Best Movie Posters of 2010

With the year winding to a close, its time to look back at all the best things of 2010's cinema. And yes, that includes movie posters. While most are mere advertising (and some are truly horrible), these pictures can convey all sorts of themes (or just be cool). Having to tell the premise for the story, the reason to see it, and be genuinely artistic is a tough job to fill. However, the guys behind these ten posters did it excellently.

10. Clash of the Titans: "The Clash Begins"

Sure, "the clash begins" is not a brilliant tag-line, and it uses all the tricks (including having most of the image either black or blurred nothing), but it still is the film of the year that screams EPIC the most. It is so cool, and so big, one (who is male) feels compelled to see it. Look at the Kraken. Isn't it incredible?

9. For Colored Girls: "Many Voices. One Poem"

It shows all the heartbreak, abuse, and strife--but in a creative way with remarkable beauty. It is far better than the "depressed, naked girl in a bathtub" one Lionsgate also released.

8. Eat, Pray, Love: "Let Yourself Go"

Don't get me wrong, the film was awful; this, though, abstains from showing someone happily running with a bright background (or Julia Roberts and James Franco kissing). Instead, it gives us an image with such surprising depth--and makes you want to experience the world like Julia Roberts seems to beginning to. Unfortunately, the movie fails at that task; still, it's a good poster.

7. The Human Centipede [First Sequence]: "The Human Centipede"

This both shows the horrifying monster but keeps its secrets as well--it makes you HAVE to see the film (when maybe not, but awfully close). It also has that "100% Medically Accurate" note, which makes it all the more interesting (or else I am a complete sicko).

6. Black Swan: "Swan Lake"

This is not the only Black Swan poster on this list, but I felt it had to mentioned. The innocence of the ballerina contrasting with the overpowering dark evil of the black swan--and all depicting a scene from the ballet. This is beautiful.

4. Devil: "Down"

This creates both a sick little joke (congratulations if you got it by now; it took me three minutes) while conveying its premise of a devil in an elevator. Two birds (and their souls) in one stone!

3. The Expendables: "Choose Your Weapon"

This movie needed to convey that it was the ultimate action event with the most awesome kills out there. So what better way to express that then by showing a skull surrounded by practically every single weapon that can be found in a five-year-old's fantasy. The instant I saw this poster, I knew this was one film I could not miss.

2. Harry Potter Saga: "It All Ends Here"

An entire generation has grown up on the wonders and the charm of the Harry Potter Universe--what could be more devastating and yet more captivating than to see than Hogwarts, the Wardrobe of the 21st century, looking like that? Well, they could always show a screen-shot of a dead Dobby, but other than that I think this is the best we can get. So beautiful yet so terrible--and so destined to rake in millions of dollars.

1. Black Swan: "Insanity"

What better shows the haunting spirit of insanity as this image. I know the basic purpose of a movie poster is to sell the movie, but this is art.

Predictions: 5 Best Films of the First Quarter of 2011

With 2010 drawing to a close, it is time to look forward to 2011 and the new releases it will bring. It is difficult to predict what will be all the good films for the whole year, due to scheduling changes and lack of information (and the fact that it is unlikely anyone will remember in December a prediction made a year before). Therefore, I will instead predict what will be the best films of the first quarter of 2011. Due to it probably being the quarter containing the least amount of films (and the ones it has often having little-to-no information readily available on them) I have listed only five choices--though unlike in the past I have given each of them a rank (1 being the best, 2 being second, etc.). Please remember that at the time I write this Don't Be Afraid of the Dark has lost its original release date and its new one is to be determined; if it gets a slot similar to its original I will be delighted. Anyway, here goes:

(image from IMDB)

5. Red Riding Hood (March 11): Director Cathrine Hardwicke has proven the ability to pump adrenaline into anything, from Thirteen to The Nativity Story to even (!!cough!!) Twilight, and scary fairy tales are usually awesome, so its no wonder there is excitement for this horror-fantasy retelling of the legend "Red Riding Hood," re-done Hollywood (but thankfully not-Disney) style with romance (duh) and a were-wolf (YEAH!). Sure, it loses a few points for replacing the traditionally child protagonist with the decidedly-adult Amanda Seyfried and it might have trouble obtaining the depth to be one of the year's best, but RRH's exciting premise should make this experience entertaining and maybe even memorable.

(image from GeekTyrant)
4. Sucker Punch (March 25): While I have yet to see Watchmen and was a bit to young when 300 came out, I have to say that Legend of the Guardians was pretty freaking awesome! Sure, it wasn't quite as thoughtful as Lord of the Rings, but it had enough morals to be the perfect family fantasy and some of the most gorgeous visuals I have ever seen. Furthermore, at the same time Tim Burton was making Alice in Wonderland Disney-clean that kiddy-flick managed to contain the year's best action! So, whether you think he's right for the Superman-reboot or not, it is imperative that we understand that whatever Guardians's mastermind Zack Snyder has next is very likely going to be big. While an unusual choice for a sci-fi/fantasy/anime epic considering all the events take place in the protagonists mind to help her cope with stressful events, one should not write off a movie that seems to have more explosions and robots than Star Wars. Yes, its moral appears to be the exact same as Precious (switch "abusive home" with "abusive institution"), but there could be a little extra here to make this something powerful. And if not you might want to remember that Precious didn't have THIS:

(image from GeekTyrant)

Please not that the next picture is for an entirely different movie.

(image from IMDB)

3. The Company Men (January 21): Given the current economic downturn, this allegedly-enlightening story of a man (Ben Affleck) coping with his recent unemployment and subsequent depression is quite timely. However this could be good anytime if its done right, and (despite the unsavory rating explanation) the trailer seem and descriptions seem to indicate they did. Featuring an impressive cast for a limited release, this John Wells production has Chris Cooper, Maria Bello, Kevin Costner, and Tommy Lee Jones.

(image from IMDB)

2. The Beaver (March 23): Red Riding Hood has an interesting premise, but this one wins the originality award: A depressed man going through an unpleasant divorce and rocky period with his son decides to have an alternate personality take over his life in the form of an abandoned beaver puppet he operates. Half comedy/half drama, this Jodie Foster-directed movie could be offensive and cynical, or it could be truly moving tale.

(image from IMDB)
1. Biutiful (January 28): Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's first directorial feature since Babel, Biutiful is the critically-lauded entry from Mexico for the Academy Awards' Best Foreign Language Picture. However, due to the unique requirements for that category, Biutiful is not a 2010 film, since American viewers can't see it until January (unless they buy the DVD online). The story of a compassionate-father deep-in-organizes crime who wants to solve lose ends and ensure a good future for his children before he dies. Yes, last year's most praised foreign film was the odiferous The Secrets in their Eyes; still, the critic community is right more often than not and I am going to take their word and get excited for this movie. I hope you do to.

I wish luck to anyone who follows my advice and sees these films. I will post again when they are out to evaluate their merits (and my MAD predicting skills). I would love to hear your picks too, so feel free to post whether you are reading this on screened or my more complete website cinetim.blogspot.com. :)

The Other Guys (A-)

A-
Witty lyrics, good acting, and humorous scenarios make this the year’s funniest film. Add onto that the entertaining action and you have one good movie.
Detectives Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz are to ordinary looking guys with dark pasts. Gamble has been trying to repair his relationship with his “plain wife” (Eva Mendes of We Own the Night), the anchor keeping him from leaving his mundane life as a timid nobody doing paper work for the police force to go roam the streets as the vicious pimp Gator, notorious in university dorm-rooms. Hoitz is bitter and resentful after being the one cop on a corrupt force who gets in trouble (he did the one thing New York couldn’t forgive when he accidentally crippled Derek Jeter). However, as the dark forces of Wall Street execs unite with the Russian mafia, these two might be the only people able to bring justice back to the city. No wait, that job falls to Detectives Danson and Highsmith. This movies just about the other guys.
Every piece of the force behind the over-the-top comedy does their share, and what’s more writer/producer/director Adam McKay (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby) makes sure they fit into together. The impressive cast—which includes Michael Keaton, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Steve Coogan—all shine, but the best comes from the two leads. Will Ferrell (Elf and all of McKay’s most famous films) is in his element as Gamble, and Mark Wahlberg (Boogie Nights, The Departed, The Fighter) is so good as Hoitz he is actually at times quite scary.
Of course the acting only works since there is a script to back it up. The jokes fly by so frequently its as if one is watching Airplane, and the plot has enough of a story for us to care about the characters and enough restraint to keep things from becoming offensive or disappointing. To increase the fun, the movie also has some playful action sequences—a great substitute for the vulgarities that usually fill up spare space in films of this genre. The movie also wants to give some messages on corporate corruption, but doesn’t interrupt the plot more than necessary. Much of this is do to the inclusion of some startling statistics in the credits—a new strategy that creates a great compromise between those who want an a-political story and those who want to make a statement. A truly hilarious film, The Other Guys is great fun for practically everyone.

