elizabeth Olsen is, once again, fantastic.  I think it's sort of a hard role to pull off and she nailed it.  Also, I LOVED their dialogue about the Twilight type books that she is reading.  He is horrified by her reading this GARBAGE, and her response is "talk about what you love, and keep quiet about things you don't", I agree....but really, I could never date anyone who reads and enjoys those type of books. I would just constantly question their taste in everything. Anyway, I enjoyed this movie; I will definitely be checking out Radnor's first film, HappyThankYouMorePlease really soon.

2. Hitchcock - A few excellent moments, but overall an unmemorable, bland look at Hitchcock, as he made his masterpiece Psycho.  The movie is as much about Hitchcock's wife, Alma Reville, as it is about Hitchcock.  All of the scenes featuring Alma are the "excellent moments", especially the monologue towards the end, where she puts Hitch in his place.  The movie does a fantastic job at giving Alma the credit she deserves  (if you aren't aware of her input, please look it up - and also be aware that she is "uncredited" for most of her work), yet the movie reinforces the idea that she isn't as important as her male counter-parts, by making the movie about Hitchcock!  Why not just make the movie about her???  Even though she stayed in the background of Hitch's career, I have the highest respect for her as a feminist icon.  She wasn't simply doing her "wifely duties", instead she found someone who she really believed in and she did everything in her power to make him succeed.  She truly embodies the saying "behind every great man, is a great woman", which is why the tagline for this movie is perfection ("Behind every Psycho is a great woman"). I'm a little aggravated at the implication that she was insecure around all of the notorious "Hitchcock blondes".  Personally, I don't think she gave a fuck about these women - she seems like a confident, intelligent woman; I'd like to think she was above that type of cattiness. It is very clear, from everything that I've read, that Alma is the only person that mattered in Hitchcock's mind.  Other excellent moments involved scenes that showed Hitch's humor and sarcasm - like when he visits the sensory board ("she won't be nude...she'll be wearing a shower cap!"). The rest of the movie focuses a lot on their marriage, during the production of Psycho, which Hitchcock financed, for the most part, himself, because the studio's weren't exactly enthused about certain plot-points.  For me, the marriage aspect was booooring, repetitive and littered with cheesy dialogue.  I also didn't care for Jessica Biel as Vera Miles or Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, but that was to be expected. I will give some credit to Scarlett for her "shower scream" scene - absolutely fantastic.  Lastly, I'm not sure what Anthony Hopkins was doing, but it didn't feel like Hitch.  The prosthetics looked amazing in pictures, but in motion it looked awkward and seemed to impair his facial expressions.

3. The Intouchables - This movie is guaranteed to make you smile, at least once.  Seriously, if you don't smile during the Earth, Wind & Fire dance sequence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_NzAvUCZ1M), then you might want to have your pulse checked. Omar Sy smashes this role, as Driss - the most charismatic guy ever to appear on screen (exaggeration are fun!).  The movie is based on a true story about a friendship that forms between a multi-millionaire quadriplegic and his new ex-con caregiver.  They obviously don't have much in common, but they form a bond based on humor and honesty. It's really just a fun, heartwarming movie (in a good way, not in a cheesy way), and very moving (I actually got a little emotional in the end...a very rare occurrence for me). I might include it in my updated "Best of 2012 list", when I get around to watching everything I want to watch.  Also, I totally want to go paragliding...like RIGHT NOW!  I always wanted to go skydiving, but now I don't know - that looks like more fun.

4. Les Miserables - I really thought I was going to love this movie.  I enjoy the bleakness of the story, I adore all of the music from the stage production, and I had faith that Anne Hathaway was going to blow me away.  Also, I was fascinated by the way the singing was filmed live (and often in one take), which is unusual (the actors usually sing to their own pre-recorded tracks while filming).  I missed it in the theaters, because my movie buddy went without me (how dare he!!!!) and then warned me that I was going to hate it.  I didn't hate it, but I certainly wasn't as impressed as I had hoped.  Other than the acting, and a few sublime performances, there is really nothing to gush over.  I wasn't as bothered by the directing style as most (specifically, the absurd amount of close-ups), but I definitely think it hindered the cinematic experience as a whole.  Anne Hathaway is obviously the stand-out performance - "I Dreamed a Dream" is raw, desperate and emotionally draining, which is exactly how the song should sound.  She practically has a panic attack while singing it.  Oscar, well-deserved.  The other performance that I enjoyed is "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" performed by Eddie Redmayne; up until this point, I found him pretty dull.  Samantha Barks did a fine job as Eponine, but once you hear Lea Michele sing "On My Own", no one else compares.  She was the clear front-runner for the role, and I still don't understand how she didn't get it.  I realized after watching the film, that while I love the character dynamics and relationships, I don't actually like the central love story (between Cosette and Marius) - especially after she's like "Don't worry that all your friends died, because we can be together everyday" and he's like "oh ok" (total paraphrase, but that's the gist...so fucking stupid).  Plus, it will always bother me when films/stories take place in another country (like France) but the language is English.  It's like one big, never-ending plot error.

5. This is 40 -  Obviously, at 2 hours and 14 minutes, it's far too long.  At about the 1/2 way mark, I got up and did the dishes, and I honestly don't think I missed anything as far as the plot is concerned.  The length is extremely detrimental to a comedy like this, because once boredom sets in, I find it hard to laugh at the funny parts (and some of it was genuinely funny).  I never thought I would be one to care about my age, but the older I get, the younger I tell people I am (I'm sticking with 26...FOREVER!). I love Leslie Mann; I think she is stunning.  However, it occurred to me, while watching this movie, that as much as it sucks to get older, it's much easier when you don't actually look your age. Really, if I look like her when I'm 40 (*crosses fingers**), it would be pretty hard to complain. I like the chemistry between Leslie and Paul Rudd, they seem like a believable couple that I want to root for, but I could do with less bickering. Watching people who love each other constantly bicker, is probably why I'm still single.  The thought of becoming that, is absolutely terrifying.  The strange thing is, I think the bickering was meant to be funny. It wasn't.  There were some fantastic supporting actors, like Megan Fox; she's perfect for the role and she has fantastic comedic timing. Screw the haters.  There were also some really awful supporting actors, like Charlyne Yi (the girl from Paper Heart - don't even get me started on that atrocity).  I don't understand how this girl is an actress. She looks like she was reading off of cue cards and every joke she had fell flat. The movie is supposed to be a mix of comedy and drama, but none of the drama really worked very well.  The only part that I found incredibly relatable was towards the end, there is a very dramatic scene about the meaning of "family", in which Pete says to Debbie "Your dad left. You're broken inside; it's not your fault you can't feel love".  LOW BLOW, Pete. This family dynamic could have been explored more, but we really don't get much info about Debbie's life until this scene.  It explains her characters need for acceptance more.  Also, allow me to get a bit personal, but coming from a "broken family" myself, I find that I am inherently more attracted to someone who comes from a big, close family.  I am painfully self-aware of why I am the way I am. I would have loved to see more of this self-discovery from these characters, instead it was all very self-indulgent and narcissistic.  There is a big difference.