Black Swan

Release Date: December 3, 2010

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky

Synopsis: A tightly wound ballerina named Nina is chosen to play the iconic role of the Swan Queen in “Swan Lake.” This task proves to be more daunting than she first imagined, for she must also play the role of the Black Swan, the white swan’s sinister sister who convinces her prince not to love her innocent sister. Nina is constantly under the care of her controlling, wannabe ballerina mother and an egotistical ballet director who exploits her innocence for his gain. The role soon consumes Nina’s entire existence; allowing her to explore her newfound sexuality and ultimately descends into madness.

Review: I want to first put out there that I respect what Aronofsky was trying to do here. He took a darker screenplay loosely based off an iconic ballet, assembled an all-star cast, and provided a thought-provoking thriller. It’s just too bad that all of my thoughts provoked from this film were what time dinner was and when I could get the hell out of the theater. I don’t know why critics are raving about this film. Maybe they saw a different version than I did, or maybe I’m just a simple Colorado girl not sophisticated enough to understand the powerful message that Black Swan conveyed, but I really, REALLY, did not like this film.   

            I knew it was a psycho-sexual-thriller going into it, but I guess I wasn’t ready for just how psycho it was. I felt that if Aronofsky would have stuck to just one or two elements of Nina’s psycho mania rather than throwing 20 different things in my face, I would have enjoyed it. The first 45 minutes of the film were weird, but I did enjoy it. After that, it was all downhill. As a fellow, albeit inexperienced dancer, I understand at least some of the rigor that goes into dance training. I was never a ballet dancer, so I don’t even know a quarter of how hard serious ballerinas work. Showing the scars all over Nina’s feet or hearing her bones crack were chilling, but extremely realistic. Ballet is a cut throat world, and Aronofsky also portrayed that aspect well.

            Although I loathed this film, it was well made and the acting was superb. Natalie Portman never disappoints, and her physical transformation is astounding. She’s probably about as tall as I am and I would guess weighs about 120 soaking wet. She lost 20 pounds for this role, and you could see every bone in her body (which added to the realism this film provided). I did sympathize with her character while at the same time not understanding her at all. Mila Kunis also did a great job, but I don’t really understand why she was necessary to the film. The only real reason I saw her to be in Black Swan was to go down on Natalie Portman, which I also found ridiculously unnecessary. My cousin made the point that it was a little self-indulgent on Aronofsky’s part, and I can’t help but agree with her. I mean, I get she’s discovering her sexuality and sensuality, possibly even lesbianism, but it didn’t add to the film. It served as a draw to get men to come to the movie.

            There were a ridiculous amount of creepy parts to this film, and it was just a mental overload. In one scene, Nina is obsessively pulling at her bleeding cuticles, and she starts to pull of the skin so it can heal. But no, it gets taken to a whole new level in which she literally rips a strip of skin from her cuticle to the middle of her hand. WHY?!?!? We come to find out it didn’t actually happen, which is all the more reason why it should have been left out. It added nothing but disgust for the film, in my opinion. The same disdain grew out of another scene in which Nina visits her aging and injured protégé Beth in the hospital (played by Winona Ryder who bothers me to no end). Nina gives back a nail file she had stolen from Beth, so Beth proceeds to start flipping out and stabbing herself in the face with the nail file. I was expecting some wrist cutting or even stabbing herself in the chest. But her face?!?! Turns out that was a hallucination too. So I ask you Aronofsky, WHAT THE HELL?

            The cool/creepy part was a recurring theme throughout the film, and honestly could have stood well on its own. Nina keeps scratching her back to the point of bleeding, and no one can figure out why . . . only the scratching is in the place where a wing could be (the creativity blows my mind . . . so much so that I figured it out the first time it was showed on screen. Bravo). Right before her big debut on stage, Nina is having a mental breakdown in her room and starts to scratch. Only something is there this time . . . and she pulls out a black feather. She starts pulling out more, and is obviously traumatized. It should have stopped there, but then it proceeds to show Portman’s legs turn into swan legs. Then the scene cuts and she’s sans swan legs. Even though the feather theme was a bit obvious, I felt that enhanced the story and exemplified her mania. Those silly swan legs took it way too far.

            When it came to the dancing, Natalie Portman did an excellent job. She trained for a year before principal filming began, and truly transformed herself into a ballet dancer. The principal male partner was also great (he’s a principal dancer for the NYC Ballet Company, and Portman’s husband/baby daddy), but aside from that the dancing sucked. Like I said before, I’m no expert, but it shouldn’t look like these dancers are working when they dance. It should look effortless. Well, it seemed as though they were exerting every ounce of energy they had into their dancing, and not in a good way.           