The Next Three Days (D)

The Next Three Days is well-crafted, but by no means does that mean it is a good movie. The underlying message of rebellion should not be taken lightly.
Three Days is not a particularly in-depth film (it will by no means achieve the same level of praise as writer/producer/director Paul Haggis’s other work, which includes the screenplays of Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwa Jima as well as writer/director credit on Crash). However, its central moral is achieved in a satisfactory manner, that of the precious nature of family and a husband’s role to protect it. Nothing particularly shocking, but a compelling enough premise for a thriller. In that regards the movie is perfect, as Haggis makes everything intense, well-paced, and as compelling as possible. The audience might not care enough for the characters in a sincerely emotional way, but one is most definitely on the edge of the seat with excitement.
The story, based on French thriller Pour Elle, tells of John Brennan (Russell Crowe of L.A. Confidential, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind), a happily married teacher with a cute little kid (Kevin Corrigan) who’s life is turned upside down when his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks of W.) is arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for murder. John, feeling he has exhausted all legal courses of action and disturbed by his wife’s attempted suicide, decides he might just have to break her out. Of course, there is always the problem of the new lifestyle as an outlaw harming his kid’s newfound friendships, or his troubled relationship with his dad (Brian Dennehy of The Belly of an Architect), or the fact that any logic would show just how stupid an idea this is. Actually, Haggis is not terribly concerned about that last one, and does a good job of almost making the audience forget it. Almost.
The acting talent involved is good of course, though, with the exception of Liam Neeson in a well-done if stereotypical cameo, none of them have much to do. In fact, the over-reliance on Bank’s physique standing in for any of her positive character traits becomes a bit irritating (though this is by no means her fault). This would be less of a problem if John wasn’t so unbelievably perfect. While it is likely to excite the fantasizing women who will make up a good portion of the film’s audience, the film loses much of its anchor to reality and its impact by making everything too perfect. The husband’s portrayal as the even-headed guy being the saint saving the flawed, shallow wife even comes across as a bit sexist.
The movie’s main flaw, though, is a bit more serious. Sure, the film gives a few reasons why John’s path is a bad idea and is a large burden (much to show how family comes with a lot of responsibility), but for the most part it states that rebellious, even violent, measures are sometimes necessary. While most viewers will be able to distinguish between fiction and reality in the regards of prison breaks aren’t really an idea you should ever consider, it will be harder to avoid the idea that when the system doesn’t work you shouldn’t follow it. Yes, the normal procedures of justice are sometimes ineffective. Even so, it is counterproductive to fight it anyway but through the convoluted, calm, lengthy process that is provided. To do anything else, whether it be risking your child’s future to break your wife out of prison or to not continuing to do your job to the best of your ability since you didn’t get the raise your coworker got when you know he was cheating, is the good choice not only because it is the one that is truly effecting—which it is—but because it is the right thing to do. Our actions affect others, and by breaking the rules we are hurting the whole society and not following the moral codes people are supposed to. While I’m sure Mr. Haggis believes he adheres to the “do unto others” motto he is denying logic by saying that it doesn’t apply if the other is a faceless government which doesn’t play nice.
I, fortunately, have never been falsely imprisoned. However, I have been denied basic rights to report harm done to me in a hospital. For a while, I used this as an excuse to break the rules and stir up chaos. However, once I learned that just because something is justifiable doesn’t mean its right, I changed both my life and others. Rebellious actions might pay off in the short term, but in the course of life it will negatively affect you and your friends.
A common excuse of filmmakers is to say “The movie shouldn’t be taken literally.” This is another glaring omission of logic. Seeing any kind of justification for any kind of action will in some way affect a person’s opinions. If it is something like driving your car through the windows to kill transformers logic will kick in and it won’t be a problem. However if it is a message that rebellion is good, the moral is bad and can negatively affect you. Movies are giant metaphors, and despite the fact that criticizing one will get complaints of “it's just a story” we all know that metaphors have power just like any other statement. There is a reason people use them.
As I said before, obeying the rules is the right thing to do. That is why everything else never works. Except in the movies.

Megamind (B+)

Megamind
B+

Though its large number of writers and consultants combined with Dreamwork’s previous track-record of taking semi-parodies a bit too far were enough to worry anyone, Megamind manages to balance humor, adventure, and plot to create a compelling, charming story that continues their winning streak.
The alien to be known as Metro-Man (Brad Pitt) was sent out of his dying solar system as a baby. After traveling vast interstellar distances he landed on the mysterious planet called Earth. Fortunately, a kindly couple decided to adopt him. As he grew older it became apparent he had incredible powers of strength and flight—powers he constantly used to help make the world a better place. Over time, he became the legendary defender of Metro-City and the greatest hero the world ever knew.
Things never went quite so well for poor Megamind (Will Ferrel). He left the same solar system as Metro-Man, but he ended up landed on one of Earth’s toughest prisons. Brought up to hate the law, Megamind became a juvenile delinquent who arrived at his new school in handcuffs. Despite having an incredible intellect that allowed him to create amazing inventions, Megamind never fit in—constantly being overshadowed by the do-gooder known as Metro-Man. In frustration, Megamind decided to become a super-villain and battle Metro-Man and his beloved city. Megamind and his sidekick Minion (a talking fish-like creature in a robot suit voiced by David Cross) would constantly come up with dastardly plans that would almost destroy all that stood for hope and happiness. Almost that is. For over a decade Metro-Man always seems able to stop him just in time. Then one day the unthinkable happens: Megamind wins! With his nemesis gone and the city enslaved, the possibilities for Megamind are endless. However, he is disturbed to learn his imagination is not. Megamind becomes depressed until he befriends a pretty young reporter (Tina Fey) and comes up with an idea to liven his life up.
When Megamind is giving a silly critique of the super-hero genre it succeeds surprisingly well due to two reasons. First, after a dull half hour the movie becomes genuinely funny (a factor certain earlier Dreamworks films failed to account for). The imagery is creative, the dialogue is full of great one-liners and puns (Megamind can’t help but make Metro-City’s name rhyme with “atrocity”), and the film actually gets the themes and flaws behind super hero stories—from over-simplication of people to a general lust for glory. Just as importantly, though, is the movie’s ability to reign the jokes in when story becomes necessary. This means the audience genuinely cares for the characters and is sincerely invested in the story and its morals.
Megamind’s story is a bit more simplistic than some other recent animated films like Toy Story 3, Up, and Kung Fu Panda; but its morals are prevalent enough to have a nice affect on the younger viewers, its observations astute enough to humor hardcore comic fans, and its lack of anything objectionable makes it great fun for everyone. And what great fun it is: the action is engrossing and non-stop without too much slapstick; the 3D is used to maximum effect with minimum interruption; the true villain (Jonah Hill) is as captivating, dark, and sympathetic as can be allowed in a kiddy flick; Hans Zimmer (Despicable Me, Sherlock Holmes, Inception)’s soundtrack is brilliant as usual and the overall flow hits all the right notes. While large production teams often clutter and confuse a movie’s stories, Director Tom McGrath (co-director of the Madagascar movies) combines all the many talents (including Ben Stiller as a producer and Guillermo Del Toro as a creative consultant) to make this a thrilling ride.
Now it is impossible to bring up Megamind without mentioning the last super-villain animated movie—Despicable Me. Yes, they are eerily similar, and Despicable Me was satisfactory and fun-enough, but Megamind is undoubtedly superior in every way. If you think you saw this story last summer let me assure you that you didn’t; and if you have to pick between the DVDs choose this.
Megamind is a fun action-comedy for any and every age.

