Young Adult (2011)

Charlize Theron plays Mavis Gary, a writer of teen literature who returns to her small hometown to relive her glory days and attempt to reclaim her happily married high school sweetheart (Patrick Wilson). When returning home proves more difficult than she thought, Mavis forms an unusual bond with a former classmate (Patton Oswalt) who hasn't quite gotten over high school, either.

Jason Reitman has been a director that always manages to fascinate me with his very different but awesome films such as Thank You for Smoking and Up in the Air; even the one I didn’t love and feel is slightly overrated, Juno, was still a fairly entertaining flick. With Young Adult, Reitman makes a movie that feels so far away from Hollywood, it’s hard to not fall in love with it. Young may not be his best film to date, but he does manage to create his best character yet in Mavis Gary.

You know that bitch in high school that was slutty hot, got whatever she wanted, and stepped all over everyone she thought she was better than? Young Adult tells the story of that girl once she moves past high school and is inserted into the real world. Right from the start you are thrown into her world that has now become a state of depression clinging to the glory days of the past. When she gets a invitation to her ex flames- now wife’s birthday, she gets it stuck in her mind that the only way she can be happy is to have him back; and so begins the bizarre journey of Young Adult. You witness Mavis go through a lot of effort to woo her ex Matt, but it’s all pretty much moot. Right from the start you get a pretty understanding that he’s very much in love with his wife and are happy. What’s entertaining is that she doesn’t care; she will break the marriage if she has to. It’s quite comedic, but depressing at the same time, watching her go through this so blindly. She really has nothing and watching her head spiral to the end, never grasping what’s she’s actually doing is sort of tragic. At its conclusion, you feel sorry for this woman, but like all bitches, she doesn’t care about you.

Charlize Theron is absolutely perfect in this movie. Everything about her, from her clothes, to her face, her preparation, and her dialogue, just oozes out a person so disgusting, the devil himself would be proud. Despite appearing to have it all, she is a broken shell. Theron kills it going against the Hollywood type in playing a character that nobody is supposed to like, but still find enjoyable to watch. It’s because of her. The character is a lovechild from Reitman and Cody and what they produced was the best side of Theron. In a smaller, sort of buddy who asks questions to fill in back story role, Patton Oswalt is great. He’s a comedian that has shown flashes of a dramatic actor and he’s given the chance to show a darker side that you can hear in his comedy. His character is key in unraveling the disguise off of Theron’s Mavis and did a splendid job with it.

Young Adult is a dark social comedy that centers on an unlikeable character that does nothing but keep you watching. It’s one of the very best performances of the year that flashes the brilliance that is Charlize Theron. She is more than just a pretty face. If you’ve ever loved Reitman, you’ll surely love this. It’s almost if they continued Juno’s story and had her regret giving the bay away and she fell into a fire of chaos. It’s a late tiny sleeper of a film that is big in more ways than one. Be sure not to miss it.

Overall Score: 9/10

Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

This is not just another mission. The IMF is shut down when it's implicated in a global terrorist bombing plot. Ghost Protocol is initiated and Ethan Hunt and his rogue new team must go undercover to clear their organization's name. No help, no contact, off the grid. You have never seen a mission grittier and more intense than this.

Earlier this year, there was the fifth entry in the Fast and the Furious series and it was filled with so much over the top action that it ended up being awesome. That was a movie that used action as its story; because of it the story was actually a piece of shit. Mission Impossible IV is the perfect example of when a movie uses action set pieces as a part of its story rather than it be its story. It’s really an amazing accomplishment when you take it all away because the plot is every bit as generic as you could come up with.

To sum up the movie in one sentence; Tom Cruise and company must save the world from a nuclear world war started by a man out for power. It doesn’t end up going the path you completely expect it to go, but if you really expect the bomb to drop, then you’re fooling yourself. In-between the big action pieces, they actually put together a plan, reveal interesting tidbits about the characters and what has happened to them in-between installments. They feel like a bigger mystery then they are because they slowly reveal this information over the entire film rather than throwing it all at you at once. It’s actually some good material that works well with the series.

Where the film takes a giant leap is in the action. Some films have one or two wow moments, three fi you’re pushing it, but Mission Impossible ends up with five completely wow moments that end up going all out. Whether it be a ten minute fight inside a futuristic parking garage of moving spots and levels to a building being completely leveled to badass cat fights. They have it all and do it well. The two sequences that are so god damn awesome come fairly close to each other so it never gives you a chance to catch your breathe. Ethan Hunt has to climb the Burj Khalifa (the tallest skyscraper in the world) and get into a room from the outside. IA lot of shit goes wrong and it gets you on the edge of your sea, jumping up at times for fear of the constant reminders of the height. This is a great accomplishment considering you know there’s no way he would fall, but it still keeps you in awe. Moments after that scene, there is a long chase through the city during a sandstorm that is nothing short of badass.  It’s one of the best forty minute stretches of action I’ve ever seen.

