Reviews

As an avid fan of Quentin Tarantino, there's a level of quality that I expect from each film that he makes. I expect to connect with his characters, but not necessarily like any of them. I expect to see a film that satisfies the film geek in me. More than anything, I expect to see a film that entertains throughout the prerequisite bloated running time.

"Django Unchained" is nearly three hours long. But it never feels that long, it entertains and surprises every step along the way. When I first checked my watch, we were already two hours into the film. All of Tarantino's films are usually about this long. Tarantino has been having fun with fictionalizing historical periods lately. This started with 2009's "Inglourious Basterds", which was easily one of the best films of that year. My eighty-something year old grandmother, who lived through the time that the film depicted - World War II - said that if events actually happened as they did in that film, that we would be living in a better world today. I think that's a pretty high compliment, especially since my grandmother is not Tarantino's target audience. He was able to design a great story - not an idealistic view of that time period, but still a pretty fascinating one.

"Django" is about slavery...a taboo subject in any film, a strangely popular one, recently, as the same time period is explored in "Lincoln". It's about Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is bought and then freed by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz, one-upping himself from the fantastic performance he gave in "Basterds"), a dentist turned bounty hunter. White supremacist slave owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) bought and enslaved his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), and Django and Schultz are out to correct the grave injustice done to both of them, and this doesn't mean just capturing and killing Candie, but many others who are responsible for the trauma experienced by Broomhilda.

Christoph Waltz has got to be one of the finest living actors in Hollywood. He's incredibly charismatic, but he cares about his character, first and foremost. As the prime antagonist in "Basterds", he was positively horrifying. In this film, he's the hero, but at the same time, he's anything but that. He brings humor and depth to a character that wouldn't have worked this well otherwise. Jamie Foxx does a good job as well, but I don't necessarily see him winning anything this Oscar season.

I'm half-tempted to call "Django" Quentin Tarantino's superhero movie. Django is by no means that, he's an oppressed figure with no real "super powers", however he's a kick-ass guy who the audience roots for from the very beginning. He even has his own theme song! We don't know how he appears to be more literate than other slaves, and he is somehow always able to outsmart those around him.

"Django" shows Tarantino having slightly more respect for genre than he ever has. It's a western revenge epic, first and foremost. It's also kind of a comedy, with some of the most clever dialogue I've heard in a film in 2012. It's also a romance, displaying the forbidden love between Django and his wife. But it's first and foremost a western, and Tarantino sticks to that.

This film isn't perfect, however. One thing I expect from Tarantino is well-developed strong female characters. We don't have that in "Django". I was hoping that Kerry Washington, who is also badass protagonist Olivia Pope in ABC's "Scandal", would be smart and strong-willed enough to get herself out of the problems which are out of her hands. I was hoping for Tarantino to give her some snappy dialogue, to show that her character is, like Django, superior to all of the other slaves around her. She isn't. She just kind of stands there and whimpers. She's helpless, and I wasn't expecting that from Tarantino, who has written some of the best female protagonists in film.

Other than this, "Django Unchained" is a masterful film. It takes a lot for a nearly three hour long film to be engaging the entire way through, and it is. It's wickedly funny, and at the same time, extremely dramatic. With its graphic violence and filthy mouth, it isn't for the faint of heart. All of the actors here, especially DiCaprio, seem to be having tons of fun here, and it shows. Tarantino loves to fictionalize history, and if such films are as good as "Django Unchained", I think he should keep doing it. It's a vision of history that only Tarantino can bring us.

Grade: A-

Director Robert Zemeckis has enjoyed the lucrative and profitable business of animated films for the past decade or so - making wholesome family films like The Polar Express and A Christmas Carol. The director of Forrest Gump and Cast Away is back where he belongs with Flight, an insightful, mature and thrilling character study.

Flight documents the internal struggle of an addicted man. Denzel Washington gives an incredible and nuanced performance as William "Whip" Whitaker, a pilot who pulls a miraculous stunt in midair, saving the lives of 96 of 102 passengers on a doomed flight from Orlando to Atlanta. Thought of in the media as a hero, Whip's history of drug and alcohol dependency is completely ignored until it's shown through a blood test that he was drunk at the time of the plane crash, blurring the line between hero and criminal.

Zemeckis's last live-action film Cast Away is all about external struggle, beating the odds around you to save your own life. What's interesting about Flight is that it's about a completely internal battle. The actual plane crash lasts for about the first twenty minutes of the film, and from then on, it becomes a cautionary tale about addiction. Whip's problem doesn't stop at drinking too much. He's also addicted to cocaine, which he needs to wake up after a heavy night of drinking. Whip quits drinking and relapses many times throughout the film. He befriends a woman who he meets in the hospital, post crash, who is there because of a heroin overdose. She tries to "save him", but fails multiple times until he's faced with having to save himself.

Washington gives the stellar performance that his fans expect, and for the most part, his performance carries the film. However, some real talent lies in the film's supporting cast. Kelly Reilly plays Nicole, the junkie who Whip finds as a kindred spirit. At first it seems like she's nothing but a bad influence for this character who really needs to get his life together. However, her subtle performance gives an unexpected depth to the character. She's facing her own demons...she's not there just to be a tool in Whip's recovery. John Goodman is here for comic relief as Whip's cocaine dealer, who is a character straight out of The Big Lebowski.

One thing that might drive audiences away from this film is that the lead character is totally unlikable. He treats everyone around him like garbage, including the ex-wife who he doesn't talk to anymore, and the son who he neglects. The audience member knows that these strained relationships were directly caused by his alcoholism. But in the end, the damage he's doing to himself is the most inexcusable.

Washington's antihero reminds me of a similar character in a film I saw last year, Young Adult. Charlize Theron's character Mavis Gary is a writer of young adult fiction who hasn't grown up mentally at all since high school. Drinking heavy amounts of vodka and whisky just to get through the day, Mavis doesn't admit her addiction to anyone, not even herself. She ignores this as her big problem. Whip's story is a lot like this. However, the viewer doesn't have to be an alcoholic or a junkie for this story to resonate. Films like this illuminate the mental part of addiction, which I truly find fascinating. Its ending is a little too "happily ever after" for my taste, but it leaves a hopeful message. It also reminds me that a lead character doesn't have to be likable to be interesting. It's an old-fashioned melodrama, and it's all the better for that. The film's quality and resonance is what inevitably soars.

Grade: A

The very point of young adult literature is to give the few young individuals with an interest in reading, a world to immerse themselves in, and a character or two to root for, who will hopefully teach them a thing or two about the world they live in, and hopefully, about themselves. Such a character should be a role model for these young people. In 2012, we are left with no more "Harry Potter" films to be made. The "Twilight" series, which has albeit made a great deal of money, doesn't quite cut it for those of us who expect something more from our movie-going experience.

"The Hunger Games" has it all: a wonderful slew of characters, an unfamiliar and interesting world, real problems to overcome, not to mention a star-making performance by Jennifer Lawrence. One major problem that I find in the "Twilight" series lies in the lack of role models for young women reading them. Bella Swan is an idiot. She relies on men for every single thing she does, and doesn't change and become her own person over the course of the four books, ultimately becoming the epitome of anti-feminism, in this viewer's eyes.

Having said that, "The Hunger Games" is something of a godsend. Katniss Everdeen is headstrong, brutal, resourceful, witty, uncannily smart and a truly original personality. She knows when to back down, yet she knows when to take charge. She is an ideal role model for young people who will undoubtedly approach the film.

"The Hunger Games" takes place in the post-apocalyptic region of Panem, divided into twelve "districts". Once a year, an Olympics-style event takes place where one young man and woman from each of the twelve districts is forced to take part in a fight to the death on national television, where only one contestant can survive. A member of working- class District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) takes her young sister's place after she has somehow been chosen in her first year of eligibility. Katniss has essentially raised her sister, with a mother who has been useless ever since the father's death. She learns to put her knowledge to good use, becomes something of a badass in her quest to above all else, stay alive.

Like I mentioned, Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, is a revelation. She clearly knew the character she was playing. While her performance is strong and ever-commanding, the character of Katniss was never permitted to let her true emotions show, and Lawrence obviously understood that. She couldn't have been better. Josh Hutcherson does a good enough job as Peeta, the other contestant from District 12, who becomes a good friend to Katniss; and possibly a love interest? We'll let the next film in the trilogy tackle that.

The film has a tremendous supporting cast, including Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, the often-inebriated mentor to Katniss and Peeta, "30 Rock"'s Elizabeth Banks as the loud and flamboyant Effie, Donald Sutherland as the country's president, and the always-great Stanley Tucci, as Caesar.

My only gripe lies with director Gary Ross, who has previously directed "Seabiscuit" and "Pleasantville". His shaky camera-work works in scenes where we're seeing events from a character's perspective, especially when the "games", themselves, begin. However, shaky hand-held camera- work is present, even in scenes where only two characters are having a conversation. Why? It's distracting, and should have been done differently.