I would not recommend this film, but at the same time I’m glad I saw it. It’s safe to say I feel MUCH  better about my neuroses after seeing it.

Most Anticipated Movies of 2011

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
2. Water For Elephants
3. Limitless
4. The Adjustment Bureau
5. Red Riding Hood
6. The Hangover 2
7. Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

Inception

Release Date: July 16, 2010

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Synopsis: In a world where dreams are equally, if not more important than reality, a thief has a chance at redemption when he is offered the task of completing Inception: the process of planting an idea into one’s mind in order to create a desired outcome. Cobb (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) and his band of highly intelligent and skilled thieves (Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tom Hardy) attempt Inception upon a young billionare (Cillian Murphy) in order for the head of a rival company to rise to power (Ken Watanabe). Will Cobb and his crew achieve Inception, or will the memories of Cobb’s wife (Marion Cotillard) threaten to derail the ultimate heist?

Review: Let me start off by saying that for the most part, I will see just about everything Christopher Nolan directs or writes and anything that Leonardo DiCaprio stars in. Nolan has this insane ability to somehow make deeply psychologically twisted marketable to the masses. From what I’ve read, this particular script took him nearly ten years to complete, and he only had DiCaprio in mind for the role of Cobb. That being said, I am a huge fan of this film.

            The first time I saw Inception a friend and I went to the midnight showing, so I was absolutely exhausted. Seeing it again really made me appreciate the artistry in crafting this story. Nolan has said he is fascinated by the dreaming process, and how our minds create the bizarre scenarios, some of which are vivid and frighteningly realistic. He pays an incredibly close attention to detail, some of which goes way over my head (such as certain things characters say in passing that turn out to be of the utmost importance, different colored clothing, etc).

            Each person was cast perfectly, and most from Nolan’s “stock” of actors (Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe). I was a bit hesitant to see Ellen Page take on a more serious role, after the likes of Juno and Whip It, but I thought she handled herself well. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an actor I really enjoy watching, so I’m glad that this film has helped him land a few more roles. He plays the suave sidekick with the necessary sophistication and intensity. I wish Tom Hardy’s character would have had a bit more screen time, but since he has been cast as the new villain in “The Dark Knight Rises”, I’m sure we’ll get to see a lot more of him.

            The visual effects in this film were stunning. Creepy and a bit bizarre, but stunning. They perfectly exemplified the vivid imagery of our dreams without being hokey or stupid; it greatly enhanced the story. I also loved how there were times where you didn’t know what was a dream and what was reality (hint according to imdb.com: In all the dream sequences, Cobb is wearing his wedding ring. In reality sequences, he is not). I didn’t find myself getting too confused, which was refreshing for a film with this subject matter and interweaving story lines.

            The ending of the story was relatively light hearted compared to the rest fo the film, but I thought it fit well. You felt relief right along with Cobb when his children turned around to see him, and it was nice to see everyone happily go their separate ways, unsure of when they would meet again.

            If you haven’t seen this movie, go rent it right now. It’s a must have for any movie collection!

Details Magazine Interview: Christian Bale

This is a branching out a bit of movie reviews, but this has at least something to do with a movie on my Holiday List, “The Fighter.” Christian Bale plays Dickie Ward, Mikcey Ward’s (played by Mark Wahlberg) younger crack head brother. I was reading an interview with Bale in Details Magazine, and I just had to voice my opinion on the content of the interview, and Bale’s demeanor throughout. .

            First of all, Bale INSISTS upon the interview being in the Q&A format. Secondly, he doesn’t let the reporter even ask questions. He had to perform a second interview just to get useable material. Bale then goes on and on about how he has such a sissy job, and basically complains about his good fortune. Poor you, one of the most sought after actors of this decade. Poor you with all of your money and fame.

            He then goes on to say he wishes he could never do another interview in his life because he thinks they are a waste of time and take away from the character. Uh, in order for your movie to be successful (you know, so you keep being famous and rich and actually cast in more projects) you have to do press junkets. Sure, reporters could come up with more creative questions sometimes, but this is your JOB. You get paid more than the President of the United States, and you are bitching about having to talk to someone who is showing an interest in your life or projects? Please.

            This is the part that bothers me the most. The reporter asks him about his role in The Machinist, in which Bale lost 65 pounds so he would be believable as a junkie on screen. He famously gained 85 pounds back immediately after this role for Batman Begins. The reporter asked how he has the stamina and will to put himself through that kind of thing, and Bale gives the most ridiculous answer. So ridiculous that it’s not even worth repeating. Bale reportedly will leave sets for hours at a time, with no one knowing where he is. He says he’s “preparing for his role.” Also known as method acting.