Tom Cruise comes back as Ethan Hunt and for the first time in years, seems like he’s where he belongs. Climbing buildings and running through cities catching bad guys is what he does best and would love to see him do more of it.  Paula Patton as the sexy eye candy not only handles that well, but actually contributes as well. It’s nice to see a film not hold the woman back and treat her as the agent were told she was and can be. Simon peg returns this time as a field agent and not an analyst, but still manages to bring the jokes with him about the change for him. He’s the bulk of the comedy that never overstays his welcome. The new addition to the franchise is Jeremey Renner as Brandt. This was an origin story for him that could possibly spin-off into another story that could be a lot more interesting, but for this film, he was a little bit cheesy and portrayed in the wrong manner. I think I’d rather just see Hunt and Brandt team up again for another installment. I loved what I got from this ensemble.

Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol is the action movie even critics will love. That seems to be a rare combination that you really shouldn’t be taken for granted because the two just don’t normally mix. If you want to sit down and have a badass two hours, you cannot go wrong with this, it’s the best in the series by far and probably reignited a candle that was thought to be on its last wire.

Overall Score: 8.5/10

Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011)

Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson), plus those they love, must deal with the chain of consequences brought on by a marriage, honeymoon, and the tumultuous birth of a child...which brings an unforeseen and shocking development for Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner).

Every film in this franchise has improved slightly each time. With that trend contuing with the fourth one, you’d think it’d be a pretty decent film by now. The thing being though is that the very first one was so bad that even a drastic improvement wouldn’t make it all that much better. The one really positive thing that can be said about the third is that it has finally made the franchise somewhat bearable when a member of the wolf pack isn’t on-screen. But when they happen to be on-screen, get ready for a riot because they are so bad, you may find yourself getting some good laughs out of them.

This time around the gang gets into a little trouble when Edward doesn’t pull out and knocks up Bella. This isn’t your typical pregnancy either; you see this is a vampire baby that is killing Bella from the inside and she refuses to get rid of it.  This is the part of the story that doesn’t manage to blow. The choices have consequences and this baby seems to affect each character in a different way. It helps establish some sort of development for these vampires for the first time in four movies. This journey to keep her alive keeps the story going, but it all feels a bit boring because the ending is already written in stone and the world knows it, so they miss out on a few opportunities to actually establish itself seriously. Instead they have to show these damn wolves. Their storyline of wanting to destroy the baby and Bella in the process is every bit as a joke as it sounds. There isn’t a single moment when they are on screen that doesn’t make you want to stop watching. The build-up to this epic battle between the two races comes to a shitty conclusion that feels all but made up on the spot. There are times when you stick to the books material and you don’t; this is one of the times you don’t follow true to the pages.

Kristen Stewart seems to finally decide to show a bit of emotion rather than do her famous stare into the screen. Part of that came from the effectively haunting CGI used on her to make her skin and bones; it is quite scary and very believable looking. Pattinson continues to be stuck in a terrible page to screen character that never quite feels right and unfairly looks bad. The key to the film and the complete downfall of this franchise has to go to Taylor Lautner. I have never seen somebody so bad on screen. Nothing about him is real nor likeable; he is a complete moment actor that hopefully goes away as fast as he came. Anytime the films attempt to get something going, here comes Jacob and time to give up trying.

You already know if you’d like to see this. You’re either a fan or not, and if you thought the third was watchable, than you should be able to get through this one. Its better, but not by much.

Overall Score: 5.5/10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

This English-language adaptation of the Swedish novel by Stieg Larsson follows a disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), as he investigates the disappearance of a wealthy patriarch's niece from 40 years ago. He is aided by the pierced, tattooed, punk computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara). As they work together in the investigation, Blomkvist and Salander uncover immense corruption beyond anything they have ever imagined.

When they announced they were going to re-adapt The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for the American audience, there was a lot of clamor from fans of the Swedish version; especially since it just came to the States last year. There really didn’t seem to be a point for another adaption so quickly. Then the studios made the easiest choice they could to shut the fans up and start second guessing themselves; that was hiring David Fincher, of course. For once he was hired, it seemed like a project that he was destined to make. A dark tale of rape, revenge, mystery, and psychological horror fits all too perfectly into his realm of comfort.

At the center of the story, there is a mystery; who killed Harriet Vanger? She disappeared 40 years ago her killer has sent a framed flower every year since in a somewhat taunting matter. This mystery is a slow, somewhat boring, slightly confusing investigation that ends up with a huge payoff for the audience. Its very conclusion is tense, scary, and rewarding. What’s not surprising is it seems to take a backseat to the title character, Lisbeth Salander. You are introduced to her and her lifestyle before the mystery even begins, and it winds up being the films strongest parts. You are allowed to enter the domain of the characters mind through the camera and see intimate moments of her private life that help define her character throughout the rest of the film. Her eventual involvement into the mystery feels natural and she helps light a flame, giving it more life and getting the wheels to the train going a bit faster. When the mystery comes to an end, the story continues in a somewhat dragging way that feels a bit unnecessary, but moments before the credits roll, it comes together nicely and truly gives the film’s movie title meaning.