However, Ross did a well enough job interpreting this novel, which I believe many other directors could have screwed up. He made a sensitive, yet not-for-the-faint-of-heart film out of a novel that felt exactly the same way. Like the "Twilight" series, there is a love story in "The Hunger Games", but it's not the most important thing going on. The film could stand as simply an adaptation of a novel, or could be interpreted as social commentary, with obvious hints being made about the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the grim picture it paints of what our society could one day become. Yet it's quality entertainment that even the least discerning film-goer can appreciate. Bring on "Catching Fire".

Grade: A

I wanted to love "One for the Money", and I should have. It had fantastic source material, a writer from one of my favorite shows ("Nurse Jackie"), and an actress from what used to be one of my favorite shows ("Grey's Anatomy"), but this film could not have been any more disastrous. There was a movie that I hated a few years ago called "The Bounty Hunter", with Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler. I felt like that film was as contrived as could be, and was unfunny, unromantic and incredibly unconvincing. I hate to say that "One for the Money fell into that same ball park.

One of the reasons why I love the book, "One for the Money", by Janet Evanovich is because its heart, Stephanie Plum was an unapologetic badass, profane and saucy. I always pictured someone like Sandra Bullock playing the lead role, a born-and-raised Jersey girl who was down on her luck, who finds her inner badass through a series of misadventures, but ultimately comes out on top in the end.

I don't necessarily blame Katherine Heigl for ruining this movie. She did the best she could, even though her Jersey accent is laughably bad. She was simply miscast. She should have never discontinued her work on "Grey's Anatomy, because if these are the kinds of roles she's getting, her future's only going to get worse.

Julie Ann Robinson ("The Last Song") directed, who I blame for the movie's obviously unclear vision. You get the idea that she didn't know what she wanted this movie to be. Maybe she thought that after all of the books that had been written, fans don't remember the first chapter of the franchise. Did she and the rest of the filmmakers intend this to be a film franchise as well? You get the idea that no one really cared, given the film's messy ending and sitcom-y writing.

Liz Brixius (Nurse Jackie), Karen McCullah Lutz (Legally Blonde) and Kristen Smith (The Ugly Truth) are responsible for the travesty of a screenplay. Women ARE funny. There have been so many funny and smart movies that had primarily female writers, actors and directors, so why does this film seem misogynist? It's a mixed message, and an implication that I really don't like. Their version of Stephanie Plum is an idiot. She's not a saucy badass, like the one I loved in the books. Her profanity is turned down, too, because of the meaningless desire that the filmmakers must have had to get a PG-13 rating. Why would kids want to see this movie? Oh, of course...Katherine Heigl's inevitable "sideboob".

I enjoy the work of Liz Brixius, considering that she is the creator of one of my favorite shows, "Nurse Jackie". She has shown over the years that she knows how to properly illustrate complicated characters. She is not beyond character development, and making characters fully realized...so what went wrong here? Why didn't she scream at the other two writers, "what the hell are you doing?!"

I can only imagine how bad true fans of the books felt about this travesty. There are eighteen Stephanie Plum novels, plus short stories, novellas and crossovers. People clearly like this character, and there have got to be a bunch of true fans out there. The first book was written in 1994, and there was talk of a movie then. It had been in development hell since then, and it's a shame to say that it probably should have stayed there.

Grade: D-

False advertising: it's the reason why so many people are disappointed with so many movies. A film's trailers and television spots are what convinces so many of us to go to the movies, and if a film's advertising is misleading, it is usually anything but a good thing. I've never seen a falsely advertised movie have better end results than "50/50". The film was marketed as a laugh-out-loud comedy in the vein of "The Hangover" and "Superbad". It's nothing like either of those movies, and oh, was I happy about that.

First of all, I find very few gross-out comedies to be soulful and important. For the most part, they are just throwaway fluff that are impossible to be remembered. "50/50" is definitely more of a drama than a comedy, which can be assumed from its premise alone.

It follows Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young man who re-examines his life after a terminal cancer diagnosis. His diagnosis is some rare kind of spinal cancer, and his chance of survival is at about 50/50. He intends to learn what matters in life, and to live every minute to its fullest, knowing that any one of those minutes could be his last. His profane and ignorant best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and his young therapist Katherine (Anna Kendrick) supply him with optimism and humor when he needs it the most.

There has been a television show running for the past few years, with a similar concept called "The Big C", and this is pretty much that same kind of story. I love "The Big C", I think that it handles its difficult and horribly sad concept wonderfully, never making anything too dour or bleak, thanks to a much-needed sense of humor, however, despite being a fantastic series, not many people have seen "The Big C". What "50/50" is doing is basically telling the same story to a wider audience, and that's okay because of how strong it is on its own.

Being decidedly more a drama than a comedy, it has the pathos and dramatic flare that I expected, but it has a way of surprising the audience. It had me crying actual tears, and then laughing audibly a moment later. It's more dramatic than funny, although it is also very very funny. The most refreshing part was that it didn't try too hard to be a laugh-out-loud comedy. It appears effortless, but it definitely works.

Also, the supporting cast is dead-on. Anna Kendrick plays Adam's therapist, Katherine, a grad student working on her doctorate, whose third patient (ever) is Adam. Anjelica Huston plays Adam's overbearing mother, whose husband is dying of Alzheimer's. Huston gives a fiercely funny, yet understated performance. Bryce Dallas Howard is sure on a role. She seems to have a knack for playing terrible people. Between this and her role in "The Help" earlier this year, I wouldn't be surprised if her next role featured her kicking a puppy.

I think I'm a Joseph Gordon-Levitt fan. I loved his work in "500 Days of Summer", and he plays the easy-to-root-for everyman very well. I think Seth Rogen is funny, but he can easily be overkill. He plays the same role in every movie in which he stars, I find. However, he's clearly there for comic relief in this film, and he does his job fairly well.

I also have to applaud the script by Will Reiser, which is apparently semi-autobiographical. I think the right actors were clearly chosen, and everything fell into place from there, but this kind of film could be a disaster without the right screenplay. It shouldn't have been as good as it was, if I think about it. I don't know why I love "The Big C" as much as I do, but that and "50/50" share the same nuance and attitude about life and death, which I really appreciate. While not quite asking the "big questions" (reincarnation, meaning of life, etc), "50/50" seems very wise and very intelligent. It's the best case of false advertising in recent memory.

Grade: A

We all know a woman like Mavis Gary. She's the kind of girl who everyone feared in high school, who was always effortlessly beautiful, and yet she had no personality whatsoever. She would do whatever was thought to be "cool". Her loved-but-feared status meant that she probably barely registered your existence at all. We assume that this kind of woman goes on to do great things, and becomes an amazing person who would have a whole new generation of people fearing her, but that is not always the case, and that is where we meet Mavis, in "Young Adult".

Diablo Cody will forever be known for writing 2007's hip-dialogue laden and instantly memorable "Juno", a somewhat controversial teen comedy, which served as a star vehicle for Ellen Page, ensuring that she will play rebellious teenagers well into her thirties. Diablo Cody has reunited with her "Juno" director, Jason Reitman, for "Young Adult". I would like to mention that aside from auteur moments in Cody's writing, this is nothing at all like "Juno", and that's a good thing.

"Young Adult" is the study of a borderline psychotic personality. It's the story of Mavis Gary, a woman pushing 40, who lives alone, with her obviously neglected Pomeranian, in her disheveled condo in Minneapolis. She is a ghost writer of young adult fiction, which is ironic, considering she hasn't grown up at all since high school. She is not emotionally matured in any way, and thinks that her living in a neighboring city of her suburban hometown means that she has a life. She gets an e-mail from an old high school boyfriend who invites her to a baby-naming ceremony, or something like that. Fully intending to get him back, she blatantly ignores the fact that he is a husband and new father. In her mind, there is something not right in the universe, and she intends to fix it.

We don't really know, as an audience, if we are supposed to feel empathy for Mavis, or if we should just feel pity. At several points in the film, we see Mavis laying face-down on a bed, either in her cold pigsty apartment, or her hotel room, where she appears to be dead. She's never dead, just dead drunk. Her character says to her parents at one point, "I think I might be an alcoholic", and the statement is largely ignored. Anyone who says this aloud knows damn well that they are, and the fact that her parents ignored this statement shows you what kind of family this woman came from. Mavis is definitely an alcoholic, seen repeatedly drinking heavily just to make it through the day. She may as well have been drunk in every scene. This is a study of a depressive character, but the thing that bothered me was that her parents ignored this statement, because they would obviously rather pretend that there is no issue. It's upsetting, but like I said, it shows where this woman became this way. That's good writing.