            Method acting is a crock of psychobabble bullshit. I think Bale is a terrific actor, but I have a feeling this “method acting” is another way of saying, “I’m a psycho who happens to be attractive.” IT reminds me of that Saturday Night Live sketch from the early 90s with John Lovtiz and Phil Hartmen. Lovitz is this snooty actor who quite obviously cannot act, but does very ridiculous things much to the delight of Hartmen. To each of these ridiculous things (such as bending your finger in half to make it as though it has disappeared), Lovitz would reveal his secret and exclaim, “ACTING!!!”

            Here’s the thing: viewers (aka people who pay for the movies you are in, Bale) want to see people they like. They want to see people who are good actors, but don’t take themselves so seriously. If you don’t stop being such a pompous windbag jerk, people will stop seeing your movies all together. So that means no yelling at people for getting a boom mic in the shot, no yelling at your mom in public places, and loosen up in your interviews. Get a life.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Release Date: December 10, 2010
Directed by: Michael Apted
Based upon the novel "The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader" by C.S. Lewis

Synopsis: Edmond and Lucy Pevensie return to Narnia with their emotionally immature cousin Eustace to help King Caspian find the Seven Lords and their enchanted swords in order to bring peace to all of Narnia. Old characters reemerge to help tell C.S. Lewis' classic tale of redemption and above all else love.

Review: I personally enjoyed it. Other reviews have not been as kind, and I can see where they are coming from. As a longtime fan of this beloved book series, I think this particular series is hard to capture on film. The first film (The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe) was filled will spells, magical creatures, and an all around magical feel to it. Prince Caspian and Now Dawn Treader  were both books that were not as immersed in the magical aspects of Narnia as the first and also the last book were. That being said, I thought the filmmakers did a great job with what they had.

Number one: I thought the film did justice to the book. Along with that, the character development was really on point. Each major character had something that they were wrestling with (Lucy coming into terms of her own beauty, Edmond with becoming a man, Eustace with trying not to be so insufferable, and Caspian coming to terms with being the King he knows he must be).  You could really feel with each of the characters' plight, and it doesn't come across being whiny or preachy. 

What I really love about these stories is that Love is the most prominent theme. I don't mean falling in love, but learning to love one another despite your differences, and to love your family no matter what kind of mistakes they make. No relationship is perfect, but they love each other despite their upsets.

My favorite part was Reepicheep, the noble mouse. He is SO cute, but also very open to forging new relationships, mainly with Eustace. He was the only one to see Eustace's potential, and stuck by him when he was having a hard time. The end was my favorite part of Reepicheep's journey (but I'm not going to say what it is here!!!).

I don't know what is it about this series, but every time I see Aslan or hear his voice I cry (Liam Neeson does it. If his badass status wasn't solidified before, it definitely is now). Maybe it's something about these books that realy bring be back to my inner child, or I'm just a sally. Either way, these films are so touching. Dawn Treader was no exception to this! I looked like a psycho sitting in the theatre by myself, crying. But what else is new?

One thing I was not a fan of was how Apted opted to change Caspian's accent. In the previous film, Caspian had a Mediterranean accent, but in this it was Ben Barnes' normal English accent.  The director said he wanted it to sound a bit more natural for Barnes, but that's a pretty big thing to just change up in following films. Viewers need the contintuity, not to mention kids will actually notice that change.

All in all, I really enjoyed this film. However, I think this will be the last adaptation of the books that we see. The next installment, "The Silver Chair," has only Eustace and his friend Jill return to Narnia. The Pevensie children don't make another appearance until "The Horse and his Boy," and it's a pretty brief reappearance. Prince Caspian didn't perform too well at the box office (so much so that Disney dropped the following film production), and when I went there were only about 20 people in the theater. Guess those of us who love these movies will just have to read the books instead!

Wall Street

Release Date: December 11, 1987
Director: Oliver Stone

Synopsis: A young stockbroker lands the chance to work exclusively with Gordon Gekko, the stock market's crowned prince of theives. Gekko takes the young man under his wings and teaches him the ropes of illegal trading and the high life it brings, only to see them both plummet to the bottom.
Review: SO boring. And I honestly don't understand why Michael Douglas won an Oscar for this role, all he did was say the F-word and slick his hair back. Not to mention Charlie Sheen's version of the eager stockbroker was overacted the WHOLE time. Now I know this movie was made in the 80s so cheeseball clothing and music was to be expected, but I felt like I was in a retro acid trip. Why people felt this film deserved sequel is beyond me. This will probably be my shortest review EVER, but it was so awful I couldn't even watch the second half of it. Not recommended.