Rooney Mara is downright impressive. Had I walked in blind, I know I wouldn’t have guessed that she was underneath that disguise. She goes into a place I never thought she could and the result is one of the best performances of the year.  The key difference between her and the original, Noomi Rapace, is that I feel like I was more connected to Mara’s version. She seemed to show her insecurities better and her willingness to want more then what she had; which made me cheering more for her. It’s a career role for her that not only did she not fuck up, but even surpassed an already critically acclaimed performance of the same character.  Impressive. Daniel Craig takes a backseat to Mara, and seems happy to do so. He does enough to make him suitable match for her, which he only manages to break your heart. Dick. Some of the smaller roles with Chrisopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, and Yorick van Wageningen manage to get a lot of smaller roles that help keep the mystery moving but still staying intrigued by it.

If you saw the original, let the fear of a commercialized version go. David Fincher does what eh does best and creates a great adaption of his version of the bestselling novel. It feel every bit as good, and to me better than the Swedish version. If you haven’t already been introduced into the world of Lisbeth  Salander, here is the perfect place to start. It’s a long but fun ride that you can only get from a Fincher film.

Overall Score: 9/10

The Sitter (2011)

When the world's most irresponsible babysitter takes three of the world's worst kids on an unforgettable overnight adventure through the streets of New York City, it's anyone's guess who's going to make it home in one piece.

The Sitter is a comedy that is so god damn lazy that almost nothing about it is all that funny. Their line of thinking must have been to steal funny scenes from these other funny films and create one long epic laughing roller coaster that the crowd would just eat up, but it was a complete mess. Even when they hit on something funny, they got lazy again ad used the exact same joke fifteen minutes alter. Just how awful is the film if it stoops all the way down to that level? The answer is awful.

A story is never a big thing in a comedy. The only real accomplishment that’s needed is to keep the characters moving from one joke to the next. Anything more than that is just icing to the cake. Here with The Sitter though, it takes a few tame situations and tries to mix in sentimental and outrageous moments together at the same time and instead of triggering a laugh or a heartfelt moment, all you can think about is how the hell they just changed directions without wrapping up the previous encounter. The Sitter is a shining example of when a story is so badly paced and revealed that it actually makes you hate it despite any good qualities it might have had. In this case, ti had none, but that’s beside the point.

For those disappointed that this will be the last we see of fat Jonah Hill who could be funny at times, don’t be, because if it keeps making movies this this, his career will go in a downward spiral causing him to get depressed and become fat again. It just sucks that fatty couldn’t go out with a bang instead of a whimper. And what the hell did Sam Rockwell see with this? His character was stupid, had a lot to do with the repetitiveness of it all, and once again did a movie that will only make the public hate him even more. The guy needs a new agent.

If you want to watch something so unfunny and stupid, give the Sitter a chance, but you’re better off choosing just about anything else if all you’re looking for is some type of entertainment. The only real good jokes this film throws at you come with the trailer; everything else is just pure crap.

Overall Score: 1/10

The Descendants (2011)

The Descendants is a sometimes humorous, sometimes tragic journey for Matt King (George Clooney) an indifferent husband and father of two girls, who is forced to re-examine his past and embrace his future when his wife suffers a boating accident off of Waikiki. The event leads to a rapprochement with his young daughters while Matt wrestles with a decision to sell the family's land handed down from Hawaiian royalty and missionaries.

The best word to describe The Descendants is raw. It’s a movie that revolves around the death of a mother and the resulting effect it has on her family. It doesn’t avoid any topic and never attempts to be blunt. It answers them thoroughly and effectively in a manner that feels all too realistic. It throws its emotions at the screen and have you react to them rather than trying to force one out of you. It does a lot without actually doing much work, if that makes any sense at all.

One of the keys to this film is that it treats its characters as if they are real. That doesn’t seem like that hard of a job, but other films seem to struggle with this aspect heavily.  They are not perfect and the film slowly un-wraps them and the best and worst of them are revealed that help define them. Their actions before become clearer and the path forward seem appropriate once they finally move on. It’s really fascinating actually.  Seeing the struggles of a family come together has been portrayed so realistic. It parts where you feel a clichéd moment coming, catches you a bit off guard, taking another direction instead. It’s wonderful. This journey this family takes comes off a bit daunting, but it places some effect comedy in the right situations, to try and not be too depressing of a film. In fact its only real weakness can come from the audience and their expectations. If you expect that big moment where everything gets fixed in a nice little bow, you’re going to be disappointed.  It wants you to actually feel for these characters by the time it ends.

It helps to achieve that when you have George Clooney in your lead. He uses his famous emotionless stare and hides the emotions that his character so easily hides. He’s perfect for it. He’s always been able to do a lot within the frame simply by talking. It may not be the best actor nominee a lot are begging to give him, but he’s very effective in the film. In fact the more impressive co-star is his film daughter Shailene Woodley. If you ever saw her before this, you’d know just how god awful she has been. But here, she proves, with the right script, that she can be a good actress. It helps that her character never falls into the trap of clichéd territory, but Woodley plays with her emotions on her shoulder for all to see and nails it. Very impressive work, one that very well could lead into a best supporting nomination.

 This will be one of the easiest films to recommend. It is a charming heart filled film with an indie-Sundance vibe but with a much more substantial production value. Even if the trailer turned you off, this is still a film that is filled with so much reality, it’s bound to hit somewhere close to home. Give it a chance the first opportunity you get. And don’t worry its not all sad and mopey, at certain points had me cracking the hell up.