This film works because the lead character is extremely well written and observed, but also because Charlize Theron knocks this one out of the park. First of all, before I get to any other facts about this character, I must say that Theron plays a drunk very well. The last thing I remember seeing her in was her infamous performance as Aileen Wournos in 2003's "Monster", and it is going to sound trite, but she's playing a different kind of monster here. She is a woman whose main goal in this film is to break up a marriage. She gave so much of herself to this character, and she may as well be responsible for the film's success. I personally liked Mavis, a character who we're supposed to hate, or feel great pity for, and I give Theron most of the credit for that.

With "Juno", "Thank You For Smoking", and "Up in the Air", and now "Young Adult", Jason Reitman has a fantastic track record. I have enthusiastically enjoyed each of his films thus far. It's interesting for me to think of this film as a companion piece to 2009's "Up in the Air", two films about emotionally stunted individuals. George Clooney's character in "Up in the Air" didn't want to feel anything, and didn't want to get too close to anyone. The film ends with him not exactly changing, but moving forward in his life, ignoring factors that would have emotionally devastated the average person, and just moving forward. Meanwhile, Mavis is irrevocably stuck in the past. The best time in her life was high school, where she was popular and kind of feared, and now she is just pitied. Yet she is obsessed with making her glory days a reality again.

There is nothing warm, sentimental or happy about the ending of this film, let me just say that right off the top. The film itself is dour, bleak and emotionally brutal. The performances are powerful, and the writing is excellent, yet it doesn't have the warm, happy, everything- is-better-all-of-a-sudden ending that American audiences are used to, and that's a damn good thing. Most character studies about unlikable people typically have the antihero change for the better in the end, in an ending where everything is warm, and everyone is left happy, but Mavis doesn't get off the hook that easily. While the film, in a whole, is quite depressing, its brand of black-as-night comedy is refreshing and welcome. I would call it the meanest Hollywood film this year, and that's a very good thing.

Grade: A-

2011 has been an above-average year for female-driven comedy, with recent films like "Bridesmaids", and "What's Your Number", proving to be the good and the bad. Today, we have "Bad Teacher", a Cameron Diaz film that falls somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

It follows Elizabeth Halsey, a morally corrupt middle-school English teacher, whose plans to quit her day job, to be a kept woman, were derailed. She's not necessarily a bad person, in my eyes, but she really shouldn't be teaching. She drinks, smokes weed, and puts on movies for her class, on the first day of school. She plays films for her class about good teachers, like "Dead Poets Society" and "Freedom Writers", while she pours airplane bottles of vodka into her coffee mug, ignoring her students completely.

All of this is very funny to me, because this part of the movie is pretty well-conceived. Cameron Diaz gave a great performance, and proved herself to have above-average comic timing. She isn't to blame for where "Bad Teacher" went wrong. It leaves this viewer underwhelmed, at a film that should have been a lot funnier. However, it isn't necessarily a bad movie either. It's just never as funny as it should be.

Written by "The Office" alums Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, the film slightly resembles a long episode of "The Office" - something that has a brilliant concept, and the fully capable actors, however, it never really comes together in the end. However, there are a lot of reasons why this movie did work.

One being that it makes pretty good use of the time that it's given. It runs about 90 minutes, on the dot, and it feels full and decently conceived. One big reason is Cameron Diaz, proving herself not to be just a pretty face, but something of a cunning comedienne. She plays one of the most detestable characters that American cinema has recently seen, however, the audience can't help but root for her.

However, when the movie approaches moments of golden politically incorrect humor every so often, it's not what it should have been. A standard has been set for R-rated comedy films in the past few years, by films like "Knocked Up", "The Hangover" and "Bridesmaids", showing that there's a new point-of-no-return for comedy. This involves raunchy humor, yet it proves every so often, that new comedic punchlines and ideas haven't run dry.

However, "Bad Teacher" shows us nothing we haven't seen before, recycling jokes from other (and better) movies. From a lame school car- wash scene, to a borderline degrading subplot about a boob job, there isn't enough good to outweigh the bad. As I said, it has its moments, but there aren't enough of those moments to make this a great film.

Grade: B-

Last year, there was a film called "The American", that was distributed by Focus Features, and had George Clooney in the role of a hit-man who had lost his way, and was hiding out in a gorgeous Italian landscape, waiting to go on one last mission. This was something of an art film. It meant to be subtle, and emotional, and beautiful, and at the same time, somewhat surprising.

It did none of these things. I tend to be the occasional film snob, enjoying the kind of film that relies on subtlety, rather than either laughs or violence, or something like that, that the average audience is more likely to enjoy. However, I hated "The American". Nothing happened in it. It was dull and boring, and too snooty for even me to enjoy.

I mention all of this, because "Drive", a film I saw yesterday, was fantastic. It displayed exactly what "The American" was going for, but missed completely. This is a fully realized version of that movie. One reason why "The American" failed, is because I am completely tired of George Clooney. He's had his time in the spotlight, and that was one of his weakest performances.

However, Ryan Gosling is the heartbeat of "Drive". He's charismatic, charming, sexy, and one hell of an actor. You never know where his character is going to go, and that's what this movie wants of its audience. His charm isn't something easily accomplished, he becomes his character, like only the best actors do.

"Drive" follows an unnamed man, who is a stuntman for Hollywood movies. On the side, he moonlights as a getaway driver. He never works for the same person twice, and works anonymously. He falls in love with a woman (Carey Mulligan) who lives in his apartment building, whose husband (Oscar Isaac) is in prison. Somewhere in the film, Jewish mobsters (Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman) become involved in the story, threatening the lives of everyone.

The story is a slow-burner, taking awhile to set into affect. However, that's the way it should be. Unlike "The American", the story eventually does go somewhere, and it has an ending that packs a huge punch. Unlike many action films that I've recently seen, it has undeniable style. It has a Tarantino-esque feel, and a look that separates it from a lot of other similar films.

It has a somber, and melancholic feel, and yet has many "gasp" moments. Its final act is unforgettable. Story lines overlap, and crash together in an almost classical way. It is definitely not for the faint of heart, though, as quiet moments in the film are broken by moments of brutal violence. However, that's one of the things that makes this film so good.

However, there are a few moments that lag the pacing, somewhat. A few things could have easily been cut out, because they don't bring the story along at all. But that doesn't hurt the overall product. Once you see how it ends, it more than makes up for its flaws.

Grade: B+

Not a lot scares me, when it comes to movies, anyway. I can watch the goriest horror movie, and not be scared, even in the slightest. But "Contagion" got under my skin. It has more effect than even the most well-done horror movie, yet, it's not really a horror movie at all. It's mostly a psychological disaster film, and at one point, it feels like something of a docudrama, and then it morphs into a humane psychology story, and has overtones of the power of paranoia and fear that start when the film begins, and don't end until the last, satisfying moments.

"Contagion" is director Steven Soderbergh's first feature this year. A few years ago, he directed two films in the same year, Matt Damon comedy-thriller studio-produced vehicle "The Informant!" and porn star Sasha Grey's first mainstream (albeit indie) film, "The Girlfriend Experience". This year, he repeats himself, doing two films in the same year, this, and the upcoming independent action thriller "Haywire". I'm intrigued to see that one as well, but I can't see it being any better than "Contagion".

"Contagion" scared the living crap out of me. It follows characters, living throughout the world, all effected by a mysterious pandemic that threatens the lives of everyone. It's something like bird flu, but not quite. It has the worldwide reaction that H1N1 had on the world, but worse. It becomes a government conspiracy tale, that proves that something of this catastrophic weight is not a cut-and-dry kind of thing. There are twists coming from each imaginable angle. The biggest mystery is how this thing began, which isn't ignored, like I thought it would be.

One thing that "Contagion" has going for it, is a lot of big names. Kate Winslet, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Marion Cotillard, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. Everybody brings more to the table than you expect them to. Each character's story becomes vital to how the story unfolds, and, even as it begins to delude into something of a cut-and-dry docudrama, it pulls the wool out from under your eyes, and surprises you with realistic, yet not melodramatic emotion, and becomes quite the emotionally draining and devastating tale, leaving such an impression on the audience, making this one impossible to tune out.

I choose, for this review, not to really get into each character's story, because, one, it would take up too much time, and two, it's much better experienced, not knowing very much about it, as the story unfolds.

It'll stick with you for longer than you expect it to. I read advance reviews before seeing it today, that claim that leaving the theatre, no one in the audience spoke about it, or touched anyone, or contacted with anyone around them. Paranoia is a main ingredient to "Contagion", proving that no one is immune to fear that is unspoken, but completely pinpointed, and like I said, impossible to ignore. Seeing an afternoon show, in the college town where I live with a few friends of mine, I didn't quite experience this. However, it's completely believable. It leaves you in such a state of paranoia and euphoria, that it's maddening, considering that there aren't many films like this nowadays.

Another thing that "Contagion" has going for it is how it's made. Soderbergh doesn't waste any time here. Keeping it concise, at a humane running time (105 minutes), it's a roller-coaster from the very first unsettling scene, right up until the last frame. It's written in a way that feels overall very clinical and to-the-point, yet becomes an emotional journey that makes you feel something for each one of its characters.