Movies I want to see this Holiday Season

1)     The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

2)     Tron: Legacy

3)     Burlesque

4)     Country Strong

5)     The Black Swan

6)     Little Fockers

7)     The Tempest

8)     The Fighter (If Mark Wahlberg is in anything, I make it a point to see his fine . . . acting skills.)

9)     Love and Other Drugs

10) Tangled

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Director: David Yates

Released: November 19, 2010

Based on the novel, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” by J.K. Rowling

Synopsis: Harry, Ron, and Hermione leave behind the comforts of Hogwwarts School and the lives they once knew to set out on a quest to find Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes. The trio race against the clock while the fate of the entire wizarding world rests upon their shoulders. Who can they trust? What will happen since “neither can live while the other survives?”

Review: Love, love, LOVE this movie. I’ll geek out in a moment as to specific high points, but as far as other thematic elements, I was impressed. I may be a bit biased since I’m a diehard Potterhead, but beyond that I do think this film was well made. Past films in this series have failed to demonstrate key points from the novel due to time constraints (case in point: “The Order of the Phoenix”, the WHOLE movie). As this is literally the most important book in this series, I was apprehensive as to how they would get across all of the key moments that make the entre saga what it is. I’m relieved to say that splitting this book into two movies was the best decision this studio could have possibly made. Us lifelong fans of the books deserve to spend five hours watching the entire story wrap up. But, I digress.

            From the very beginning, I was enthralled. Right away however, I noticed something from the book that was merely skated over in the first ten minutes that I think would have added to the story immensely. But I guess it wasn’t pivotal plot development, so I can see why they left Harry’s final interaction with the Dursleys out of it. Another concern I had was how the filmmakers were going to handles the many deaths of treasured characters. As most of you know (if you don’t, seriously stop reading or I will literally ruin everything), Hedwig dies in the first ten minutes. Sure, she might just be his owl, but in the book her death was a bit more graphic than in the film. I thought this was a good choice because we see her trying to protect Harry rather than lying dead in the bottom of her cage (that personally would have killed me). Luckily we are only exposed to two more deaths in the remainder of the film (one of which I shall get to later), so if they handle Part 2 the same way, the last film may very well be the best of them all.

            I’ve always thought that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have acted decently throughout the past films. Not amazing, but I believed in their performances and they became their respective characters. I was shocked to see how well each of them performed in this film. Rupert Grint (who plays Ron Weasely) is usually the comic relief in the scenes, and hasn’t had to show much depth before now. Ron has to come to terms with the fact that he actually loves Hermione and must deal with the reality that the journey they are on is far from over. This scene requires intense emotional range, and also the ability to evoke a feeling loss and anger from the audience. I must say I was surprised by how well he handled himself. Plus, Grint really beefed up from the last movie. It shows the physicals aspects of his maturity that oddly strengthened his storyline.

            Emma Watson has always shown strength in her acting. It got a little iffy around the fourth movie, but after Half-Blood Prince, she didn’t really need to prove her acting chops. That being said, I thought she did a great job. In this particular part of the story, Hermione really feels alone-having had to erase herself from her parents’ memories, losing Ron to his emotional immaturity for a short time, and really feeling like she has to be the brains behind the operation. Watson portrayed that well on-screen, and you really began to struggle along with her.

            Lastly, Daniel Radcliffe. I always thought he was a good actor, but again not out of this world (but considering he got rave reviews on Broadway and I haven’t seen him in anything else but these films really doesn’t give me anything to go off of). I thought he was spectacular. It didn’t seem like he was trying so hard to be miserable, you really felt like he was. When he is clutching Dobby (tear) and starts to cry, I immediately started to cry (don’t judge me too much). At that specific moment, I felt like I was a part of this story rather than just watching it unfold from the sidelines.

            When it comes to plot development, I thought the filmmakers did a pretty good job. However, the movie went by SO fast. I understand that they had a lot to cram into two and a half hours, but if they would have extended the movie by even half an hour, the pacing may not have been so rushed. Scenes from the book, like Bill and Fleur’s wedding and the gang’s time at Grimmauld Place, should have been expounded upon. The preparation for the wedding was the trio’s last time with any semblance of a family, and I think this dynamic would have added not only a bit of light heartedness but also a necessary feeling of dread and fear for going out into the world and knowing there’s a great possibility that they won’t return. As for Grimmauld Place, there are multiple chapters in the book based solely around their time and discoveries in Sirius’ old home. Something I would have liked to have seen shown was where Harry finds a baby picture of himself and half of a letter written by his mother to Sirius thanking him for Harry’s birthday present. Especially since Harry spends a lot of time referring back to this letter, not to mention its significance towards the very end; it would have been worth spending an extra 10 cumulative minutes on this small detail.