Overall Score: 8.5/10

The Muppets (2011)

On vacation in Los Angeles, Walter, the world's biggest Muppet fan, and his friends Gary (Jason Segel) and Mary (Amy Adams) from Smalltown, USA, discover the nefarious plan of oilman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to raze the Muppet Theater and drill for the oil recently discovered beneath the Muppets' former stomping grounds. To stage The Greatest Muppet Telethon Ever and raise the $10 million needed to save the theater, Walter, Mary and Gary help Kermit reunite the Muppets, who have all gone their separate ways: Fozzie now performs with a Reno casino tribute band called the Moopets, Miss Piggy is a plus-size fashion editor at Vogue Paris, Animal is in a Santa Barbara clinic for anger management, and Gonzo is a high-powered plumbing magnate.

The Muppets have never been something I was interested in. I never wanted to watch them as a kid, and I never really had any longing to see them now. Then the marketing kicked into full gear and did just an awesome job with its constant parodies. It did its job in pulling you in, but I somehow forgot this was going to be a Muppets movie with Muppet problems filled Muppet characters; something I have never found myself enjoying all that much.  

The gang this time around is past their heyday. All spread out around the world living their lives apart, but when the Muppet Theater is about to get destroyed because there is oil under it, an outside named Walter rally’s the troops together to try and save it. The formula is 100% predictable, but that’s now why people go and see this brand. Its for the humor which I thought was absolutely the complete opposite from their parody trailers, and had me practically falling asleep. I am just apart of the audience that doesn’t trigger with this film. I cannot get past a movie where the characters break out in dance and song and then when they are finished, continue along as if nothing just happened. My brain can let a lot of things go in a film, but that is the ONE thing I can’t just let go. That happens way too much for my liking.

With this film, you should be able to walk into it knowing full well if you’re going to enjoy it already. If the previous installments of the Muppets brought joy to you, I don’t see why you wouldn’t have a fun time with this one. If you are like me and have never been a fan, but was intrigued that it may have been something a little different based on the marketing, you will have to be cautious. If you don’t like the first ten minutes, you may as well turn it off because it doesn’t get any different then what you saw. It’s a long one note movie that seems to have a nostalgia factor that swooed the critics into remembering their past, therefor giving it a great review. I simply cannot do that because they were never in my past to begin with. I wanted to love it, but it just didn’t happen.

Overall Score: 4/10

Hugo (2011)

Hugo is the astonishing adventure of a wily and resourceful boy whose quest to unlock a secret left to him by his father will transform Hugo and all those around him, and reveal a safe and loving place he can call home.

If you are just walking into Hugo and watching it based solely off the trailers, you’d think it was going to be a kid’s movie. Just about everything about it screamed: FOR KIDS!!! Then you see it was directed by Martin Scorsese and you just know that something doesn’t add up. There is no way Scorsese would waste his time to direct something so pointless. Then the movie starts and about 5 minutes into it you knew you were right. This isn’t a kids movie, this is a film fans movie; a movie that takes you on a journey through cinema and relishes in the love for the past. One review said it perfect; it’s essentially a love letter.

The film begins as a child adventure with the protagonist on a journey to fix a machine that is dad never finished in hopes that it will fill the hole in his chest that his dad left upon him. This is surprisingly exciting to watch as he maneuvers around the train station hidden in walls and ceilings above. Once he meets a girl who has the key to everything he’s been looking for things really start to kick into gear. The mystery starts to feel more intense, the thrill of what is yet to be found keeps you on your toes leaning forward in anticipation. It’s very well-paced and doesn’t slow down until the reveal. Had the movie ended at the reveal, it would have been a tremendous disappointment because it initially comes as a let-down, but it doesn’t stop there. The background of the reveal is shown and this is when the real movie fans sit back and simply enjoy what’s on screen. All I can say with ruining it for the everyone is that it’s just pure nostalgia that should leave you with a big ass smirk when its finished. Martin Scorsese just simply outdoes himself here. It’s too bad the trailers didn’t sell it to an older crowd because that’s exactly the audience that should give this a watch.

There were a lot of recognizable faces in the cast, but the unknown lead Asa Butterfield does a great job here. Normally child actors just annoy the sit out of me, but under the direction of Scorsese, he controls his emotions and delivers a heartwarming performance that only wants you to cheer for him more. Chloe Mertz in a much more defined role then were accustomed to proves she has got to be one of the best child actors to ever walk into Hollywood. She can simply do it all. Her grandfather, Ben Kingsly, seems to get most of the credit in the awards circuit, but he was just alright to me. He didn’t do anything wrong, but I feel when it came down to it, Butterfield showed more raw emotion then Kingsley when called upon. Even somewhat annoying actors Jude Law and Sacha Baron Cohen managed to impress me as much as Kingsley.  It’s no wonder this film wound up so well when you can get the most out of your cast. Not a single character seemed to have been wasted.

If you a fan of movies, you owe yourself to go and watch this. Its one fo the most charming and enjoyable films you can have at the theater. Martin Scorsese use of 3D might be the best I have seen since Avatar, maybe even better since it was used in every single scene, rather than in just sections.  It may be the surprise hit of the year critically speaking, and most certainly deserves to be so. I thank you Scorsese for branching out of your comfort zone and giving us something so unexpected that we can all enjoy.