The scariest thing about "Contagion" is its plausibility. Unlike your regular horror movie, it has a base which actually could happen, and has happened, in the past. The scares come from things that human beings encounter every day. No ghosts or zombies (in the literal sense of the world) pop out and scare you, while the typical ominous, trying-to-be scary score plays in the background. It's proof that the quietest movies can be the most terrifying. There's a horrifying atmosphere about this one, that sneaks up on you when you least expect it to. This is compelling stuff, don't miss it.

Grade: A-

I've seen a few good romantic comedies in my life. I've seen a few great ones as well. I even saw a couple especially good ones this year. However, I can't quite say that for "Something Borrowed". It's not that this was a bad movie, because it wasn't. Everybody gave a good performance, and the characters were welcomingly flawed and damaged, yet, "Something Borrowed" has a fondness for formula and clichés that ultimately hurts the end result.

The story follows Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin), a woman who's never gotten what she's wanted. She had a big crush on Dex (Colin Eggelesfield), ever since law school. One night, on a semi-date with him, he meets Darcy (Kate Hudson), who he falls in love with immediately. Fast forward some time, Dex and Darcy are engaged, and Rachel is turning thirty. Due to drunken behavior, and not-quite-healed wounds, Rachel and Dex have a fling, and the film is about the downfall from that.

Ginnifer Goodwin isn't a particularly good actress, yet I like her. She has a kind of cutesy flawed type-A personality that brings this kind of character to life. I liked her in "He's Just Not That Into You", an ensemble romantic comedy which I felt that she kind of held together. In this one, she's the heroine you're supposed to root for, and yet it isn't easy to. She sacrifices so much of her potential happiness on her jackass of a best friend. She lies, cheats and betrays everyone, yet, in the end, she owns up to her own issues, which I liked.

Kate Hudson was the best thing in this one, for me. Her antagonist Darcy was much better thought-out and realized than the rest of the characters. She plays the bitch awfully well in this one. Soap opera alum Colin Egglesfield is a welcome addition to this soap opera of a story. He does a nice job, he's pretty to look at, and…that's all he really has to be. "The Office"'s John Krasinski was very good, being the voice of reason among all of the mess going on.

What kills this one for me is that it ended almost exactly the way I expected it to. A lot of the characters are reduced to stereotypes, and they never quite come to life. If these characters had more room to work with, and with a better writer, this could have been a fantastic movie. It feels chaotic, yet at the same time, it has a slow pace. It has soap- opera feel, with sitcom-y jokes thrown in. It has a few good moments that almost make it a good movie, but in the end, it falls flat.

Apparently, this was a best-selling novel by someone named Emily Giffin. Also, there was apparently a follow-up novel, telling this same story from Darcy's perspective. I can't help but think that would have made a better movie.

This has been a magical summer for movies. A lot of movies that I was really looking forward to, have turned out to be lousy. However, I've seen a lot of movies that I expected to be awful, but ended up being really good. Thus, "Friends With Benefits". Romantic comedies are always awful for me. I love them, but they make me feel like crap. The reason why this is, is because most of them are dishonest, and make you feel like only in the movies, things work out in love. "Friends With Benefits" is refreshingly honest, kind of sad, yet hopelessly optimistic. Its dialogue is fast and quick, kind of "Juno"-esque.

Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake are both coming off Oscar roles. Justin Timberlake was surprisingly good in "The Social Network", as was Kunis in "Black Swan". Maybe it was a fluke that both of them were so good in those movies, but this is the kind of movie they belong in. Their characters, Dylan and Jamie, have personalities, and characteristics that mesh with each other in a really awesome way, which doesn't come very often in romantic comedies.

The story, as for most romantic comedies, isn't surprising at all. It's two people who are coming out of bad relationships, who meet in a classic cute romantic comedy way, and decide that relationships don't work out, and to remain "friends with benefits", or friends who (constantly) have sex. As you could imagine, this doesn't work out the way they had hoped. There was a similar movie released this January, with Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher called "No Strings Attached", which, clearly will be referenced in most, if not all reviews for "Friends With Benefits". I, admittedly, didn't hate that movie. But it's a piece of dreck compared to this one.

It's a typical hour-and-forty-five minute romantic comedy. However, it's kind of this generation's "When Harry Met Sally". It's "When Dylan Met Jamie". The two leads are so great with each other, one the yin to the other's yang. You can tell that they would be conceivable as a real couple. They aren't the perfect, immediately compatible couple that usually headlines a movie such as this. Justin Timberlake keeps proving that he's a better actor than a lot of pop stars. He's insanely likable in this movie. Mila Kunis had a smaller, haunting kind of role in "Black Swan", where I thought she was above average. She's really allowed to shine in this one, bringing life to a character that could have been much less. The attitude of this movie is sometimes gritty, always quick, witty, and urban. It makes good use of the time it's given. It acknowledges the ridiculous romantic comedies that it could have been. Jamie and her friend, at one point, walk by a poster for Katherine Heigl's "The Ugly Truth", and says "Shut up, Katherine Heigl! You stupid liar!". A fake in-movie-movie, with Rashida Jones and Jason Segel, is meant to emphasize how ridiculous most romantic comedies are. Great stuff.

Another thing this one has that "No Strings Attached" didn't have is a great supporting cast. Patricia Clarkson plays Jamie's mother, a hippie lush who is really damn funny. Woody Harrelson also does a good job as Dylan's unapologetically bold and hilarious gay boss. He gets kudos for not making a gay character a stereotype. Richard Jenkins plays Dylan's Alzheimer's stricken father, and Jenna Elfman plays his sister. They add to the quick and zippy feel of the movie. Cameos by Emma Stone and Andy Samberg are always welcome, too.

While some probably won't like this one as much as I did, I liked all of its characters. I felt like each character was well-developed and interesting. The quick writing is what makes it better than a lot of similar movies, but when everything in it is mashed together, the whole package is very good. I look forward to watching it again.

Grade: A-

After witnessing 2009's cinematic train-wreck, and I was hoping, last, installment of the "Final Destination" series, I was kind of appalled and disgusted when I heard that there was going to be yet another one. I generously gave "The Final Destination" a D- grade, for many reasons. It gave into the at-the-time lucrative and exciting 3D gimmick, and didn't deliver on the concept as it was said to. It was a typical horror movie, not bringing anything new to the table at all. While that was expected, it did give some mildly entertaining death scenes, while not necessarily being creative. It featured lousy acting, and an ending that made me happy I didn't pay to see it, as I was working at the movie theatre at that time. It wasn't even good, on a comedic level.

However, I left "Final Destination 5" a little happier than I did its previous installment. While it's still only for horror fans, it's pretty damn entertaining, and it's more character-driven than the last couple installments have been. Its death scenes are just as creative and fun as they should be, and it made me regain a little bit of my hope in 3D film-making.

It's the same story as it's always been. A gifted (and hot) early twenty-something (Nicholas D'Agosto) with apparently psychic abilities has a vision of him and all of his friends dying in a dramatic accident. He tells everybody, and witnesses them all die one-by-one, doing everything he can to stop it, but realizing, death can't be cheated. In this one, though, there's a little twist, which is a small reason why this film isn't bad as the last few have been. While there's a selected list of who dies next, if the person who's next kills someone, death skips them…or does it?

It's no spoiler, as it's been proved in the four previous movies, each character meets their coup de grace in a quite dramatic way. This one gives you a brief, but worthwhile back-story on each of its characters. It makes you see them as semi-established characters, rather than just teenagers who are about to kick the bucket.

However, why I liked this one is because of its death scenes. They were ten kinds of awesome. There's even a little montage at the end, of creative death scenes from the previous four movies, like a compilation. While its death scenes have never been plausible, as if they could happen in real life, they don't ask to be taken seriously. In a particularly good (and kind of sad) scene, a character is killed by a Lasik surgery machine. That could never happen in real life, for a lot of reasons. But, it's great fun to watch. As is the death-by-acupuncture scene.

Also, the film should be noted, because it was filmed in 3D. It shows. As you might already have noticed, I don't particularly like 3D films. I'd forever opt to see the 2D version of a film, if it was offered in addition to the 3D, this is because most films are shot in 2D, and converted to 3D at the last minute. This was CLEARLY filmed in 3D, and it makes damn good use of it. Stuff pops out at you, almost constantly, throughout the film, and it looks, and feels kind of awesome.

This is probably not the last film in the series, as it will more than likely be a box-office success. I feel like this is a good time for them to end the series. They made two good ones, had a couple lousy ones, and if they end the series now, they will have bowed out on a relatively good note. But this is not a "Saw" movie, I will welcome whatever they bring out next.

Grade: B

Let me start off my review of this film by saying that I hate Steve Carrell. Watching him on "The Office" for all those years was painful, because his character, and it seemed his acting style was unbelievably stupid and bland. While he has occasionally been a decent funnyman, I hadn't seen him in a role where he was remotely interesting and believable.