Winter's Bone (A+)

Winter’s Bone combines rarely seen artistic talent with excellent acting and powerful morals to create a soon-to-be-classic.
The Sundance winning coming-of-age drama is set in the very rural Missouri Ozarks where 17-year-old Ree Dolly has been forced to raise her two young siblings for many years, since her meth-manufacturing father is never around and her mother has been rendered near-comatose by drugs and depression. Trouble comes when the sheriff drops by to inform Ree that her father seems to be jumping bail—bail he paid for with the house Ree relies on for hunting and shelter. Ree sets out to find her father, but must struggle with the spider-web of organized crime throughout her related-by-blood community.
Award-winning indie Director Debra Granik (Down to the Bone) and Cinematographer Michael McDonough reveal the setting and plot with skill, depth, and a great deal of credit to the viewer’s astuteness; using no tricks like quick camera movements or graphic content. The result is one of the most involving films of all time.
Of course this only works because of the perfect acting, which includes John Hawkes (a supporting actor in Me, You, and Everyone We Know) as Ree’s troubled uncle and Dale Dickey (TV’s My Name is Earl) as the powerful wife of the community’s ringleader. Best of all though is Jennifer Lawrence (The Burning Plain), who refrains from any hamming up or departing from the role of Ree. The acting and the character become truly indistinguishable—yet another testament to the film’s well-developed union between performers and director.
Ree looks on her life with wonderment at the tragic and confusing circumstances she is in, but never debates what her role, nor anyone else’s, should be. The community and its deep corruption are bitterly attached, and the film uses this to provide interesting and original insights on responsibility and family. Of course, the films also stands as a stark warning to the dangers of using methamphetamines, and a shocking portrayal of how they affect places rarely shown in the movies. Yet throughout all this, the film manages to be one of the more enlightening pictures I’ve seen in a while.
Haunting, powerful, and eerily inspiring Winter’s Bone is an incredible work of art.

The Town (B-)

The Town
B-
The Town is like drawing a lion without the mane. It’s a nice little image of a pretty housecat, but it could have been the jungle’s king! In other words, The Town is not bad movie. On its own it could be an vaguely-stirring, thoroughly-entertaining, piece of work. However the problem is that its source material is so incredibly sophisticated and powerful, and The Town is so…not.
The basic idea of the story is fairly the same between book and movie—a conflicted bank robber named Doug starts up a romance with a victim of one of his crimes. The cast is impressive—Rebecca Hall (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) as the love interest, Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) as Doug’s aggressive friend and partner-in-crime, British star Pete Postelwaithe (When Saturday Comes) as the manipulative kingpin Doug works for, Blake Lively (The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) as the drug-addicted hardcore-street kid obsessed with Doug, Chris Cooper (Adaptation) as Doug’s convict father, and Jon Hamm (Stolen, TV’s Mad Men) as the abrasive detective trying to take Doug down. All are great, especially Renner who is fortunate to have an excellent role to match his talents and Cooper who shines in despite next-to-nothing in screen time; however Affleck deserves as much recognition for his direction. He combines the stirring performances he arises with cunning camera moves and a heart-pounding, intense, deeply-engrossing pace to make the film as entertaining as possible. Sadly his writing skills (at least when working with Aaron Stockard and Blood Father-author Peter Craig) are not quite as compelling.
The real tragedy is that Chuck Hogan’s story (called The Prince of Thieves) was so good. Hogan (who also wrote The Standoff and co-wrote The Strain) combines his excellent writing with a riveting, well-woven plot filled with metaphors, compelling characters, and powerful moments. The movie ignores critical elements of the book like Doug’s struggle with alcoholism, Doug’s foolish reliance on others, and the ending. Wait, what’s that last one? Yup, the ending. Affleck and company didn’t just change the ending, they cut off the last four chapters of the book and substituted Fast and Furious mixed with The Punisher. The result is that about 60% of the morals Hogan wrote are completely ignored. Fortunately Hogan had a lot of good themes in his book so the film is not a total failure—but the fact that it is anything but perfect is terrible in and of itself.
The reasons for the changes were probably to quicken the movie along and to make it more accessible for an audience. This is actually vaguely insulting considering the book made sense and the studio takes the audience for a bunch of morons. Its not just the equivalent of Romeo resurrecting Juliet’s body—it also spends the time to switch lines like “would not a rose” to “I don’t give a $%^& if she’s a Capulet have you seen her butt!?!”
The Prince of Thieves is an excellent, powerful story. The Town is a mediocre action flick with a little extra. Not that I have anything against mediocre action flicks with a little extra; its just that a lot of effort must have gone into taking away all the “special” in the story.

Red (C)

Red claims to be The A-Team with older heroes. Red is actually a crummy wannabe A-Team with older heroes. This becomes a problem considering that Red's source material is something entirely different.
RED the comic book is written by Warren Ellis (who is better known for writing super-hero comics like Thor, Wolverine, Thunderbolts, and Astonishing X-Men) to trash-talk the corrupt, irredeemable nation Ellis believes the United States to be. The comic is a drama--and a very dark one at that. It is also only three issues (about 60 pages with large panels). It has four characters shown for more than two panels.
Red the movie is written by the Hoeber Brothers (Whiteout) to kinda-sorta talk about how insane the US is, but also to tell a cute love story, and mostly to showcase endless action and not-so-endless comedy. It is two hours long, meaning by the time the opening credits finish you will have been able to memorize the book. It also has more characters than Valentine's Day.
The movie is of a group of retired Special-Ops (John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, and Ernest Borgnine) led by a former government killing machine (Bruce Willis; The Sixth Sense, Die Hard) fighting back against an onslaught of government troops led by a mis-guided but well-physiqued CIA chief (New Zealand actor Karl Urban in what is hopefully a career-making preformance), who is privately concerned to find out his job has connections to a villainous crimelord (Richard Dreyfuss). To continue to-BLAM!--describe the--KABLOOEY!--plot it is impossible not ignore--BUDDAABUDDAA!--the nonstop action--BANGBANGCRASHKABOOOOOOOOOOM! This in and of itself is not a bad thing--the problem arises when one notes that a) none of this in the comic and b) the filmmakers are incapable of coming up with a suitable exposition. What we get is that the CIA and MI6 and the KGB (they are really the same thing) are often used as random gangsters' killing machines and also that if someone fires a bazooka and a second later you fire a handgun they will collide in air to maximum effect. That is about it for plot. Set aside the fact that it is stupid, there is the concerning fact that it is anti-patriotic enough that in the unlikely event someone remembers something from the story it will likely result in them blowing up the CIA headquarters (which, according to the movie, is a pretty easy task). Of course it is no where near as dark and anarchistic as RED the book, so fans of that series (and presumably Warren Ellis) will sit in the theater covering their ears to block out the continuous gunfire and crying at how little Hollywood cares about expressing their beloved cause.
Of course the film is not all bad. After all, with that cast and that many explosions you can't screw it up that badly. True, the movie isn't as funny as The A-Team, and doesn't have well-sequenced action scenes like The A-Team or, if you are tired of this comparison, The Expendables. Still, it does have good action and it is funny. Part of this is due to the script, but also Robert Schwentke (The Time Traveler's Wife)'s skillful direction and the excellent talent of the cast. Every single one of the actors does an excellent--and I mean excellent-- job, especially John Malkovich as a mentally-unstable yet masterfully-violent retiree and Mary-Louise Parker as the bored desk clerk who is being hunted-down simply because she was the one friend of the head "old-timer." This almost makes up for the films faults. Almost.
For a similar yet superior in every way mercenary action-comedy see the--you guessed it--A-Team. If you want to see old stars teaching those young hooligans some lessons go rent the Expendables. If you want an in-depth look at the dark and irredeemable world we hate to live in you should be at Barnes-and-Noble reading the book. Actually, if you are the third, you should be re-evaluating your life, but I guess that is none of my business.