            Another part I unexpectedly enjoyed was the telling of “The Three Brothers,” from which the Deathly Hallows originated. I hadn’t really even thought about how this would transition to the screen, and I was taken aback by how well they did it. For those reading this that have NO clue what I’m talking about, the basis for our story stems from a children’s fable about three brothers who cheat death and are given one gift a piece: a wand that will destroy anyone in its path, a resurrection stone to bring back loved ones lost, and an invisibility cloak to shield ones self from death. The first brother uses this wand at unnecessary times, thus death greets him after a careless encounter. The second brother brings back the girl he had hoped to marry. He realizes she is no longer meant for this world, and commits suicide to be with her again. The third brother lives a happy and healthy life underneath the invisibility cloak. When he is old and satisfied with his life, he removes the cloak and welcomes death “like an old friend.” What many believe is that the Deathly Hallows originates from this story, but most see it as a children’s fairy tale. However the story itself is a dark one, so the filmmakers needed to be careful in how the portrayed this particular sequence. It was animated, which I was definitely not expecting, but the animation itself was dark, much like its content matter, and really gave us in the audience an unexpected twist to this beloved book.

            There was much speculation as to where the studio would decide to split the two movies, because any fan of the book would agree there is no good spot. We’re going to be waiting for resolution eight months as it is. Some people I’ve talked to thought it would have been good to split the story in Godric’s Hollow, but I personally felt it would have left too many loose ends untied. It would have also been torture to end the movie with Ron in the picture. Industry insiders speculated the film would end upon their capture and short lived imprisonment in Malfoy Manor. As those of you who have seen the film know, it ends with the death of Dobby and Voldemort’s taking of the Elder Wand. Personally, I think this was a great spot to end at. If the next movie would have started off with Dobby being killed, I would have been beside myself! However, I think it gave a sense of vengeance for loved ones lost in Harry’s mind. Dobby dying only solidifies what he must do and why he must do it. Even though I just read the book in September, I can’t seem to remember the timeline for when Voldemort actually takes possession of the wand. I feel like it was before the trio was captured, but in any case it was good to end the film on a cliff hanger moment like that rather than a terribly solemn one.

            Whether you are a die-hard fan like me or not, this movie is absolutely worth seeing. The elements of surprise and of course, the magic, is as entertaining as ever. If you aren’t a fan of the books, go see this film with someone who is. I can guarantee it will provide a much different experience for you than if you were to go by yourself. I went to the midnight showing full of Potterheads, and the sense of anticipation and love towards the telling of this story was palpable.

Edward Scissorhands

Release Date: December 14, 1990

Director: Tim Burton

Synopsis: In cookie cutter suburbia, there is a family like any other. The mother Peg, an Avon sales woman, goes to the top of the hill outside of town where an old mansion sits. There she finds a young boy who is dressed in bizarre leather clothing and has scissors for hands. She and the boy, named Edward, begin talking and she decides to take him in with her and her family. Edward immediately falls for her teenage daughter Kim. Soon, the whole town is enthralled with their newest member, and especially the artwork he does with the neighborhood shrubberies. Edward then makes foray into dog grooming and hair styling, and soon everyone wants a piece of this kind hearted, young stranger. Kim’s boyfriend Jim, however, isn’t fond of Edward and will do anything to get him out of town.

Review: I’ve always liked this movie. I thought it would be the perfect segue into the holiday season, since it’s Tim Burton and he’s always doing creepy stuff, and it snows a lot in the movie. This was Johnny Depp’s and Tim Burton’s first collaboration together (7 more would follow over the next two decades), and I have to say I really love this movie. Edward isn’t supposed to be really scary, but just creepy enough that he’s an outsider. What I find great about this film is that it’s not about some monster; it’s about a young man who is an outsider, but isn’t phased by what people have to say about him. He was created from a cookie heart, and the inventor who created him died before he was able to give Edward hands (thus the unfortunate need to have scissors instead). He is inherently kind and would do anything for the ones he loves.

Seeing Anthony Michael Hall as an angry adult is just hysterical to me. I will always see him as Farmer Ted from “Sixteen Candles.” It’s hard for me to see him as this studly, masculine man who tries to kill people. Wynona Ryder has always ranked so-so with me; her voice is SO annoying. But she was likable in this film. As always, Johnny Depp is awesome. I don’t think I even need to say more about that!!!