Yesterday, I was at the movies, pretty much the whole day, and decided to check out "Crazy Stupid Love", because it had decent critical and audience reactions, better than I expected for a romantic comedy, and it had some of my favorite people in it, including Julianne Moore, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. And, to say the least, I was caught by surprise.

One of the reasons for this, is because "Crazy Stupid Love" works as a romantic comedy and a drama. Most romantic comedies, I find, are predictable, stale, and essentially one carbon copy after another, of the same exact story, played out in a slightly altered way. You probably won't guess where "Crazy Stupid Love" is going. While the ending itself is a lot like I predicted it, there's a big plot twist that presents itself in the climax that I really didn't see coming. And that's reason enough to see this movie.

However, there are many (better) reasons. One of the big reasons is that it avoids making any of its characters caricatures. Each character is real, and flawed, screwed up and deals with his or her problems in a very grounded and grown-up way.

It revolves around Cal (Carell), a man who has been married to Emily (Moore) for 25 years, and is rocked by the revelation that she wants a divorce, after sleeping with a co-worker (Kevin Bacon). Cal begins hanging out at a chic pickup bar, where he meets Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a lothario who takes a different woman home every night. He picks up on Cal's depression, and helps him turn into something of a womanizer. Meanwhile, Cal's floppy-haired thirteen-year-old son Robbie has a crush on his older babysitter, who has a little crush of her own. Also, Jacob meets Hannah (Emma Stone), a young lawyer who has heard every pickup line, and therefore, has a quite jaded outlook on love.

And it is the first film or TV show to portray Steve Carrell as a human being. He can act! Who knew? I actually liked him in this role, because I felt that he wasn't Michael Scott, or that guy from "Get Smart", or "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", but an average guy whose life didn't turn out as he had hoped. I bought him in this role. He more than keeps up with the rest of the film's stellar cast.

Another revelation here is Ryan Gosling. I've mostly seen him in depressing dramatic roles ("Blue Valentine", "The Notebook"), while here, he proves himself to be a cunning comedian. He has spectacular comedic timing, and clearly has a lot of fun here with the other actors. He seems to be the superficial funnyman at first, and, like the rest of the cast in this terrific film, opens up, and surprises the audience.

While Julianne Moore is always great, her character and Carrell's character mesh in a way that makes you believe that their marriage lasted 20+ years. Emma Stone is on fire right now, doing a great role in "The Help", she shines just as much here, if not more. Her character is instantly lovable, and I can't wait to see what she does next.

This film also features Marisa Tomei, who gives a fierce, and very funny performance as a recovering alcoholic schoolteacher who dates Cal for awhile after his divorce. Kevin Bacon also made me laugh, as Emily's co- worker, who was her post-divorce rebound. While these two have brief roles, they are very funny and make the most of what they are given.

What makes this film memorable for me, is that it is realistic. It doesn't paint love out to be this magical thing that will automatically make anyone happy. It knows that love doesn't always work out, and occasionally ends in heartbreak and/or violence. And while it's somewhat a cautionary tale, it ends hopefully and overall, kind of happily. It made me cry a little, and it made me laugh a lot. And while it could have been a bit longer, and given its characters some more room to grow, it was a satisfying overall package that I would recommend to someone who's trying to escape the summer of superhero flicks and sequels.

"Oscar season", as it's typically referred to, is a period of time, usually beginning in late November, and ending in late January. This year, it starts early, with The Help.

"The Help" is based on the well-known novel by Kathryn Stockett, someone who I had never heard of before discovering this film and book. For the most part, when I hear about a film that I want to see, I try to read the book prior to viewing the movie, to enhance the whole experience. Usually I get bored, or stop mid-way through one of these said books, before I end up watching the movie.

But "The Help" grabbed me. Stockett kept me on a leash, dying to know what happened next, and I ended up finishing its 530 pages in a few sittings. And, I'm glad it did, because "The Help" is not only the best movie I've seen this summer, but it very well could be the best one I see all year.

The film centers on Aibileen, Skeeter and Minny (Davis, Stone and Spencer, respectively) three very different women in Mississippi, in the year 1962. Skeeter is returning from graduating college with a journalism degree, whose beloved childhood black maid Constantine has disappeared, and no one will tell her where she has gone. Aibileen is a maid who has raised 17 white children in her life. Her outspoken friend Minny has never been able to keep quiet, or, because of this, hold onto a job very long. Skeeter decides to write a tell-all book of interviews from the maids of Jackson, Mississippi, which, as you could imagine, was a very taboo thing in that time and place.

One of the reasons that this film succeeds is that not a single character is miscast. In the book, Stockett paints a vivid picture of each character, and the actors clearly got lost in the characters they were playing. Emma Stone is becoming a very important actress. I haven't seen her in a role that I didn't love her in. After getting her first notable role in 2009's Zombieland, and then livening and carrying the otherwise bland teen comedy Easy A, this is her first dramatic role, as Skeeter, one of the lead characters. While she sometimes blends into the background in this movie, she shines beautifully with the rest of the cast. She's definitely one to watch.

While Stone is great, this movie belongs to Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. Davis's Aibileen is perfect. She has a silent sadness about her, a lot of pride, and a great sense of anger, while never raising her voice the whole film. She handles emotional scenes beautifully, reducing the audience to tears in more than one scene. She's a early in the year front-runner for Best Actress this Oscar season.

Spencer also does a beautiful job as Minny. Octavia Spencer was the original inspiration for the character of Minny, who voiced the character's section in the audio-book. She was clearly made to play this role. She does a lot more for this movie, than just adding comic relief, but she plays the comedic side the best. The "terrible awful" that her character does in the book, is made into the funniest thing in the whole movie.

The supporting cast is dead-on too. Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron's daughter) plays the town's snobby ringleader, Hilly. She's absolutely chilling, nailing the evil character. Her mother, played by Sissy Spacek is a hoot. The town's secretive lush, and Minny's boss, Celia, is played by newcomer Jessica Chastain, who wowed earlier this year in "The Tree of Life". She was completely like I envisioned her character in the book. There's not enough typing space in this review to describe how much I loved the rest of the supporting cast. Everyone was dead-on.

I was under the assumption that this would be yet another disappointing film of a book loved by many. The reason for this was the director and writer. I had never heard of this Tate Taylor, and because of that, I wasn't sure that I trusted him. He had a large part in making this movie all that it was. One of the big reasons that "The Help" works as a movie is because it feels authentic. It was filmed in Mississippi, where it's based, it is set in the 1960's, and every feeling about the movie hits the right note.

I later discovered that Taylor was a childhood friend of the book's author. Not some Hollywood hack. I forget the many disappointing film adaptations of books I loved that were made by the Hollywood elite. "The Da Vinci Code" by Ron Howard, "Memoirs of a Geisha" by Rob Marshall, "Eat, Pray, Love" by Ryan Murphy. Enough said. After seeing this film, I couldn't imagine anyone better-suited to making the film.

What is special about this film is that it is not what a lot of people will probably write it off as. It is not a film to make white audiences feel less white guilt. It avoids this sentimentality, I don't know how, but it succeeds in that, like I thought it wouldn't.

While some changes are (intelligently) made from the book, it's almost a scene-for-scene adaptation of the book. Some things are different, because they need to be, and things are a little more concise, yet it's almost like watching an abridged version of the book, on screen. I can't say enough good things about this film.

I know I'm a little late on reviewing this one, I was going to just axe my review altogether. However, Bridesmaids is a film that is simply too good to be ignored. The reason for this is because it so easily could have been a bad movie. It could have been fake, and unrealistic, it could have featured paper-thin characters with no depth. It could have had a lousy script, with PG-13-friendly antics and adventures. It could've featured ridiculous product placement, and could have involved no realistic conflict, with an even more unrealistic conclusion.

However, it really doesn't do any of these things.

Bridesmaids has a great line of actresses that make the cut, in every possible way, and proves that women can truly be funny, instead of portraying them, as they easily could have, as whiny bitches. Kristen Wiig is a comedic genius. She co-writes the script, alongside Annie Mumolo (who appears in the film as a jittery passenger on a plane, look for her), and these two ladies bring a hell of a lot to the table.

Kristen Wiig, while having written a beautifully nuanced script that's funny, yet relatable, and therefore, a bit sad, is the star of the show here. She plays Annie, a lovelorn, broke, and generally unhappy woman whose best friend is getting married, and asks her to be the maid of honor. Whilst dealing with the bizarre and expensive rituals that come with that duty, her life begins to unravel. Friends, love, work, and life, in general begin to blur, and the mistakes of her past become full circle. She's a genuine character, she's not a cliché. As are the rest of the woman in this terrific film.