The Social Network (F)

Sometimes a movie has an element that is certain to be a severely destructive influence on viewers. The Social Network has four.
The plot revolves around a super-genius who shares the name of Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg; The Squid and the Whale, Zombieland) looking back on the events he is being sued for. The movie suggests that Zuckerberg used unethical and possibly illegal tactics first when dealing with fellow entrepreneurs Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (mostly Armie Hammer with some Josh Pence to make the illusion of identical twins) and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, Boy A) while creating Facebook.
Before getting into the major flaws in the film, I think it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy of the film critic community. Last summer when The Last Airbender came out, M. Night Shyamalan got a lot of criticism for having white actors play characters which in his source material (a fictional, stylized cartoon) appeared Chinese and Inuit. Just a month or so before that, Prince of Persia got criticized for similar reasons. Now this movie opens up and Andrew Garfield plays Eduardo Saverin. Saverin is in real life Hispanic, and in the movie it is important that he is Hispanic, but Garfield is obviously Caucasian. If one is going to take offense at white actors playing non-white roles, one should at least be consistent.
The aforementioned issue, however, is a mild error in the vast sea of mistakes that make up this movie. To begin with, one should stop trying to ignore the fact that these are real people the film is slandering. This might be acceptable if the story was trying to follow the facts as best as can be, but Writer Aarron Sorkin (A Few Good Men; Charlie Wilson’s War) and Director David Fincher (Fight Club; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) have openly yet quietly stated that they are making a work of fiction and changed boatloads of facts to make a better story and convey their message. If one made a movie about what an excellent leader Hitler was, and it had a great message and astounding visuals, it would still be a bad movie because it is offensive to make up facts that will hurt real, living people. Likewise, this movie is a disgusting attack on people like Zuckerberg because it is presenting false events as truth. For example, saying that minors were allowed in Zuckerberg’s house and encouraged to get high is not something one could write in a newspaper article (in fact, it seems it was rare that Zuckerberg ever partied), but it is apparently allowed for these statements to be presented as absolutes in a “biographic” movie. In real life Zuckerberg was dating for much of the time he was inventing Facebook, but in The Social Network he was largely motivated by his loneliness after having been dumped. Saverin’s poor business decisions had caused Facebook to be in very deep trouble financially—at least in part because he did not move to California—a piece of trivia the movie leaves out. Zuckerberg’s Facebook coworker Sean Parker’s cocaine arrest was changed a great deal from reality to make him seem like the selfish villain Justin Timberlake got praise for playing. Saverin was not really Zuckerberg’s first partner. The list goes on and on.
Sorkin and Fincher have insisted that they wanted to be impartial and this is what came out. That could not be farther from the truth. Zuckerberg and Parker come out as evil because the book the film is somewhat based on (a biography called The Accidental Billionaires) was made with hours of consulting from none other than Eduardo Saverin. Of course Saverin himself could not have hoped for the movie to be as absurdly distorted as it is. It is sickening that this is being accepted as a realistic account of what happened in the early days of the social network.
On a related note, all of the acting is terrible. Not that it would be bad acting if it was on entirely fictional characters; its just that the actors take tremendous liberties with the roles of the real-life people they are playing. For example, Eisenberg talks twice as fast as real-Zuckerberg since he wants to convey how smart and detached he is. In an interview, Fincher said he was aware of this but says he wants the film’s Zuckerberg to symbolize a lot more. He seems to forget that his symbolic-Zuckerberg is hurting the image and feelings of the real Zuckerberg.
The film would be awful if these were its only flaws, but in fact it gets worse. For example, the drinking and drug abuse reaches levels never-before shown in a PG-13 film. Drinking (underage drinking!) is not only presented as a relatively harmless, silly habit; it is shown as something that all college students do and should not be afraid to do. Sure characters behave stupidly while drunk, but it is implied that this is just a time in life when such things happens. Likewise, marijuana use by minors during the midday in Zuckerberg’s house is used to convey a “party” atmosphere; not a building full of addicts. Parker’s cocaine abuse is portrayed as a poor idea, but mostly because it will hurt his reputation, not his life.
In a further display of purposefully spreading false information, The Social Network’s view of the legal system has a closer resemblance to the courts shown in Planet of the Apes then the ones you will find in real life. The movie states that cases are judged on a combination of personal prejudice and presentation of the witnesses, with absolutely no regard for things like the Constitution or the actual events. True, The Social Network would have had trouble finding the time to explore the complex legal arguments behind the Facebook lawsuits, but “being lazy” or “wanting to tell a story that sounds good” aren’t exactly valid excuses considering the movie claims it paid attention to the facts.
Finally, there is the issue that The Social Network’s overall theme is not just offensive, it’s arrogant. The movie has not thought out any of the benefits of Facebook—at best it shows it as just the newest manifestation of modern culture and interaction (Sorkin and Fincher obviously think our culture and interactions are done terribly). At worst, The Social Network portrays Facebook as an easy way to get in trouble because of negative pictures/videos or a way for people you thought liked you to make fun of you behind your back. Practically everyone has had a negative experience over the internet, but to insult the whole idea is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fincher and Sorkin might be annoyed about things said and done over Facebook, but it is arrogance for them to portray it as an mindless drug for people who don’t even think into the reasons its used. I have received much support and comfort over Facebook from friends who I would otherwise have not been able to keep up with. I think Facebook and the internet is helpful and a good thing. True, Fincher and Sorkin do not outright condemn Facebook, but they sure use a selective vision, not spending any time focusing on its benefits but going to great lengths to show its faults.
The Social Network is an abominable insult not just to Zuckerberg and Parker, or even filmmaking—it insults society and all the humanity tied to it.

Devil (A)

More mystery than horror, Devil plays like classic Agatha Christie novels if Christie put expert detail into religion and morals and had a brilliant director. One of the best films this year!
The story invented and produced by M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) and written by Brian Nelson (30 Days of Night) is inspired by a particular Agatha Christie mystery—though I won’t give the plot away by telling you which one. Of course, this being Shyamalan, the film is woven into a plotline of deep religious pondering. Furthermore, Director John Erick Dowdle (Quarantine) uses creative camera angles to create claustrophobia and a suspenseful tone. Shyamalan has taken a lot of heat for announcing that his Night Chronicles, of which Devil is the first, are to be made by up-and-coming filmmakers, but this proves that it was a genius choice.
Depressed police Detective Bowden (Chris Messina, Julie & Julia) and deeply religious security Guard Ramirez (Jacob Vargas, Next Friday) team-up to help five people trapped in an elevator. Of course things don’t go as planned. Everyone in the elevator has a dark past—especially a certain one who is very likely Satan, Prince of Evil, and kills somebody each time the lights go out. Which one is this violent killer? Tough to tell. It could be the tough-guy security guard (Bokeem Woodbine), anxious senior citizen (Jenny O’Hara), secretive young lady (Bojana Novakovic), ex-soldier (Logan Marshall-Green), or abrasive salesman (Geoffrey Arend).
The movie’s biggest fault is undoubtedly the Hispanic stereotypes personified by Ramirez. Not particularly negative ones per say (deeply superstitious is the only unusual way Ramirez acts), but not exactly perfect either. Another problem is that the people being (possibly) punished by the Devil all have dark pasts that your average movie-goer can’t relate to—even so, the film finds away around this
Dowdle’s camera angles are exceptionally creative—slanted yet steady views, slightly upward shots—and generally add to the mood. Keep in mind that said mood is only partially horror—Devil has much more in kind with The Twilight Zone than Drag Me to Hell. Still, this isn’t a problem, and it offers a great chance to have an actual moral. This being mystery/horror, discussing that moral is an absolute no-no, but I think it is commendable that a film from genres infamous for uninspired plots manages to come up with a good, impactful theme. Devil has been made with great effort from all concerned and the result is exceptional.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (A-)

The gorgeous visuals, exciting action, and fantasy storyline makes Ga’Hoole have both the best action this year and enough of a story to back it up.
Though the poster proudly reminds us that Legend is from the studio that cursed us with Happy Feet, this film is nothing of the sort. The “children’s” book it is based on, by The Royal Diaries author Kathrine Lasky, is astoundingly violent; the writers, John Orloff (A Mighty Heart) and John Collee (Creation, Oceans) are more interested in older audiences; and Director Zack Snyder, who’s previous kiddy-flicks include the heartwarming 300 and uplifting Watchmen, only shies away from bloodshed, making the film a non-stop torrent of action. This isn’t a bad thing—the film can still satisfy most everyone—and it makes it extremely enjoyable for all.
All of this is a pretty incredible feat considering two problems facing the picture: First, there is the fact that owls really only are outside at night, so practically every scene takes place in the dark. The pacing and lighting is so good, though, that not once did it become irritating or hard to see. Second is that though there is not a human character in the whole movie, there are about twenty important characters, and the animals—including bluebirds, echidnas, bats, Tasmanian devils, and of course owls—are anthropomorphized as little as possible. For once a movie that doesn’t want to dumb down its source material!
The story is of Soren (Jim Sturgress) and Kludd (Ryan Kwanten), to brother barn owls that fall out of their nests and are kidnapped by Nazi-esque birds to serve legendary villain Metal-beak (unfortunately he never takes off his mask so we can’t see his supposedly missing face). Soren is horrified by what he sees in Metal-Beak’s war camp—such as magical weapons and a brainwashed army being made to conquer the world—so he unites with a band of friends (Anthony LaPaglia, Emily Barclay, and David Wenham) in the hopes of escaping and reaching the possibly mythical Knights of the Round Table for owls, called the Guardians of Ga’Hoole. Kludd meanwhile is beginning to believe Metal-Beaks sinister idea, and is beginning to take his and Soren’s little sister (Adriana deFaria) into his destructive world. In the hopes trying to fix the horrible situation, Soren thinks he has to unite with the strange senior owl Ezylryb (Geoffrey Rush) who isn’t all that he seems.
The film’s themes aren’t as strong as other fantasy epics like The Chronicles of Narnia or
Lord of the Rings, but it definitely has some good ones on believing in morals and respecting the
old and wise. This will be a great message to all the viewers, especially the younger ones.
Though by younger viewers I am referring to those at least six and possibly older, for the film’s
greatest element is not for the easily disturbed. There is no blood and little on-screen killing, but the death toll is considerably high and the non-stop violence is intense. Then again, it is not just intense—it is awesome. This is easily the best action film of the year so far, an honor much achieved because the action isn’t just silly cartoon—the scenes are breathtakingly beautiful and the characters, while probably silly looking to actual owls, and photo-realistic to the human eye. The film is definitely worth seeing in 3-D: The experience is utterly absorbing. Legend of the Guardians is gorgeous and thrilling. Whether wanting to see a great epic or an exciting action flick this is the movie for you.