Overall Score: 9/10

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)

Martha Marcy May Marlene is a powerful psychological thriller starring Elizabeth Olsen as Martha, a young woman rapidly unraveling amidst her attempt to reclaim a normal life after fleeing from a cult and its charismatic leader (John Hawkes). Seeking help from her estranged older sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and brother-in-law (Hugh Dancy), Martha is unable and unwilling to reveal the truth about her disappearance. When her memories trigger a chilling paranoia that her former cult could still be pursuing her, the line between Martha's reality and delusion begins to blur.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is not only one of the biggest tongue twisters in the world but is one of best character dramas of the year. It centers on a character that is compelling enough to reveal two phases of her life at specific times to show the audience just how much control a cult has gained over her.  It dominates the screen time and reveals with fascinating detail exactly how it happened and what becomes of it.

The film takes place immediately after she escapes this cult and begins to live with her sister and brother-in-law. Through series of timely placed flashbacks, you see how she cannot do certain things in current time due to things they reveal during her time with the cult. Things from simply pouring a cup of water to sleeping come with oddities and difficulties that seem somewhat insignificant to us are a chore for our protagonist. The film’s accomplishment of establishing the cult into her life at a slow pace works wonders.  You begin to understand the cult and the purposes of its core just as you learn about the protagonist. The two gel into a pace that eventually feels like one thing. The editing of jumping between timelines with no warning help reveal tidbits you wouldn’t normally catch, and helps setup the ending of the film. A lot of people don’t like the ending because they probably didn’t understand it. If you paid attention to the similarities between he two timelines, the ending shouldn’t be as sudden as you thought. It has a pretty straight forward scenario that can only end in two ways and it does up to the audience too decide which one it will be. My guess, go with the one that makes the film feel better.

This is a cast that is controlled by two people. The newcomer Elizabeth Olsen, who is indeed a sister of the Olsen twins. She is great here, partially because it comes as a shock to some people because nobody thought an Olsen sister could act, but also because she controls the role ironically to a character whose actions have been twisted around one man. That man being John Hawkes, the leader of the cult. Hawkes has very quickly established himself as a threat to win an Oscar once again, and will surely be nominated for the second time in as many years. As the leader, he is charismatic, deceiving, and powerful despite his form simply because of the way Hawkes portrays himself. He has moved himself up the list of actors I’d pay to see in a movie.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is a rare film with an evener rarer subject matter. It’s wonderfully made; from its acting, to its score, and in the editing room. It is just all around well-done. When you finally get a chance to see this limited release gem, make sure you don’t pass it up.

Overall Score: 8/10

Take Shelter (2011)

 Curtis LaForche lives in a small Ohio town with his wife Samantha and six-year-old daughter Hannah, who is deaf. Money is tight, and navigating Hannah's healthcare and special needs education is a constant struggle. Despite that, Curtis and Samantha are very much in love and their family is a happy one. Then Curtis begins having terrifying dreams about an encroaching, apocalyptic storm. He chooses to keep the disturbance to himself, channeling his anxiety into the obsessive building of a storm shelter in their backyard. But the resulting strain on his marriage and tension within the community doesn't compare to Curtis' private fear of what his dreams may truly signify. Faced with the proposition that his disturbing visions signal disaster of one kind or another, Curtis confides in Samantha, testing the power of their bond against the highest possible stakes.

Take Shelter is a psychological thriller that can be downright haunting at times when it finally gets moving, but it seems to be standing still too long at certain moments in the film to keep you on the edge of your seat. But man o man, when it does get going, it gets 110% of your attention because it has moments of pure gold in filmmaking. Had it kept that pace for most of the film, it would surely be sitting near the top than the middle.

Our protagonist, Curtis, has a problem. He thinks the crazy gene that is passed down in his family has been passed to him. He sees things that nobody else seems to see, hears things only he can hear, and has strong panic attacks that take over his body.  Watching the paranoia overtake him and the eventual climax to all the build-up is fucking perfect. It reminds you exactly why you fell in love with movies in the first place. Its climax and ending both keep the tension at its highest point, and place dozen of questions into your head where the answers can only come from you and your interpretation of the film. Where I didn’t really enjoy it comes from the slow pace to that eventual climax. I don’t mind slowly paced dramas, but at times some of the material didn’t really add anything to the film, distorting your attention away from the film. It affected me from falling deeply in love with the film.

What I did fall in love with was Michael Shannon and the dynamite performance he gives here. He just dominates the screen and watching Shannon slowly go nuts is fascinating. His actions during the climax are enough to warrant his performance a top three for the year. Hopefully, during award season, he gets the attention he deserves and it leads to more roles like this instead of direct-to-dvd type of shit he’s put it out recently. His co-lead Jessica Chastin, the year’s breakout actress with 7 critically acclaimed movies, is in the unfortunate position to be once again cast in the shadow of somebody else. It seems to happen in all her movies, and it sucks because she is good in this, but will no doubt go unnoticed.

Take Shelter was one of this year’s most buzzed about films. Since its debut at Sundance, nothing but great things has been said about it.  It helped create an expectation that just couldn’t have been reached. It’s a film with a very strong performance carrying a good enough storyline that relied on a metaphor that could be the focal point on whether you like the film or not. It wasn’t the gritty drama I wanted, but still a film that tried enough to be worth your time.