Maya Rudolph (another SNL favourite) plays Wiig's best friend Lillian, who's in the middle of planning a wedding, and begins to drift from her lifelong best friend, Annie. Rose Byrne (who I love in Damages) has a surprisingly apparent comedic side, playing Helen, a member of the bridal party, who is Lillian's fiancée's boss's wife (or something like that), and she is essentially the woman who's (possibly inadvertently) trying to destroy Annie and Lillian's friendship.

Wendi McLendon-Covey (of Reno 911! fame), gives a hilariously deadpan performance as Rita, a relative who is sarcastic, embittered, and generally dissatisfied in her marriage and resents her three sons. She clicks with Becca (Ellie Kemper, of The Office), a newlywed, who is extremely enthusiastic about becoming a wife and mother, who claims to have been "so distraught" when she was single.

Rounding out the bridal party is Melissa McCarthy (of Gilmore Girls, and now Mike & Molly) as Megan, the groom's sister. She's the oddball of the group, being decidedly more rough-around-the-edges as the rest of the ladies. While she appears to be for this movie, what Zach Gilifinakis was in The Hangover, she is given room, as are the rest of the ladies, to make exciting, complex, and rewarding characters. But McCarthy is probably the funniest one of the bunch.

It's already being referred to as the woman's answer to "The Hangover", or "Hangover in Heels", which I don't agree with. First of all, I didn't really like "The Hangover". For me, it was impossible to root for those four jackasses who weren't genuine, and felt clichéd and ridiculous. While this film certainly has its crude sequences, it's more about friendship, and how to react to things that happen in life that are not ideal. It's about how a friendship can survive whatever punches that are thrown at it.

The fact that each of these ladies are given room to make great characters makes this film as good as it is. Given that they don't really whine, and they prove that women ARE funny, and can be hilarious, sets it apart from any other film like this, that has been made in the last decade. It also sets the bar for any R-rated American comedy to be released in 2011. Bring on the sequel.

When I originally heard of the concept for Steven Antin's Burlesque, a movie musical starring pop phenom Christina Aguilera and the legendary Cher, I was, if you could believe it, less than enthusiastic. I was under the assumption that this film would be not just bad, but god awful. Recalling horrid pop star film debuts (ex. Mariah Carey in the depressingly hollow Glitter, Britney Spears in the mind-numbing Crossroads) I thought I was in for a cinematic train wreck of epic proportions. And I'm happy to tell you today, that I couldn't have been more wrong.

First of all, what makes Burlesque unlike Glitter and Crossroads is its aesthetics. Christina Aguilera's strong voice is enough to carry a film, as it turns out. However, Burlesque has more to fall back on. Cher plays Tess, Aguilera's character's boss and mentor. She can make any film excellent. Secondly, this film is a musical, also unlike Glitter and Crossroads. It shoots for being something of a hybrid between Cabaret and Chicago, and doesn't completely fail. Thirdly, this film has an outstanding supporting cast, including the always great Stanley Tucci, Grey's Anatomy vet Eric Dane, Kristen Bell, Cam Gigandet, and Alan Cumming, and these folks bring enough liveliness to save even the worst film, but here, they only add to the fun and excitement.

The story is really nothing new. Small-town girl Ali (Aguilera) leaves her job as an Iowan waitress, and heads for the big lights of Los Angeles. She stumbles upon a burlesque club run by Tess (Cher), starts working her way up, and eventually becomes the main attraction, with her intense vocal range and elaborate interpretations of dance numbers, which turns out to be a godsend for Tess, who is about to lose her club. She starts living with the charismatic and sexy bartender Jack (Cam Gigandet), after her apartment gets robbed. Romance ensues, and things go from there.

Cliché, right? It's been done before, right? Right. There isn't a section of this film that isn't even a little bit corny. But, that's not to say it's not a load of fun. I'm sorry, Harry Potter, Burlesque is the film event of the Thanksgiving holiday. Christina Aguilera isn't a fantastic actress, but she's better than you would expect her to be, and her song-and-dance numbers, obviously, are fantastic, as one would expect.

She and Cher have fantastic chemistry, as well as Cher and Stanley Tucci. All of these actors blend together so well, that they seem to compliment each other, enhancing each performance. And, I was rather disappointed to see that Cher only sang two out of the film's ten musical numbers, but it's safe to say that that's not enough, considering that she can still belt the hell out of these songs. However, Cher's obvious plastic surgeries don't help her performance, considering that her face barely moves throughout the entire picture, but she's still able to pull this role off, somehow.

Steven Antin is a director whom I've never heard of, however, I was fairly impressed. The film is directed with impeccable taste, and the writing is very quick and clever, and humorous, even when a little corny.

However, what really saves Burlesque in the end is its elaborate song- and-dance numbers. Soon after the movie begins, you know what kind of film you're in for. Even as cliché after cliché presents themselves, Burlesque has enough razzle-dazzle magic to outweigh its faults, and to leave you dancing in the aisles as you leave this film.

Christopher Nolan's follow-up to 2008's megahit The Dark Knight was rumored as many different films that had been seen by no one. "This film is revolutionary!" "It sucks!" "It's dumb and pointless!" "It's amazing!"

And having finally seen Inception, without many expectations, I can tell you that if you were to see one film, for the remainder of the summer, you should make it Inception.

Inception has a lot going for it. Its cast works wonders, because every actor brings something fresh and new to the table. It never feels outdated, or irrelevant. It's original without being idiotic. It's intelligent without being implausible. It doesn't take its extremely layered plot too seriously, and there's one thing that really separates it from any other summer action flick: It requires a great deal of thought. You don't know where it's going next. Once it pulls you into its clutches, it takes you on a ride that is unlike anything you've seen on screen in years. Its ending will be debated, analyzed and picked apart by many film snobs across the world, and it's a film that doesn't just deserve, but requires multiple viewings. It's a hell of a lot to take in at once.

Now, in any film review, a reader would like to know what the piece is about. This one's plot is better left unsaid, because the first viewing is enough to leave the audience in utter awe. However, I'll do my best to at least give you an idea.

Leonardo DiCaprio outshines any of his previous works, playing Dom Cobb, a thief who is proficient in extraction (going into a subject's mind, during dreams, and stealing their ideas, and using them against them), who is embarking on one final job before he can retire, and go home for good. Instead of stealing a subjects dream, he and his team decide to do the opposite. Not to steal a dream, but to go into a person's subconscious and plant an idea.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, of (500) Days Of Summer fame, and Ellen Page, of Juno fame, Marion Cotillard, of Nine and La Vie En Rose greatness, Ken Watanabe, of The Last Samurai, Cillian Murphy, of indie film fame, and a few legends (Michael Caine and Tom Berenger) are the heart of this film. There is truly great acting all around. Everybody brings something new to the table. Each character is richly detailed, and multi-layered. Nobody is really who they say they are. Gordon-Levitt, Page and Cotillard are a few of my favorite actors of the current generation, who haven't had their "big breaks" quite yet. They've had a few parts that they're semi-well known for, and this film is a fabulous transition into mainstream cinema. That's because this is an art-house film that is financed by a major studio. That's the beauty of it. Insight, intelligence and uncanny originality are things you don't see in movies anymore. It's a breath of fresh air to see something as unique and interesting as this.

But, at the end of the day, it's Christopher Nolan's genius ideas, smart script, elegant direction, and masterful artistry that make this picture what it is. This is a film that I could picture the writer-director losing his mind over. It's his story, it's his game. He invents a world that you've never seen in any type of film before. It's reminiscent of The Matrix, and the early James Bond pictures. It creates its own metropolis, and its own rules. It breaks the rules of conventional American cinema. And thank god for that. Inception is one of the best films so far in 2010.

n a year where American film audiences have been flocking to sub-par romantic comedy action hybrids, I'm happy to say that we have not done any worse, any more unrealistic, any more unlikable, any more unromantic, any more far-fetched, or any more unfunny than The Bounty Hunter. In fact, it's probably one of the worst films of 2010.

Jennifer Aniston plays Nicole, the bail-jumping ex-wife of Gerard Butler's Milo, a fired cop who has since become a bounty hunter. He takes the assignment to pick his ex wife up, and take her to jail. But, somewhere down the line, a bunch of incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo about a murder, a cover-up, and other scoff-worthy clichés cause the two of them to flee, and of course, romance ensues, and it leads the two talented stars into the clutches of rom- com hell.

This is a film that simply tries too hard to be funny, exciting, romantic, and entertaining. It is entertaining for about the first half-hour, and then starts a downward spiral from which it never recovers. It's a shame that Jennifer Aniston, who has been in top form, for the past five years, giving glowing performances in every film she's been in (Friends With Money, The Break-Up, The Good Girl) chose a dud like this. I'm glad to say that her comic gifts have yet to leave her, however her ability to pick a good one seems to be long gone.

The characters in this film could have been so well-written and so interesting, but unfortunately, the lazy writers didn't know what to do with them, and it makes me wonder how detailed the script was anyway. While Aniston's character was somewhat interesting in the film's first act, Butler's character was the most revolting stereotype that I've seen in a film this year. He played the jackass. No more, no less. His character didn't take one unexpected move, or one unforeseen turn.