            I’m usually not the biggest fan of Tim Burton films because the give me the creeps. He can literally take the most normal thing and make it ridiculously creepy. The houses are all neon Easter colors and the hairstyles that Edward creates are just as kooky. His camera angles are a little weird, and the costumes are pretty out there as well. He came up with the idea for the character Edward Scissorhands from a drawing he did as a child. Uuuhhhh . . . who draws stuff like that when they are little? Disturbed, I tell you! I can honestly say this is the only Tim Burton film I enjoyed (except for Pee-Wee’s big adventure, lol).

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Release Date: May 28, 2010

Director: Mike Newell

Based on the video game “Prince of Persia”

Synopsis:  A young orphan named Dastan is taken in by the King of Persia to become a member of their family after showing courage and humility during a street fight. Despite having no royal blood, Dastan is admired by his people and his new family. When he and his brothers successfully take over Almata, Dastan is betrayed by his power hungry uncle Nizam (very Lion King-esque) and is believed to have killed his father with an enchanted cloak. He and the Almatan princess Tamina are then thrust into the desert to escape Dastan’s family and the lies that follow him, but not before Dastan can acquire a mysterious dagger from an Almatan prisoner. While on this journey, Tamina tries to steal this dagger back, and only then does Dastan realize that when filled with special sand, the dagger can take its holder back in time to change his or her past. Dastan starts to put the pieces together and realizes just how deeply seated his uncle’s lies really are. Dastan and Tamina travel through the desert to return the dagger out of his uncle’s hands to prevent events that would change the course of history.

Review: I was really excited to see this film mainly because it looked fun and Jake Gyllenhaal is smokin’ hot (who are we kidding here). But I must say I was pretty disappointed. The plot was just OK. I felt like producer Jerry Bruckheimer was trying to out do the Pirates trilogy, and it just wasn’t up to snuff. I don’t know what it is about Gemma Arterton (tamina), but I really don’t like her. She’s too squeaky clean and prissy. Gyllenhaal seems more carefree, and I didn’t feel any chemistry between the two leads (which was most of the movie’s plot). I would have liked to see more of Ben Kingsley (Nizam), but his screen time was pretty insignificant.

            Not only was the acting spotty, but the writing was as well. The script was all over the place, and I couldn’t help myself from comparing the plot development to Pirates of the Caribbean. It was all eerily similar, just a location and actor change. The special effects weren’t too fabulous either. When the dagger was activated, Dastan would have sort of an out of body experience and it just looked cheesy. The action sequences were fun, though.

 Something about this film just didn’t click with me. It was mildly entertaining, but I don’t think I’ll see it again.

The Social Network

Release Date: October 1, 2010

Directed By: David Fincher

Adapted from the novel “The Social Network” by Ben Mezrich

Synopsis: “The Social Network” chronicles the rise and financial falters of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder and CEO, and Eduardo Saverin. In a drunken rage, Harvard student Zuckerberg angrily blogs about his recent ex-girlfriend and decides to start a website called “FaceSmash,” which compares two girls from their school to see who’s hotter. The site gets an unprecedented amount of attention from Harvard students, even making the front page of the school newspaper. Three students in particular admire Zuckerberg’s bold website, and contract him out to make an exclusively Harvard website enabling students to communicate with each other. Zuckerberg realizes he can make a better site, evolving slightly from the same idea as his counterparts, and enlists Saverin to help him finance and create “The Facebook.” The two live the high life, but all good things must come to an end.

Review: I honestly wasn’t this movie’s biggest fan. The appeal for me was that I, much like most of you reading this, use Facebook everyday. This didn’t happen that long ago, so it’s refreshing to see a movie that directly involves a fad that we used from the very beginning. I thought the acting was superb. Jesse Eisenburg plays our title character, and he does a great job of acting like a douche who thinks he’s smarter than everyone. Some of the things he did made me cringe and want to punch him in the face, but I guess that’s how you know his acting was good. Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin was a great role for him. He had a small role in “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (UGH), but he’s really starting to catch the eye of Hollywood producers (Hello, Spiderman!!!). He really captured the naivety and pure innocence of Saverin, who was blind-sided by not only this sudden fame, but also sudden deceit. Plus he’s pretty hot, so that’s always a good thing. Speaking of hot: Justin Timberlake. I love him when he appears on Saturday Night Live, but I was apprehensive about seeing him in a dramatic role (since previous movies he’s been in have gone relatively unseen). I have to say I was positively shocked. He’s a pretty damn good actor, and provided some much-needed comic relief to the film as Napster founder, Sean Parker. He’s just as douchey and self-involved as Zuckerberg, but again he plays it off well. There’s a lot of Oscar buzz surrounding these three characters. I think that Garfield will get nominated, but definitely not win. But besides the acting I was not particularly entertained. It was slow moving and quite frankly anti-climactic. When the end finally came, I felt robbed of much needed closure.