Overall Score: 7.5/10

Like Crazy (2011)

A love story is both a physical and emotional tale, one that can be deeply personal and heartbreaking for an audience to experience. Director Drake Doremus' film Like Crazy beautifully illustrates how your first real love is as thrilling and blissful as it is devastating. When a British college student (Felicity Jones) falls for her American classmate (Anton Yelchin) they embark on a passionate and life-changing journey only to be separated when she violates the terms of her visa. Like Crazy explores how a couple faces the real challenges of being together and of being apart.

Like Crazy is a very raw film. You can detect the films low budget and improvised set pieces simply by watching. It’s one of the more important factors that prove to be a strong technique in its story telling because this isn’t your typical romance movie. It doesn’t try to be flashy and come off as a “typical” teenage romance, but instead aims for a far more realistic perspective through the eyes of two people that want to be together, but always find themselves apart. It’s a compelling watch, which at times, becomes hard to get through.  

The relationship of the couple is the films entire story arc and very much like the relationship itself, the interest in watching it does up and down. When the couple is at its happiest, the film is good; when they are at rock bottom, it is fantastic, but when they are middling in-between, it becomes a bit frustrating to watch. You see this is a long-distance relationship that becomes annoyingly repetitive in their goals to keep them apart. Some of the obstacles placed between them make you roll your eyes, become annoyed and just wait for their next plan to fail. This is the aspect of the film that can really flip you from enjoying it. If you can get past this, you can get a unique look into this couple. A lot fo the techniques the director chose to use place these two young adults into interesting scenarios that come to test them. It makes you wonder if they are meant to be, or even if they will end up together. It tries to stray away from predictability and that’s where the appeal comes from. It’s a story that can end in so many different ways, but the only way to see which one it concludes with is to see for yourself.

In the two starring roles as the couple are Anton Yelchin (who has been on the rise for a while) and relative newcomer Felicity Jones. They both are really strong throughout the film, but there best moments come when there characters are truly at their worst. The emotions between them ooze through the screen and even affect the audience. This is the film that will have started it all when you look back at these two stars twenty years from now. Included in the cast in a small but crucial role is Jennifer Lawrence. Despite what the trailers made it seem, she’s a very minor character but steals scenes in them. It helps establish the notion in my head that Winters Bone wasn’t a one hit wonder for her. It’s a small but wonderful cast the gels together to establish an all-around good film.

If you’re in the mood for a thoughtful, sometimes messy, romance film in the same veins of Blue Valentine, this is exactly what you’re looking for. It’s a great detour from all that flashy predictable shit Hollywood tries to sell you. It can be a tough watch but seems worth it for a movie where the young protagonists don’t come off as dumb twats in needing of a slap to the back of the head. Try not to let this indie fly past you, you may regret it.  

Overall Score: 7.5/10

Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings (2011)

Friends on a winter break snowmobiling excursion make a wrong turn during a snowstorm and get lost in a nightmare. Seeking shelter in a presumably abandoned sanatorium, they awaken the horrific residents, including former patients and cannibals.

When you get to the fourth film in a horror series that has only gotten progressively worse with each film, you know you’re in for a real treat. You can expect to see plenty of dumbass things, but the entire point of it all is to just sit back and enjoy the film for the B movie that it’s trying to be. Wrong Turn 4 does a really good job with this concept for the first hour or so, but then the film reaches a point to where only the brave and insane dare test their eyes.

To the viewer’s familiar with the franchise, this film reveals the origins of the deformed, people-eating, psycho hillbilly brothers. It’s fairly standard stuff from this genre; mental hospital, escaping and killing everyone, living there for 15 years, you know, standard. Everything is dark and gloomy for them until a bunch of college kids get caught up in a storm and are forced to seek shelter in the now abandoned hospital. Here is when the crazy brothers go to town and they pick them off one by one, and then eat them in front of the camera for your viewing pleasure. It gets disgusting, violent, and terribly acted; in other words, exactly what you wanted. Its fun watching amateur actors taking no these type of shitty roles in hopes that it’s a jumpstart into something bigger. They put themselves in some terrible situations to fail, and they accomplish that goal with flying colors. I’d need more than two hands to keep track of the number of times I got a kick out of something someone did or said. Seeing these brothers again just ripping through these kids is just plain dumb fun.

Then something happens about an hour into the film and it completely raises the stakes in pure awesomeness. In a blatant spoiler, our protagonists have the brothers trapped in a jail cell and right before they go to burn them alive a character suddenly has a change of heart and convinces them not to become like them. SO they leave one person in charge of watching them while they go off and have sex. Then this character in charge of watching falls asleep right next to the cell where the brothers that killed a bunch of his friends now secretly escape and continue onward with their reign of chaos over the hospital. The rest of the film is so god damn bad, you’ll either find yourself looking with disgust or laughing with a smile. This is the type of film you already know if you’d love and if this is the crap that keeps you entertained, have yourself a good laugh. It really makes up for the god awful third one in the series.  

Overall Score: 3/10

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

 In 1988, young sisters Katie and Kristi befriend an invisible entity who resides in their home.