Alpha and Omega (D-)

D-

Bad morals, poor storytelling, and an onslaught of vulgarities make this so-called "family film" suitable for no one.
Of the wolves in Jasper Park Canada, Kate (Hayden Penettiere) seems the best of the best. She is not only an Alpha--part of the upper caste in society--but she is athletic, skilled, smart, pretty, and determined to do everything she can for the community. Problem is her no good friend Humphrey (Justin Long). Part of the bottom caste of wolves (the Omegas), Humphrey is a constant slacker, spending more time joking around then doing any real work. Kate has promised to marry Garth, a buff Alpha wolf from another pack, in order to unite the two tribes so they can share hunting ground and stop the imminent war. However things go south (literally) when she and Humphrey are captured and brought to a US national park in order to repopulate. Will Humphrey’s feelings for Kate jeopardize her marriage with Garth? Will they even get back to Jasper Park in order to stop the bloodshed? Are you not interested in these questions and instead wondering how a movie about to animals being made to mate is translating into a kid’s film?

The film, which features Dennis Hopper in one of his final performances, is supposed to tell the heartwarming tale of how true love trumps all. Instead, it preaches that Kate should refuse to marry Garth and just live the carefree life of Humphrey (the situation will work itself out anyway). As uncomfortable as it may seem, in royal and tribal families marrying people off is often the only way to avoid a war. In many cases the princess refusing because she thinks she would be better off with someone else is the equivalent of telling the world to go to hell, since hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives would be lost. In a more direct sense to the average movie goers life, the idea that being a slacker and thinking about oneself for a change is good will have a negative effect if one at all. Of course, a story about a girl escaping from the prison where she is being forced to have sex in order to return to her nation and vow to serve and obey a guy she only met once all for the good of the country seems a little too, um, intense(?) for a kiddy flick. But why did Lionsgate think this would be a good scenario in the first place?

If these faults were not enough, the film is uninspired, plodding through the vague outline of a plot with a few 3-D shock-effects and a laundry list of potty jokes (with a few sexual and drug ones thrown in to boot). The ending, while maybe not the worst of the year, is probably the most lame; of all the children films I have seen this audience of small kids was the least interested.

The only good part of the film is the good music (the wolves’ anthropromorphised howls are quite lovely) and the hilarious Eve (Vicki Lewis), Kate’s aggressive mother.

One of the worst films of the year, and the least appropriate thing marketed for kids since Transformers 2, Alpha and Omega is a must-not-see whether you are six, sixteen, or 106.

The Warlords/Tou Ming Zhuang (C-)

Despite the fact that this movie is very well made, and that Jet Li gives an Oscar worthy performance, The Warlords is ultimately unrealistically despairing.
Released to critical acclaim in China in 2007, it took three years for Warlords to get a US release. The story tells of famous-in-China General Pang Qingyun, who went from suicidal warrior to powerful general after allying with poverty-stricken bandits Zhao Er-hu and Jiang Wuyang. Told by Er-hu (Chinese acting/singing star Andy Lau who played the villain in House of Flying Daggers), the plot is not a happy one—the three allies (aka the Warlords) are faced with horrible choices, and soon the more cautious Wuyang (Takeshi Kaneshiro, the star of House of Flying Daggers) begins to clash with the radical Quingyun. The script, based on historical events, is written by a team of eight writers and directed by Peter Chan Ho-Sun (Waiting), who was a producer as well. Ho-Sun does a good job artistically—the movie is well crafted and in-depth—even though one can tell it is foreign by the cultural and budget differences from a major US film. The movie can be confusing and rarely pans back to show a larger location (either due to the small, $40 million budget or because such shots aren’t a prerequisite in China), but it has much more detail and a much more open and in depth view than most American films.
The acting is great all round, but best by far is Jet Li. As the conflicted anti-hero Quingyun, who is both a mass murderer and a defender of peace, he puts in vast amounts of depth without breaking his noble manner. Li has never gotten an Oscar nomination, but he certainly deserves one here—most actors would have gone the simple route as a scowling villain, but he makes viewers care about the character quite a lot.
Half-way through the film, I was hoping it could be one of the greatest this year. Sadly by the time the credits role I was thinking otherwise. Despite showing several sides in the conflict between Quingyun and Wuyang, and the fact that the film is not pounding one over the head with a message, it still gives the distinct message of a hopeless, futile life. Wuyang’s tactics seem ineffective, but the movie shows Quingyun as unsuccessful too. As for Er-Hu, he decides to adhere to the code he made with his brother and friend—but this is not getting him anywhere good either. As the final scene tells us that life is hard, I thought that however evil the world is, the film is unrealistically dark and, at the core, false. Yes, bad stuff does happen—but battling for the right thing usually works. I know at a time where people like to oversimplify war and violence it is easy to just badmouth the world’s fate—but this is wrong. There is hope, and it is worth fighting for.
The Warlords is well-made, but at heart it carries a message of despair. One that is worth disagreeing with.

Vampires Suck (D-)/What Makes a Good Parody

Not only does Vampires Suck have some really horrible messages, even for the lowest quality of comedies it has very little entertaining humor.
Becca Crane's life gets complicated when she enters Sporks Washington (she has to move there to live with her dad since her mom ran off with Tiger Woods). Her father can't believe she's grown up ("Your tits are huge," he remarks), her friends are very quirky (one of them is struggling to keep up her long distance relationship with a soldier named John), her romantic interest is an undead blood-addict (he also sparkles in the sun), and a childhood friend with a crush on her has grown canine features (some of them rather feminine). As you have probably guessed, this is a parody of the Twilight Saga. What you might not have heard is that it is total garbage.
I enjoy watching the homemade parodies of Twilight on YouTube. Frankly, I thought they weren't just more original than this, I think writers/producers/directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans) went so far as to steal their ideas. And by steal, I don't mean giving an honorary tribute to them, I mean they just packed that stuff into their movie changing only enough that they hope people won't notice (probably because their changes result in it not being funny).
What makes a good parody is that it takes an element of popular films and expands on it in a way that shows its absurdity. Violence and vulgarities enter in only to further show a silly element in the original. For example, in Airplane, we see passengers lining up with creative weapons in order to beat a female survivor who is panicking. Yes, the scene is funny because of the violence, but the violence wouldn't be funny if it weren't for the fact that many movies showed slapping someone hard as a good way to calm them down. Likewise, when we see a proper woman snort cocaine after being mortified over the drinking of the man sitting next to her, it is to mock common cliches on types of characters, not to just shock us with the presence of drugs. Sure, this movie has a few exceptions that are just cheap laughs (such as the inflatable auto-pilot) but these are kept to a minimum and use either wordplay or creative imagery to make their point.
Vampires Suck wants to be Airplane, but it misses the point of Airplane's jokes. In fact, the only element of Twilight that Friedberg and Seltzer seem to actually have thought up a way to mock is the story's concern over virginity. Sadly, it is difficult to make the idea of a teenager wanting to stay pure an absurd concept, so this joke falls flat.
Not being funny is a problem, but not one to earn a movie a D-. The bigger problem with the film is that to fill space of a feature presentation (unlike Epic Movie, Vampires does not have a wide array of movies to joke over) the audience is barraged by terrible morals. This probably an attempt at rebellious critiques of society, but since nobody put the effort into coming up with well thought out points, the story relies on stereotypes about what teens are mad at adults over. As a result, the movie endorses teenage drinking (while driving!), homophobia, and the aforementioned mocking of sexual purity.
Vampires does have one funny concept--though this is more due to good acting than production creativity. Jenn Proske as Becca does an excellent job at capturing and ridiculing the depressed rudeness that Bella from Twilight flaunts. The detail and astuteness in mimicking Kristen Stewart in a humorous manner is praise-worthy, but judging by the rest of the film I doubt Friedberg and Seltzer had much to do with this.
What is an attempt at an in-joke is in fact only worthy of being washed out with the sewage. For those looking for a Twilight parody, check out the videos high-schoolers are posting on YouTube. For those wanting a parody movie, check out Zombieland. For those looking for a legal alternative to water-boarding, check this out.