            All in all, I’m glad I saw it. But I don’t have any desire to see it again.

Pride & Prejudice

Release Date: November 23, 2005

Director: Joe Wright
Adapted from the novel "Pride & Prejudice" by Jane Austen

Synopsis: The classic story revolves around the Bennett family- Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia in 1797 England. The family’s world is turned upside down when a wealthy man, Mr. Bingley, and his equally wealthy friend Mr. Darcy arrive. Jane is courted by Mr. Bingley, while Darcy and Lizzie go back and forth with feeling both disgust, and eventually love for each other.

Review: This film is one of my favorites of all time by far. It’s the perfect movie to watch when the weather is a little cooler and you just want to snuggle and be warm. The colors and cinematography is like none I’ve ever seen; every piece of the set and every costume are so vibrant. The scenery is poetic, as is the language. And the music is hauntingly beautiful. It fits the time period perfectly, and it really enhances the film without overpowering it. Pride & Prejudice is the kind of story that reminds you that things are not always what they seem, and that (as cheesy as it sounds) you have to follow your heart and live for yourself.

Keira Knightly truly shines in this performance (hence the well-deserved Oscar nomination). She shows both strength and vulnerability as Lizzie, something that is essential to this classic character. She doesn’t care too much about when she will get married, but she knows that it must be with a man that she loves (her dowry isn’t all that much anyway).

Matthew Macfadyen’s portrayal of Mr. Darcy is inspired. He wouldn’t be what I would have thought to cast just based on looks alone, but his hard exterior is perfect for this role. There is something about the way his eyes show whatever emotion he’s feeling. When he’s serious, his eyes are straight ahead. When he’s longing for Lizzie, you can see it in his eyes. I think that’s a difficult thing to accomplish, but somehow he pulls it off.

The rest of the cast fits perfectly: The crazy Mrs. Bennett just dying to marry off as many of her five daughters as she possibly can, Jena Malone as the naïve Lydia (who I love), Carey Mulligan was Kitty (so cute), and Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennett. At the end when he and Lizzie are speaking about Mr. Darcy, I feel as though I’m watching myself tell my dad about the man I want to marry and he’s sitting their crying with joy. It gets me every time!

My favorite part from this film is at the very end, when Mr. Darcy and Lizzie meet in the field in the wee hours of the morning. The lighting is spectacular; it’s still kind of dark out but it’s at that moment when the sun is beginning to rise and pours light all over the ground. They meet in the middle, both saying how they couldn’t sleep. Lizzie informs Mr. Darcy that his aunt had come by to see her earlier that night to chastise her for supposedly being in love with her nephew. Then Mr. Darcy says,

            “You must know... surely, you must know it was all for you. You are too generous to trifle with me. I believe you spoke with my aunt last night, and it has taught me to hope as I'd scarcely allowed myself before. If your feelings are still what they were last April, tell me so at once. My affections and wishes have not changed, but one word from you will silence me forever. If, however, your feelings have changed, I will have to tell you: you have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you. I never wish to be parted from you from this day on.”

Just reading that makes me a little choked up-so beautiful! This is the kind of love story that all of us dream of having. Whenever I'm feeling a little hopeless because of whatever is happening in life, this is my go-to movie. If you haven't seen it, do so immediately. I'm going to read the book soon, and I can't wait!

Legend of The Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Release Date: September 24, 2010

Directed By: Zack Snyder

Adapted from the novel, "Guardians of Ga'Hoole: The Capture, The Journey, and The Rescue" by Kathryn Lasky

Synopsis: Soren, a young barn owl, is enamored by stories his father tells him of the Legendary Guardians, which guard the owl kingdom of Ga'Hoole.  His younger sister Eglantine also loves these tales, but their older brother Kludd doesn't find them so entertaining. During a regular outing, Soren and Kludd fall from their tree and are snatched up by two strange owls, who take them to a place where owlets are captured as slaves for The Pure Ones. Soren speaks out against The Pure Ones' mission, and is sent, along with an elf owl named Gylfie, to do a demeaning job for the Pure Ones. Gylfie and Soren soon befriend an owl who helps them escape from this dark place, and they reach out to find The Guardians. Along the way, they meet more owls who join their cause, and together take down the evil Pure Ones.