Another year, another installment in the ghostly “realistic” franchise. It’s strange because unlike a lot of folks, I thought the first was terrible and the second was awesome. There was something about the second installments audio that scared the shit out of me; so when the third entry leaned more towards the second than the first, I was somewhat excited to see what kind of scares they had in store for its audience this time around.

They went into prequel territory again, but this one feels a little too much for the audience to believe in. The entire setup of getting the camera involved is came about in a very absurd way and really hampers any type of thought that this is reality, but it’s a necessary component because it’s the key selling point for the franchise. If you can get past that, you get a much more complex plot, filled with twists, annoying characters, and daresay witchcraft. This idea to bring in witchcraft helps prolong the franchise, but for me personally, I immediately get turned off with this type of shit. I bet others are in the same boat as me. Then to make matters worse, these choices the parents of these children make are downright awful to the point that you want to go through the screen and give them a nice slap in the back of the head.

As far as the scares come, the film does a few things right. The audio is fantastic once again that only a theater or a great home theater system can provide. The vibrations cause more scares then what’s on the screen itself. It’s about the only improvement each film has made. The on-screen material is very creative and relies less on CGI this time around, but a lot of the characters reactions quickly cause you to react much differently. You may have a decent time with Paranormal Activity 3, but it’s not very good. It’s probably the worst entry and makes the franchises original appeal feel stale and repetitive now. Unless something drastically changes for the next one, the upcoming sequels can be in real trouble. If you’re in the mood for a few jumps and a pretty quick watch, give the third installment a go.

Overall Score: 3/10

The Thing (2011)

Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has traveled to the desolate region for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. But it is about to wake up. When a simple experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate must join the crew's pilot, Carter (Joel Edgerton), to keep it from killing them off one at a time. And in this vast, intense land, a parasite that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish.

Regardless of what is said about this 2011 adaption of The Thing, it is definitely a remake. Sure the storyline takes place before the original and it leads right up into the original, but it practically goes through the exact same motions and feels completely underwhelming. Especially if you’ve seen the original before. It’s a shame too because this film isn’t all that bad but it never tries to be something different so it makes you wonder why the hell they needed to revisit this film again.

A group of scientists and experts find something in the ice and the ship it came to earth on. Somewhere along the way the thing gets out, starts trying to escape into a populated area, and in doing so takes the forms of the people in the group it has killed. Sound familiar at all? The best parts of the film is the constant paranoia of who’s human and who isn’t. The tension here is very dull. You can practically decide in the first few minutes who will last and when exactly they will die. It’s predictable, boring, and at times, albeit very, very little, can be entertaining.  

The group of people this time around don’t have that same level of awesomeness as the original. As much as Mary Elizabeth Winstead tries to pull off Kurt Russell, she can’t hold a candle to him. If you try and wipe away that comparison, she actually doesn’t seem that bad. She makes all the right choices to survive, never looks stupid and comes off as a smart character. It’s just that comparison will always be there. It may seem unfair, but that’s what happens when you try and remake a classic.

One of the only enjoyable parts of this film since technically it’s a prequel was watching the film set up its pieces to fit into the original. From the helicopter chasing the dog, to the two faced monster, and even the axe in the wall, it all aligns itself to fit neatly into one LONG film. The bottom line is that the original is the one worth seeing and only after you’ve seen that should you even bother trying to watch this. The original is a classic horror film, while this comes across as a cheesy monster mess.

Overall Score: 4.5/10

The Ides of March (2011)

The Ides of March takes place during the frantic last days before a heavily contested Ohio presidential primary, when an up-and-coming campaign press secretary (Ryan Gosling) finds himself involved in a political scandal that threatens to upend his candidate's shot at the presidency

The Ides of March is a political thriller through and through. It follows the path countless other films have taken with manipulation, morale dilemmas, and back stabbing. It won’t ever be touted for its incredible creativity, but it does establish a solid story, filled with rich characters, and leaves you with an ending that isn’t exactly jaw-dropping but leaves the audience with a question where the answer is different for every person watching. It’s about the only great thing this good film actually accomplished.

In such a small role, George Clooney ends up being the focus of the entire film. It’s not necessarily the character that is glorified but the idea he represents that’s at the center of this web involving the lives of many. For Stephen Meyers, Mike Morris (Clooney) is everything he’s ever wanted. He truly believes he’s the man that can change the country and affect the lives on many positively. In doing so, he’ll go to great lengths to make sure he wins, but ends up becoming the very person he looked at with disgust. This characters transformation is believable, sort of depressing, and is consistently above of the line of entertaining with small dips into the stale category.  At the end he’s left with a choice that has two drastically different consequences based on the route he chooses. This is where the audience gets involved and asks what you do?

The cast is filled with an all-star cast featuring the names of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, George Clooney, and Marisa Tomei. These names round out just the supporting cast with little to almost no screen time. It’s just amazing the talent Clooney was able to round up as a director. He must have called in a lot of favors. Ryan Gosling as the main attraction does his usual somewhat less impactful performance, but still manages to cement himself as one of the best actors working today. The true standout here comes in the form of the young interim played by Evan Rachel Wood. She out acts everybody and captures the audience’s emotions in a small amount of time. You begin to care for her, which is important because her character is vital to the moral struggle at the root of the film. When you think of the cast all together, it is really impressive that Wood stands on top.