The Expendables (B+)

This ensemble action event is short on the finer complexities of most films, but its distinct kinetic style and non-stop barrage of over-the-top action pieces makes this a fun time for those who like this sort of affair.
A trio of mercenaries named Barney, Lee, and Yin Yang(Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, and Jet Li, respectability), still nursing the bruises from their impressive hostage rescue, set out on a mission for a mysterious figure (Bruce Willis) to assassinate the ruthless dictator of the fictional South American nation of Vilena (David Zayas). However they get more than they bargained for when their guide turns out to be the dictator's more noble daughter (Gisele Itie), a former teammate (Dolph Lundgren) turns against them, and they find the target not only has a knife-wielding body guard (Antonio Rodrigo Nogueria) but is sometime allies/ sometimes enemies with a powerful American (Eric Roberts) and his vicious henchman (Steve Austin and Gary Daniels). For help, the men turn to a retired friend named Tool (Mickey Rourke) and some more companions (Terry Crews and Randy Couture). As if this isn't enough, Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a cameo appearance.
The plot is a little short on themes, though there is some dramatic elements in the relationships between conflicted tough guy Barney and depressed artist Tool (this gives Rourke a chance to act up a storm). Other sub-plot lines feature Lee's romantic interest (Charisma Carpenter with a difficult role) and conflict among the villains (the latter plot line seems a little unnecessary, but it works). The biggest disappointment though is that Willis, Schwarzenegger, and Rourke don't fight once.
This doesn't mean the movie is a disappointment. The film features tons of absurd violence and action(pretty much the only reason it's rating is so harsh). Many viewers (aka females) will be upset or bored, but most viewers (aka males) will have a testosterone-loaded extravaganza.
What is more is how director/writer/producer/star Sylvester Stallone (who punched people as Rocky and killed them as Rambo) tries a unique style in an otherwise ordinary action tale. The dialogue's jokes are cringe-worthy (they're not just vulgar, they make no sense!), but the choice to have suspenseful music, loud sounds, dark settings, and fast moving yet focused camera movements gives the film a much more tense feel. Furthermore, the story avoids unrealistic romance, maintains believable characters in unbelievable fight scenes, and succeeds in showing a true companionship between the guys.
THE EXPENDABLES is a fun ride with explosions galore.

The Joneses (A+)

Derrick Borte's writing/directorial debut is amazing, balancing funny, thought-provoking, and emotional relevance excellently. If that is not enough, the cast puts up an incredible effort, making this one of, if not the, best films of the year.
To explain the basic plot of the movie is a tiny spoiler (I have to reveal a secret that keeps audiences hooked for the first ten minutes). For those who want to know more about the film, though, I am continuing. A wealthy suburban community is excited and envious of the charismatic new family the Joneses. They seem to be perfect. The father and mother are passionately kissing and giving each other new gifts. The daughter is the talk of the school, and the son quickly becomes the guy everybody likes. They are athletic, smart, and successful. What is more, they are endlessly giving people friendly little tips that seem to work everywhere. Steve Jones says that he isn't a natural at golf--he just has an affordable club that makes everyone great. Steve's wife Kate Jones isn't the excellent cook everyone thinks she is--she just found out about these great frozen foods. Jenn Jones's luscious lips are really only highlighted because she has this great lipstick. Her brother Mick Jones is only the best skateboarder in school because he has an awesome new board everyone should try. The Joneses are truly the family everyone wants to--and probably can--be.
Problem is they aren't really the Joneses. They are unrelated adults who's job is to sell products by pretending to be innocent civilians benefiting from them. Don't get mad, though: it's just business.
The film has many sub-plot-lines that nicely tie together, but the story centers around the relationship between Steve and Kate. Steve is new to the job, but Kate thinks he has the charismatic charm to carry them to success. Steve is struggling at his new career (just like he did as a pro-golfer), but wants to start a genuine relationship--with Kate. True, she is his boss: but if they are going to pretend to be husband and wife they might as well act like it.
The Joneses family isn't meant to be taken literally (at least not yet, that is). However it symbolizes so much more. Yes, what drives consumerism--but that is to overused a subject to base a whole movie on (sorry, Mr. Romero). First, the family (and likewise the film) demonstrates how advertising is affecting everyday lives: selling us things without OUR best interests in mind. It doesn't matter what a product, such as say teen-alcohol, does. If it sells, that's all that matters. Don't be mad: It's just business.
A dark comedy on these issues would be a good movie, but writer/director Borte wants to do something more than that. After humoring us for a while, the movie drills strait down to another central issue: Why everyone, including Steve and Kate, want to be the Joneses. It's not just about the money: There is a strong appeal to playing a part if that part gives you admiration. The story starts poking around and then comes up with a resolution symbolic of what makes people tick--and how they can get their moral clock to tick right.
The film never leaves it's dark roots. After all, how can they? Even if Steve learns his lesson he did so at the cost of others. Or did he even hurt them after all? All of these questions get an answer though, and make the tale more than just satire--the movie is a moving drama as well.
The characters are so interesting audiences would always be impressed, but the actors do a great job anyway. Demi Moore (The Scarlett Letter, Bobby) is perfect as Kate, but David Duchovny (The X-Files) is amazing as Steve (he plays him with just the amount of charisma and conflicted angst the role deserves). Amber Heard (Never Back Down) plays Jenn with a riveting performance of someone with a well-developed enticing persona yet a raging sex-addicted lust and TV's Ben Hollingsworth plays Mick with an atmosphere of reluctant coolness. In another great show of acting, Gary Coleman (a supporting actor in The Brady Bunch and Pineapple express) breaks our hearts as the kindly man who falls for Steve's con hook, line, and sinker.
An absolute must-see, The Joneses is powerful in several different themes as well as a perfect demonstration for how a movie can be a dark comedy and still tell a touching story.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/ Man Som Hatar Kvinnor (C-)

Highly overrated, this somehow simplistic and convoluted revenge/mystery based on the bestselling book series is marred by ludicrous sex and surprising predictability.
Written by Nikolaj Arcel and Rasmus Heisterberg based on the first in Stieg Larsson's hugely popular trilogy, Niels Arden Oplev's directorial debut film is unimpressive despite strong performances and unique characters (and, yes, it is confusing that the Oplev is Danish when the movie is Swedish). Michael Nyqvist (2002) plays successful political journalist Mikael Blomkvist convicted of crimes he didn't commit solving a thrilling case connected to his childhood before going to jail. The mystery (of a disappearing teenager) has been unsolved for forty years, but Blomkvist thinks he may be able to catch the villain with the help of a mysterious young detective (Noomi Rapace) with a tough attitude, a billion piercings, and a genius-intellect.
All the actors do an excellent job (though it would be difficult to mess up such captivating characters): Nyqvist (who should be in some Hollywood films if he knows enough English) shows just the right amount of charm and confusion over his partner, Rapace is tough and frightened, and Peter Andersson makes a really creepy rapist. That said, the story is so-so (you might not guess the criminal mastermind or what the heck is going on, but you can sure guess all the plot twists).

Being overrated would not be such a terrible thing if not for the ludicrous sex. And when I speak of the sex, I am not even talking about the explicit rape scenes (which along with graphic violence and harsh language make this a very intense show). My problem with the sex is an unnecessary extended scene of two people getting busy which serves no purpose save admiring Rapace’s body. It is not only an interruption of the plot, it is abandoning artistic qualities to exploit rather then impress the audience. When a movie called The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo shows more of said girl’s breasts than the title tattoo, there is a problem.