Review: I wasn't quite sure what to expect going into this film, but every time I saw the preview I got a little choked up and started feeling adventurous. The plot was a bit slow. I haven't read any of the books yet, but from what I've heard it doesn't really live up to the book's expectation. The whole "Follow your gizzard" aspect to the film was adorable. It made it relatable to children, but even as an adult I enjoyed hearing a cute take on "follow your heart." I really loved all of the characters in this film, which is saying a lot to both the novel and the screenwriter. However, this slow plot development is something that Zack Snyder has typically stuck too (Watchmen, anyone?). And all of the slow motion sequences-I get it. I feel epic. Speed it up!


That being said, the visual effects were AMAZING. I was lucky enough to see this in 3D, and it seemed as though I could reach out and touch the poofy owls! Casting of the voices was perfect. Jim Sturgess (Soren) has an almost childlike timbre in his voice, which weas perfect for his hopeful character. Eglantine's voice made me melt with all of it's cuteness. Kludd is voiced by Ryan Kwaanten of "True Blood" fame, and I didn't even recognize his voice. Sam Neill, Geoffrey Rush, and Helen Mirren help give the cast some star power.  I have a feeling if I saw this film again, I might enjoy it more knowing what to expect. 


Everytime I hear "Kings and Queens" by 30 Seconds To Mars, I see owls. I can't help it. :)

Top 10

Here are my top 10 favorite movies (in no particular order):

1) Wayne's World
2) Harry Potter (For all intent and purposes, they all count as one)
3) Pride and Prejudice
4) Sixteen Candles
5) Sleeping Beauty
6) You've Got Mail
7) Dirty Dancing
8) Garden State
9) Superbad
10) Love Actually

The Town

 

Release date: September 17, 2010

Directed by: Ben Affleck

Adapted from the novel, “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan

Synopsis: Charleston is a blue collar Boston neighborhood that produces more bank robberies in one square mile than anywhere in the world. A bank manager named Claire Keesey is taken hostage after a gang of robbers breaks into her bank. They release her, but Doug McCray, the brains of the operation, can’t stop thinking about her. He tracks her down, introduces himself, and soon finds himself falling for a woman who doesn’t know that he is one of the men responsible for her recent trauma.

            Meanwhile, McCray’s band of robbers pull off another heist, but this time it attracts the FBI’s attention. Adam Frawley has been on the gang’s coattails for quite some time now and has his sights set on nothing less than taking each robber into custody. He enlists the help of Claire, and the tangled web of lies and secrets starts to unravel.

Review: When I saw the preview for this film months ago, I was thrilled to see a movie like this coming back into the limelight. Ben Affleck’s first directorial debut, “Gone Baby Gone,” was truly a showcase of his talents behind the camera. Not only did he direct this film, but he wrote the screenplay (but I guess we already knew he was good at that  . . )He has quite the affinity for showcasing his hometown of Boston, and he does this well.

Affleck has shown spotty judgment when it comes to choosing film roles over the last decade, but his portrayal as Doug McCray was truly inspired. He somehow makes his character likable, despite robbing banks and sometimes killing people. Jeremy Renner’s performance as Doug’s oldest friend, James Coughlin, will likely get nominated come awards season. He’s possibly one of the sleeziest members of the robbers, but he makes it so believable; you love to hate him. Coughlin was in jail for ten years after murdering a guy point blank when he was 18. When the film begins, he’s recently been released. The dynamic between Doug and James is an entertaining one to watch.

I was absolutely shocked by Blake Lively’s performance. I know her from Gossip Girl and the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants movies, so I was hesitant to see how she would portray Kristin Coughlin, James’ younger pill-popping, promiscuous sister. Her accent was impeccable, her acting was actually compelling, and she looked horrid (which is never the case-she’s beautiful).

I thought the plot development was strong, but sometimes a bit slow. The film was much like “The Departed,” but not a crappy knock-off of it. The film was impeccably cast, well written with sound plot development, and entertaining. I honestly can’t wait to see it again! I’m also about to start the book, so I’m interested to see how well the two compare.

UPDATE: After reading the book, I'm even a bigger fan of this film. I read that the original cut of the movie was four hours long because Affleck filmed every aspect of the novel. Obviously the studio wasn't going to let him release a movie that long, so he cut it down to two hours and five minutes within two days. He cut out a lot of character development, but that's to be expected with films based off of novels. The ending in the book is much different than the film: In the end of the book MaCray is shot when escaping from Fenway Park, goes to Claire's house to declare his love, and dies in her arms. The ending in the book is obviously more poetic, but apparently it didn't test well with audiences. Not only do I recommend seeing the film, but if you have the chance read the book. Hogan writes in the Boston accent (which can be tiring at times) but it truly enhanced my appreciation for the story.