The one redeeming quality that this film had lied in its supporting cast. Curb Your Enthusiasm's Jeff Garlin and Christine Baranski have about five minutes of screen time a piece, and they bring more life to the table than the rest of the cast does in a painful 110 minutes. While Butler should just stay as far away from the romantic comedy genre as possible, and while Aniston simply needs a better manager, they both look as attractive and gorgeous as ever. There's nothing else for either of them in this disaster, however.

Nicole Holofcener's newest slice-of-life tragicomedy Please Give has one of the most shocking openings I've seen in any film in the past few years, and it addresses a subject that rarely is discussed in polite society - women and the misery that generates from the necessary yearly mammogram.

Rebecca Hall's character (also named Rebecca) is a mammogram technician, whose mother Andra (Ann Morgan Guilbert) is on her way out. While helping her through everyday life, her flaky sister Mary (Amanda Peet) is useless in the quest to make the last years of her mother's life as painless as possible. The story of Kate (Catherine Keener), a bleeding heart Liberal suffering from an incurable case of white guilt, and her philandering husband Alex (Oliver Platt) is woven into the tale. They own a store that sells items purchased from children of recently deceased individuals. They want to buy Andra's next-door apartment whenever she finally croaks. Tension, awkwardness, and quiet chaos ensue from that point forward.

Holofcener is an autuer, much like Quentin Tarantino or Oliver Stone. Her films are usually driven by strong female characters, and they always tend to deal with matters that are very realistic and true to the viewer. While they might not be heavy on plot, they're very relatable, honest, incisive, and powerful, all at the same time.

Holofcener has grown, as a director since her last feature, Friends With Money, which I also enjoyed greatly. While the characters in that film struggled with being alone, being poor, and suffering through menopause, the characters in this film deal with different dilemmas, such as, when you see a person who is homeless on your street block, what exactly can you do? What, exactly, is pushing it too far? Is there any right answer to any of life's dilemmas?

Holofcener has also greatly grown as a writer since FWM. While some of the dialogue in her previous films felt somewhat contrived and forced, that's not the case here. The writing is top-notch. The audience may feel as if they're eavesdropping on the characters, which is always a good thing in a movie, for me. The characters feel so genuine and real, that you forget that they're even fictitious, and the dilemmas that they face are extremely realistic, and relatable.

One of the marks of a Holofcener film is the presence of the great Catherine Keener. She is one of the few people in Hollywood who can do no wrong in any film that she stars in. She, however does her best work in Holofcener films, and this is no exception. Her character, in this one, is particularly well written, because of the character's realism. Her character has a soul, and doesn't have the typical, plastic, flat persona that Hollywood usually brings on for a woman in her mid-40s.

While I don't think this film will translate to every audience, I think it's a gem for the summer. It's light on plot, but heavy on realism and insight. It's a character study that I've found more interesting than any film so far in 2010.

this is probably one of the most realistic love stories i have ever seen. first off, you can't help but love zooey deschanel in anything she does. especially in this movie, where she plays summer finn, a realistic woman who doesn't believe in love, who thinks believing in love is like believing in santa claus. and then there's her better half, tom hensen, who never thought he would meet "the one" until summer came along.

and the movie jumps from day one of their relationship, to the end of it. you get the idea how the movie is going to end when you walk into it, with the narrator (who sounds like freaking james earl jones for chrissake) tells you that what you're about to see isn't a love story, but a story about love. same thing? i think not.

the movie is essentially about unrequited love. it's about the missed opportunities. the things that don't work out. it's a comedy, but it covers all of these depressing topics. and that's what i like most about it. as described best in the showtime series weeds, a story can be intensely dramatic and depressing, but have inexplicably hilarious moments that coincide better than you would imagine.

it's a movie that's both emotionally devastating and hopeful. it reminds me of something of a cross between the movies eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and garden state. it's a rare film that displays completely fabulous acting, and it's not just your average love story. it doesn't have a beginning and an ending. it jumps in an indistinct order between the five hundred days of their relationship. and when their relationship is in its heyday, there's a choreographed dance sequence, not unlike the scene in the 2007 film enchanted. and it shows events in an incredibly depressing, but completely true-to-life way, where there's a split screen, one side, what's really happening in that moment, and the other side, what the character tom wanted to happen. and when we're in love, we find ourselves doing things like this.

so what can i say about this movie? everything is fantastic, the acting (especially the beautiful zooey deschanel), the writing, and the way the story is told, it's one of the best movies i've seen in 2009.

Atom Egoyan's new film Chloe tells a story that's been told many times before, the tale of the woman scorned. But the new perspective that Egoyan brings to the erotic thriller genre, that makes it more original and provocative than any film I've seen this year.

Julianne Moore's portrayal of the heroine, Catherine Stewart, is near perfect. Moore has really been at the top of her game lately. In A Single Man, she played a character that she also brought great depth to, despite having only about fifteen minutes of air-time. In Chloe, she plays an upper middle-class gynecologist, who has been married to David (Liam Neeson) for many years. She suspects that he's having an affair, after noticing his flirtacious banter with a waitress, and after missing a flight, and his surprise birthday party. And just like that, her long simmering suspicions rise to the surface.

Finding no answer other than infidelity, she hires an escort, played by Amanda Seyfried, in the title role, to seduce her husband, to see his reaction. She finds herself "directing" she and her husband's encounters, giving Chloe notes on how to react to certain things that her husband says and does. Ergo, the fireworks start, and needless to say, lies are told and people get hurt.

This is Julianne Moore's best work in years. She has a knack for giving emotionally devastating performances, and she's in top form here. Her ability to say so much with saying so little, never ceases to amaze me. But the true star here is Amanda Seyfried, who gives the performance of her career. Her repertoire includes mostly comedies, like Mean Girls and Mamma Mia, but the amount of dramatic depth that she brings to the table is unbelievable. Playing a complicated character, you never know what her next move is, and it's interesting to see where it goes, ultimately until the earth-shattering conclusion. Seyfried's large, expressive eyes, tell you what her character is going through, and it's another case, where so much is said, when so little is actually spoken. The supporting cast, of course, includes Liam Neeson, who is always excellent, as Catherine's philandering husband, and he essentially does his job. There's not a whole lot of room in this picture, for his character to evolve. More attention is paid to the female leads.

What separates this from the countless stories of mistrust and infidelity, is the eerie and surprisingly profound tone that Egoyan brings to the table. It's a very mature, classy, smart film that deals with trust, loyalty, and love, and how, after so long, love can vanish, and an emotion can take over that you never would have expected to feel. And plus the settings are gorgeous. Jim Lambie, the set decorator of films like Heaven on Earth, and Egoyan's Adoration, brings a modern sense of traditionalism to the look of the film, especially the main setting of the Stewart household. And, also, the score, masterfully composed by Mychael Danna, brings out so much emotion, and tension to the table. Shattering orchestra crescendos, in pivotal scenes, bring more feeling, and intensity to the overall tone of the picture.

But, in the end, it's Egoyan's patient and thoughtful pacing, and an excellent performance by Amanda Seyfried that really stand out. It's a very mature, intricate experience that takes its time with developing each character, and brings a stunning conclusion that sets it apart from other stories of its kind. Its portrayal of lust and erotic desire, and the vulnerability of love, itself, will leave you breathless. Egoyan's use of an elegant, gliding camera, traps his characters against windows and mirrors, to signify how trapped a person can feel in their own life. And Egoyan's ability to never tell a story on one level, and his knack for adding layer, after layer to each character, makes the effect that the film has all the more effective.

Today, I went to see Rob Marshall's new musical, Nine, obviously based upon the Broadway musical of the same name, that based off Fellini's 8 1/2. It should be mentioned that the movie contains not quite as many songs as the stage performance does, but, each actress in the wonderful cast having one song, and the way the songs are presented, it certainly works.

Daniel Day-Lewis leads the cast, playing Italian filmmaker Guido Contini, who is about fifty, and going through something of a midlife crisis. Lewis brings a lot of panache to the role, belting out his lyrics with such assurance that this part has been well-practiced and a certain amount of passion has been brought into it, playing the character perfectly.

His long-suffering wife Luisa, splendidly re-imagined, not played by Marion Cotillard, is the one gem in the cast that outshines all of its other members. You feel emotion for her character that you don't feel for the others, you can tell that her character has been through a lot, and you're happy to see her come out on top at the end.

Penelope Cruz also adds a lot to the film, playing Contini's mistress, Carla, a role that 30 Rock's Jane Krakowski played on Broadway, Cruz also brings a lot of emotion and sass, often simultaneously, to her role. You really understand Contini's predicament, and sympathize with the character, for not being able to break her heart, or that of his wife. Her musical number brings a lot of excitement, and her enthusiasm, and her roaring Soprano is unlike anything we ever thought we'd see from this actress. I see her winning awards a-many for her performance in this.