Dragon Tattoo runs more like an R-rated cable-TV mystery and less like the work of art it claims to be.

P.S. Probably hitting theaters in 2012, an American adaption of the book will tell the story with Daniel Craig as Blomkvist.

Ramona and Beezus (A)

Astoundingly simple yet entrancingly beautiful, this intensely loyal adaption of Beverly Cleary's Klickitat Street children books is the family film of the year.
11-year-old actress Joey King plays 9-year-old Ramona Quimby, a creative, spunky, and unique girl who feels overshadowed by her perfect big sister "Beezus" (Selena Gomez of TV's Wizards of Waverly Place), nervous at her father (John Corbett)'s recent unemployment, and horrified by the romance of her beloved aunt (Ginnifer Goodwin) with a charming traveler (Josh Duhamel). The film cannot quite catch all of the realistic charm Cleary put into her books, but relatively unknown writers Laurie Craid and Nick Pustay and relatively unknown director Elizabeth Allen (Aquamarine) do the best job possible.
The movie starts off in a relatively annoying fashion--it is loyal to the book, but still relies to much on cliches. As the picture progresses, though, the plot becomes more realistic and the strong themes emerge. Yes, it is much more fairy tale-esque then the novels, but it combines this with honest messages on growing up and the role of a family. The most amazing thing is how the story is always 100% clean, calm, and simple despite hinting at stronger issues like parental conflict and severe life changes. Never before have I seen a movie use such restraint (even Toy Story 3 had poop jokes); neither was I accustomed to putting in so much adult morals while firmly stating its position as being a tale meant for very young children.
Another thing note-worthy is that while having definite disagreement between characters no one is vilified (except for the non-speaking, tricycle riding, little neighbor). The audience feels the injustice Ramona sees, but also can tell that there are many sides to the story--this fact is further impacted by Sandra Oh (Sideways)'s excellent performance as an abrasive teacher.
It is easy to overlook the need for good children movies--and also easy to miss how skillful one has to be to make these movies equally pleasing to older audiences. Ramona and Beezus does so so well it definitely deserves praise.

The Karate Kid (A)

This, folks, is how you remake a movie.
The Karate Kid strikes the perfect balance between originality and faithfulness to the original despite not having any karate in the entire thing (Chinese martial arts is apparently kung fu). The good quality is mostly due to the genius debut screenplay by Christopher Murphey (the first film was written Robert Mark Kamen)—which lovingly recreates 1984 Karate Kid while adding in its own twists, jokes, and charm—but also benefits from Howard Zwart (Agent Cody Banks, The Pink Panther 2)’s skillful direction, the great acting, and, of course, awesome martial arts.
The updated story is of a boy (twelve years old in this version), Dre Parker, and his mother, Sherry, who are forced to relocate to China (the idea for this location, coming from producers Will and Jada Smith, was truly genius). Unfortunately Dre starts being bullied and needs to enlist help—which he finds in the grumpy maintenance man Mr. Han who turns out to be excellent at kung fu and (reluctantly) willing to train him. The movie has all the great things in the old film—the day to day chores that build both fighting and character strengths, the one legged balancing trick that works even when you are injured—but it is put into a new context so it doesn’t quite seem like a retread either. Still it’s faithful to the details, from Han’s drunken confession’s to Dre’s foolish prank on his enemies. The morals remain intact, along with some new ones to reinforce the message of strength through respect and nobility.
The acting is great all around (in supporting roles one should note Zhenwei Wang as the bully and Wen Wen Han as Dre’s crush); in the main roles it is impossible to decide who is the best—Jaden Pinkett Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness) plays Dre with the exact same (at the beginning rebellious) charm that made his father such a star; Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjahmin Button, Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By My Self) plays the mother as funny, caring, and smart all at once; and Jackie Chan (not gonna insult you by pretending you haven’t heard of his movies) plays Han with one of his career’s best performances, balancing bitterness and compassion all at once.
Anyone who is asking themselves what a remake should have must see this. No, actually anyone asking themselves whether or not they should see a movie must see this.

Similarities in Film: Leonardo DiCaprio and the Inception/Shutter Island Similarities

There is no doubt that Inception is a very original, very creative film. But its star Leo Dicaprio (Titanic, The Departed)'s last film actually bares some striking similarities--especially when comparing main characters. Time to compare and contrast mind-bending 2010 critical/box office hits. More specifically, Inception and Shutter Island.
Before I begin, I must warn you that I will be stating major spoilers for both of these films. You have been warned.
If you are one of the very few people who hasn't seen Inception or forgot the story, I will refresh your memory. A man's wife dies after he ignored the signs that she was going insane--an insanity he was partly responsible for. He is so upset that he is loosing touch with reality and delving into a mythical world. In this world, his wife manifests as a malicious entity, and he is resistant to outside force to try and take him out of his fantasy (he is actually harming others when in his odd state of mind). In the end it appears he let go of his wife, but the final scene hints that he may once again be in a dream. This is deliberately left unclear and the ending is cause for much debate and speculation.
Now for the plot of Shutter Island. What appears to be a mystery of a marshal trapped on an island turns out to be some desperate doctor's last ditch effort to break a psychiatric hospital's patient out of a mythical world he has created for himself. The world is caused because the man is distraught over killing his wife (he did so after his wife killed his children after he ignored the signs that she was mentally ill). In his delusions, his wife manifests as a malicious entity, and he is resistant to outside force to try and take him out of his fantasy (he becomes a danger to others when in his odd state of mind). In the end it appears he has let go of his insanity, but then he appears to revert back to it. The last lines (as he is being led for a severe lobotomy) imply that he is doing so consciously. This is a departure from the book, in which he reverted back to his hallucinations against his will.
One has to admit--the stories are really similar. Now, one has to ask them-self why?
This type of theme might have significance for DiCaprio, or perhaps both directors (highly regarded Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese) thought he was fitting for that king of story (one should note the latter had collaborated with him on several other projects before). Another theory would just be that he was selected since he is a high profile Hollywood name and both movies were critic darlings.
Why, though, are the stories so similar. Why are the characters so alike? The writers were different, and the films were made at around the same time. It is possible Inception Director Nolan was inspired by the Dennis Lehane book Shutter Island was based on, but this is just speculation.
The themes that are similar between films appear to be the effects of grief and guilt and the dangers of delving into insanity and fantasy to ease the pain. In both stories the person subconsciously chooses to start their dreamlike state, but quickly looses control and becomes a danger to those around him. It is a powerful message--the temptation to give up on regulating one's emotions can be very strong, but the effects could be very devastating.
It is odd that two of the best rated films so far this year were dealing with the same issues, but there probably is a reason behind it. With such an abundance of environmental and anti-war movies filmmakers would of course be looking for a new story to tell, and with the economy in a tizzy many people are feeling quite down. A tale that tells of why are mind gets so upset--and how to control it--would be both original and appealing.
Also possible is the fact that with major breakthrough in psychology and civil rights for the mentally troubled Hollywood--and the broader culture--is just starting to explore the lives of people who are really messed up. Films like Star Wars have metaphorically explored the effects of dabbling with "craziness" and its results, but only recently has it been popular to make a film with a really screwed up protagonist. Think back to all the most classic and popular films before this century: almost all of them have a relatively nice, sane hero. The darkest corruption of a character tended to be in their morals (such as Citizen Kane)--now movies are showing people who's entire sense of reality has been torn apart.
To understand culture--and what appeals to it--one can get quite a good deal of information by looking at the films. Comparing 2010's mind-bending twist ending thrillers can go so far as to show society's perception of culture and human nature changing.