Dame Judi Dench, always worthwhile, plays Lilli, Contini's wisecracking costume designer and confidante. Dench brings comic relief, having more scenes than any other of the actresses in the film, but also brings depth, playing a kind of a psychiatrist to the lead character, and also bringing a fantastic voice, for her musical number, which contains many chorus girls in feather boas, you think you're watching The Rockettes or something out of A Chorus Line, but for the song, it certainly works.

Fergie plays Saraghina, a figure from Contini's youth who taught him about love, and how to attract a woman. Fergie only has one scene in the movie, basically. She shows up in the overture, and finale, but, her only big scene is her show-stopping musical number Be Italian, which generated applause in my theatre. It makes me wonder if they used Fergie less, because maybe her acting talents were not up to par. I guess we'll never know, but her singing voice is something we didn't even expect from her, as she belts the lyrics with such undeniable passion and exuberance, you're glad this minor role was played by her.

Nicole Kidman plays Contini's muse, actress Claudia Jensen, who is mentioned in the film's beginning, then disappears until close to the movie's end. I kind of feel like Kidman's obvious musical talent, displayed previously in Moulin Rouge, come off as a bit underused, because she has one of the best singing voice among the cast and she only has one song. That's one of the few things that bugged me about this wonderful movie.

Kate Hudson plays American magazine journalist, Stephanie, who isn't in very much of the movie either, but Kate Hudson's big musical number, Cinema Italiano, written specifically for the movie, is amazing. I hate to use the word "amazing", because I think it's overused and it's lost its affect, but it's the only way to describe this scene, the way that director Rob Marshall cut the number, switching from sequences in black and white, then color, then black and white again, it's a truly unique experience that you really need to see to completely understand. And here's a surprise, Kate Hudson can sing. I thought she was only cut out for mid-level rom-coms, but I'm glad to say I was wrong, she definitely fits in with the musically talented cast of this movie.

Sophia Loren plays Contini's mother, who is tragically underused, but brought in at the right times in the movie. She, again, only has one song, but it feels like enough, for this actress, who's still looking great, at age 75, bringing drama to her role, and she gives more than she needs to, but it's certainly good to see her on screen again.

The direction of the movie is just as much one of the stars of the show. Rob Marshall, having directed Chicago and Memoirs of a Geisha knows a thing or two about grand-scale production musical numbers and high-octane drama, and he brings it all to this film, although some of the songs are cut in a way that feels chaotic and rushed, but I think it doesn't hurt the movie at all. It's a movie built on high caliber acting, beautiful music, and gorgeous imagery, and it's something you have to see for yourself. It's that good.

Some drama films are the kind that you feel emotional resonance for the characters, feel mildly engaged by the plot, think about it for a few seconds after leaving the theater, get into your car, get annoyed at a stupid driver, and quickly move back into your own life. The Lovely Bones isn't that kind of movie.

Director Peter Jackson, of Lord of the Rings and King Kong fame, doesn't seem like the most obvious choice to direct the adaptation of the seemingly untouchable Alice Sebold novel, but he does his best, by staying close to the source material, but occasionally taking things out here and there. He also brings a lot of ah-mazing CGI shots that are so gorgeous, they may be worth the price of admission alone, and I doubt we would've had that type of a movie if anybody else had directed it. However, you get the feeling that Jackson paid too much attention to the CGI aspect, while he could've dealt with the center plot issue with more directorial sensitivity, mocking the same way the book was written, and that's what stops this from being a perfect movie.

The plot centers around Susie Salmon (played by Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who is raped and murdered in 1973. Ronan was absolutely perfect in this role. She showed promise in the 2007 film Atonement, where she also played a terrified youth who is dealing with an unbelievable situation. In the film, Susie is watching over her family, the boy she was in love with, and her killer -- from her own personal heaven.

Stanley Tucci nails his role, playing the demented serial killer Mr. Harvey. He gives a particularly chilling, and uncannily believable performance, showing more versatility with every film he makes, you can tell that he really got lost in this role, because his part isn't one of those where you find yourself wondering what the actor has previously starred in -- you see his character, and he does a damn fine job at it.

Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon play Susie's family, and each of those roles require the actor to display quite a lot of emotion, grieving her loss, and they all do terrific work, causing you to feel the extreme remorse that their characters do, and I really don't know if better actors could have been selected to play the respective parts.

Nikki SooHoo plays Holly, a girl who Susie meets in heaven, another victim of Mr. Harvey. Her role is particularly memorable, serving as something of a reassuring voice to the Ronan's character, and I see her doing great things in her future, because, while being an unknown actress, she shows just as much talent as the other actors in this all-star cast.

The core of this movie, however, the reason to go and see it in a packed theater, doesn't lie in its acting, or the writing, or even the direction. It lies in the story. We've all wondered what happens to us after we die. The Lovely Bones suggests that we go to a world that we think is perfect, but we're still haunted by the things that troubled us in our lives. And while the movie leaves you heartbroken, wanting to spend every day you have on this earth as your last, it leaves you pondering your own life, the significance of it, how you'll be remembered. And that's something I particularly like in a film, when it not only moves you to the point where tears are flooding your eyes, but when it leaves you with a great deal of psychological issues to ponder, about your own life, and what comes after your life is ultimately over. And that's what The Lovely Bones does. And while staying true to the source material, that's all a fan of this story can ask for.

In movies recently, American audiences are fed a lot of crap, frankly. We get the inevitable Saw VI, Alvin And the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel, and other tripe that American film goers seem to flock to. Rarely are we shown a movie that shows people for what they really are, and life, for what it really is, and even less frequently do audiences actually acknowledge it. And, for this holiday season, which is more or less a dumping ground for Oscar nominees and hopefuls, we are shown a bright, intelligent, fresh, witty, hilarious, yet depressing picture from some of the best in the business. That picture, my friends, is Up in the Air.

Up in the Air features George Clooney as a man named Ryan Bingham, a "corporate downsizer", who goes from town to boring town, to fire employees, for businesses who don't have the guts to do it themselves. He's never had a real human connection in his life until he meets another frequent flier named Alex, lovably played by Vera Farmiga, who showed real, gutsy, raw talent in the criminally overlooked horror flick Orphan, earlier this year. Alex shares a lot of emotional stamina with Ryan, they click almost instantly. The chemistry that these two actors share is worth the price of admission alone.

Later on, we meet an ambitious young worker named Natalie (a beautiful star turn by Anna Kendrick, who had a brief part in the Twilight movies), who has an idea to cut costs by conducting employee layoffs from the internet.

After so many films a director makes, something of a trademark begins to appear, and Jason Reitman has his trademark down. And it's not a bad trademark like other directors certainly have. He has a knack for making emotionally relevant, and hilarious, yet deeply poignant and insightful films that are extremely watchable, and separate themselves from the usual Hollywood dreck that we're so used to.

His last film, 2007's Oscar hopeful Juno did kind of the same thing. It gave us that salty- sweet combination, and a lot of memorable dialogue. I could only imagine what this picture would be had Juno's Diablo Cody written it. But Reitman, writing alongside Sheldon Turner, whose previous credits include 2005's remake The Longest Yard, which I didn't particularly care for. As I've said, the writing here is witty, hilarious, and completely realistic.

Up in the Air is a very timely picture as well. Its major themes are corporate downsizing, and budget cuts. There's a scene in the movie where Natalie's boyfriend breaks up with her over a text message, and that's something that I know well, and I'm sure everybody else does as well. It brings up issues about how impossible love is if you're a member of today's generation, and that's part of what makes this movie so exciting.

Up in the Air is a difficult movie to describe. It's not quite a comedy, not quite a drama, and there's romance, but it's by no means a romantic comedy, or a romantic "dramedy". There's triumph and tragedy, laughs, and tears. But what's so amazing to me about it, is how closely it relates to real life. It's real, and rewarding, and a movie I'd certainly recommend.

I went into "I Know Who Killed Me" with rock-bottom expectations. It was MUCH worse than I expected it to be. The script was messy, it had a bunch of unbelievable plot twists that made no sense, and the acting was awful. Lindsay Lohan sucked, as expected. But as I watched this, I saw her career crumble, and that was nice to see. But you get to see Lohan get tortured, so that makes this relatively worth seeing. The direction was the only thing I enjoyed about this movie, because the feel was very independent, but artsy. And that's the only reason why I didn't give this crapfest a 1/10 rating. In the beginning of "I Know Who Killed Me", Lohan's first character, Aubrey is a high school student, reading a story to her classmates about her supposed alter ego, Dakota Moss. And then Aubrey gets murdered, we assume, and she comes back as Dakota. If you're not already confused by this terrible plot, you're a better person than I am. This movie isn't only badly acted, and poorly written, but it doesn't make sense. There are many better movies out there that are actually worth your time. This one isn't.