Despicable Me (B)

The creative imagery of this animated, sci-fi flick mostly makes up for the fact that a good chunk of the film is mildly annoying.
With an actually funny funny-voice, Steve Carrel is Gru, a middle-aged super-villain with a kindly mad scientist (Russel Brand) and an army of two feet tall, sausage-shaped minions. Gru has been struggling getting loans from the Bank of Evil (formerly Lehman Brothers) to fund his ultimate sinister plot--steeling the moon (the filmmakers, like Gru, fail to realize that if the moon actually vanished millions would die from the tsunamis and climate change to follow). To pull off his plan, he sets out to steel a shrink ray--only to see it fall into the hands of rival super-villain Vector (Jason Segal as nerd half Gru's age). No characters here have actual super-powers, but Gru thinks with his vast arsenal of gadgets (most of which seem to have actually been invented by his scientist, Dr. Nefario) he can actually get it back. He is sorely disappointed when his heists are blocked by saw blades, lasers, rockets, giant fly-swatters, mechanical fists, catapults, and a great white shark. If only he could get a way in. Wait, what is this? Three orphan girls selling cookies--Vector is letting them into his mansion. All he needs to do is adopt them for a week and have them carry in his cookie-robots, who will promptly let him in, so he can take the shrink ray, so he can shrink the moon, so he can steel the moon, so he will be admired and feared throughout the world, so he can prove his mother was wrong when she mocked his gifts. Seems kind of complex, but Gru is a big picture guy. Except for the fact that he doesn't realize that steeling the moon will kill a lot of people. I guess to enjoy the movie you have to get over that one.
Sadly, the moon thing isn't the only thing you have to ignore in the movie. There is ageism (the guy is so old, he thought the dart gun was a fart gun hahahahahahahahaha), there is not too much in the way of plot, and the kids are really annoying. Really annoying (then again, if you watched ICarly you'd know Miranda Cosgrove, who plays the eldest child, specializes in obnoxious). I know that in real life kids who lived in an abusive foster home all their life would be pretty irritating--but that doesn't mean if you give them high pitched voices it makes them sound cute!
Understand, though, the film isn't terrible. The movie is genuinely charming at times (as Gru discovers he actually likes the little kids), the minions are entertaining, Hans Zimmer (The Dark Knight, Sherlock Holmes, Inception)'s very good score, Kristen Wiig plays the foster care headmaster like Dolores Umbridge, and the movie itself can be quite funny (as he leaves the girls' room after tucking them in for the night Gru mentions "Don't let zee bed bugs bite...And there are thousands of them...oh right, and I think there iz something in the closet"). Best of all though is the visuals--the attention to detail, the ingenuity in designing cool weapons, and the playful action sequences. In 3-D, it really is a blast--they are using the technology as much as possible in the most-obvious-yet-still fun ways. The flip-side of this, though, is that people watching in 2-D will be missing stuff--things other recent animated movies like Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3 have taken pains to avoid.
Leaving the movie, I was humored--though not truly impressed. My brother, on the other hand, seemed to have taken away some of the little brats' bad behavior--so it might not be the perfect family film.
A fun movie, especially for the 3-D crowd. Not something great mind you--in some ways something bad--but still fun.

Inception (A+)

Infinitely creative and stunningly bold, Christopher Nolan has created a truly intriguing picture. With the vast amounts of concepts tackled in it--with some pretty strong messages mixed in--one has to marvel at Inception, even if none of the themes are as powerful as what you'd see from most A+ films. Rest assured, though, the movie is A+.
It is difficult to explain the plot in detail without spoiling something, but the basic outline is that of a heist movie--set in a dream! Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio of The Departed) is a thief who steals ideas from people's mind as they are dreaming, something pretty daring in and of itself, but he takes an even bigger challenge when he accepts the offer of a genius, ruthless, yet oddly noble businessman (Ken Watanabe of Letters from Iwo Jima): inception, or the planting of an idea in someone's mind (mainly that of a corporate executive, skillfully played by Cillian Murphy). His reason? To get back to his kids. Most people think he is crazy, but he insists it can be done--that he himself has done it before. He assembles a team of experienced mind-benders (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao), but gets more than he bargains for when he recruits young Ariadne (Ellen Page) to be the architect of the landscape for the mission (one of the pluses of subconscious espionage is you can design the world where the interactions with the dreamer take place). Ariadne begins going into Cobb's own dreams, where she discovers her boss has some terrible secrets--ones that manifest themselves as a malicious entity in the form of his beloved, deceased wife (Marion Cotillard).
Writer, producer, and director Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) crafts a story exploring dozens of ideas: among them what is justified for the cause of good (Nolan shows why the answer could be quite a lot), how much people should know, the doubt all people face in spiritual ideas, the doubt all people face when dealing with other people, the doubt all people face when dealing with life, the dangers of dabbling with forces unknown, the salacious temptations of fantasy worlds, the salacious temptations of drugs, the basic personalities in life, the desire to keep living, the mysterious subconscious, and the mysterious mind. All this is wrapped up in a visually enthralling sci-fi action-heist with riveting suspense. Granted, no idea is explored in very much detail, and the movie has more questions than answers (heck, the ending is a giant question), but the fact that it tackles so much, keeps viewers interested, and then makes them think is enormously impressive in and of itself. The synchronized sigh of rapture the audience made as the film ended stood as a stark testament to its merit.
Ellen Page struggles as usual--Ariadne should be lighting up with greed and ambition when she sees the dream-scape (that is after all what powers her character), but instead she stands there passively as if she is dreaming...Ok, bad simile, but you get my point. The other actors though are great--especially DiCaprio (playing the same personality and tone as he did in Shutter Island), Watanabe (riveting scene-stealer), and Murphy (amazing as always, especially in the fact that they haven't cast him as Hollywood's next big star). The whole filmmaking team is incredible, from the art direction to the score (made by prodigy Hans Zimmer who crafted music for Batman Begins and Sherlock Holmes).
The one-of-a-kind Inception is a new classic.

Prediction: 12 Greatest Films for Second Half of 2010 (August-December)

Couldn't decide on ten, but with difficulty could narrow it down to twelve. I particularly feel bad not including the new Conan--but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you about it for you to see it. In Alphabetical Order:

Black Swan--This is a gamble, but writer/director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler)'s bizarre psychological drama about rival ballerinas (that apparently is inspired by Swan Lake) seems so creative it had to get a spot on the list. Featuring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, and Vincent Cassel.
Charlie St. Cloud--A tale of miracles and hope featuring a (surreal?) story of a young man (Zac Efron) torn between a beautiful lady (Amanda Crew) and his deceased brother (Charles Tahan) who he plays ball with every day. Directed by Burr Steers (17 Again) based on the story by Ben Sherwood, this one could actually has potential. It seems original and Sherwood's book is critically acclaimed.
The Company Man--Ben Affleck stars as a man struggling with depression after losing his high-salary job and having to work installing dry-wall with his blue collar brother (Kevin Costner). This movie, written and directed by John Wells (executive producer of TV's ER), could be a valuable and inspirational in this time of economic strife--and maybe even beyond. Also featuring Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper, Rosemarie DeWitt, and Maria Bello.
The Expendables--As long as producer/director/star Sylvester Stallone keeps this from being offensive, the combined talents of action legends Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgreen, Mickey Rourke, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Eric Roberts, Steve Austin, Daved Zayas, Gisele Itie, Charisma Carpenter, Gary Daniels, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Stallone himself could make this on heck of an action film.
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest--The finale to the foreign film series based on Steig Larsson's famous book trilogy (beginning, of course, with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), this one is gonna be a doozy. Let's just hope it's good.
Hereafter--Clint Eastwood's sci-fi thriller about the afterlife and death (starring Matt Damon, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Jay Mohr) has both a cool idea and all star team (its writer is Peter Morgan, who did The Queen and Frost/Nixon). This could be the year's best.
It's Kind of a Funny Story--The story of a depressed teen (Keir Gilchrist) who checks himself into an inpatient unit to encounter a zany yet genius doctor (Zack Galifianakis) and a (girl?)friend (Emma Roberts) looks to be truly moving. Directed and written by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, who previously collaborated on Half Nelson.
Let Me In--The Swedish film won as much praise as the book it is based on, so the American remake has much potential.
Morning Glory--Writer Aline Brosh McKenna did a great job on Devil Wears Prada, and this film could be just as poignant. Directed by Roger Michell, it features Rachel McAdams as a determined young woman recruiting a disgruntled TV legend (Harrison Ford) to help save an unpopular news show. The trailer was good, the premise has promise...I think this could surprise a lot of people.
Tales from Earthsea--Like his father, Goro Miazaki made a hand-drawn fantasy epic. With it's beautiful imagery and bold style featuring swords and dragons I am thinking this could be powerful, especially since it is loosely based on Ursula K. LeGuin's critically acclaimed children's book series and Goro seems to be taking after his genius father. Released in Japan in 2006, it makes its American debut this year.
The Tree of Life--Badlands director/writer Terrence Mallick film is completed but still largely unknown. What has been heard makes it sound awesome--it has Brad Pitt and Sean Penn in an epic of a young boy growing up in a small town while somewhere we witness the birth of this universe.
True Grit--The Coen Brothers are making another adaption of the book that inspired the John Wayne classic. This one features Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. I'm thinking it has 100000000000000000000000000000000-1 chances of getting at least a nomination come the Academy Awards.