If you’re into a carefully structured thriller with a consistent level of tension, The Ides of March should be right up your ally. It’s not the runaway hit it was supposed to be, but it still ends up being a very solid flick with good intentions that don’t impress as much as we all would’ve liked. The worst thing I can say about the film is that it’s only solid.   

Overall Score: 7.5/10

My Week With Marilyn (2011)

In the early summer of 1956, 23 year-old Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), just down from Oxford and determined to make his way in the film business, worked as a lowly assistant on the set of 'The Prince and the Showgirl'. The film that famously united Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) and Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams), who was also on honeymoon with her new husband, the playwright Aurthur Miller (Dougray Scott).

My Week with Marilyn is a film that knows exactly what strings to pull to give the appearance that what you are watching is incredible. It flashes its stars with “epic” speeches right about where they should be and glamour them around in some great costumes/set designs. The process of this story makes the film feel entirely clichéd, but it’s done so well that the impact it leaves on you is not deteriorated in the slightest.

The story that is told in My Week with Marilyn is obviously centered on Marylyn Monroe and how the publicity drowned her into a state of chaos. She’s actually acting when she’s in front of an audience, but behind the scenes she’s an unstable immature woman that is controlled as a mascot for Hollywood. It’s nothing that truly blows you away, nor comes as a surprise, but the pace of the film is executed extremely well. Just when the movie feels a bit too cheesy, light hearted drama, it turns into a far more serious spiral reveals the struggles Monroe went through when she was placed in the spotlight at the wrong time in her life. It’s a trend that stands true for actresses today and will last for as long as the business remains.  

As for the performances, Michelle Williams has worked her way out of my hated pool the last few years and slowly ended up climbing all the way to the top for me with her performance as Marilyn Monroe. Instead of trying to imitate the real woman, she portrayed her own vision of the character and it works wonders because you never spend time trying to compare the two. She lays herself on the reel and shows the vulnerabilities and consequences that came with her fame. In the supporting role, Kenneth Branagh is dynamite. He plays a character I have almost to no information about, but there are numerous moments of the film where the entire scene is focused on him and he speaks with such control and precision, that all of your attention is entirely zoned in on him. It may even be the better of the two in a film that is full of wonderful performances. The weak link here though has to be Eddie Redmayne. He doesn’t do a terrible job, but the script limited his character to be more of a shadow following everyone else around. He feels overmatched and powerless.

This is a film that you may have a hard time falling in love with. It’s a good film filled with great moments that make it feel better than it actually was, but it doesn’t really matter because regardless of your opinion of how much you enjoyed it, you will enjoy it nonetheless. The performances alone by Williams and Branagh should get you to watch it, but everything else can just be icing on the cake.  

Fun Fact: Kenneth Branagh actually directed Thor. He’s the double threat.

Overall Score: 8/10

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011)

Following years of growing apart, Harold Lee (Cho) and Kumar Patel (Penn) have replaced each other with new friends and are preparing for their respective Yuletide celebrations. But when a mysterious package mistakenly arrives at Kumar's door on Christmas Eve, his attempt to redirect it to Harold's house ends with the "high grade" contents-and Harold's father-in-law's prize Christmas tree-going up in smoke. With his in-laws out of the house for the day, Harold decides to cover his tracks, rather than come clean. Reluctantly embarking on another ill-advised journey with Kumar through New York City, their search for the perfect replacement tree takes them through party heaven-and almost blows Christmas Eve sky high.

The first film in this series was a fun mildly successful comedy that was funny in all the right ways. The second one is a much divided film. Some loved it, but I was a part of that other group that thought it was a lazy cash grab sequel that was high on receptiveness and low on laughs. This third one released a red band trailer that was just too god damn funny to not anticipate it, so there it went, sucking back in. Only this time was different, this time it was creative, this time it was original, and this time it twas actually funny.

The story this time around isn’t as Christmas related as its advertised. Its more along the lines of an adventure film with the guys trying to find the perfect Christmas tree to replace the old one they burned down. Its linear plot moves them from outrageous scenario to outrageous scenario, but this time around they decide to try new things instead of bringing back countless cameos that the second film did. They make you laugh but never outstay their welcome. This quick pace kept the film allowing little in-between time to catch your breathe. The one reappearance that they just had to bring back was NPH playing NPH. This is the perfect definition of a cameo. He pops up, brings a ton of laughs and moves the characters right along their path. Quick, funny, and to the point. He even sends them off with a message telling them” See ya in the 4th one boys!.” Just classic. His “massage” had me rolling.

This isn’t some groundbreaking new film; it throws confetti at the screen simply because it can. With the 3D it actually looks fine. It reminds you that these characters need to comeback for another adventure because with a little effort, these films are fun. You can pretty much tell yourself if you’d give this one a go, but if you were in my situation, don’t let the second film throw away your experience with this one. It’s a hoot.

Overall Score: 6/10

J. Edgar (2011)

Leonardo DiCaprio stars in this riveting biopic as J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director as notorious for his overzealous methods of law enforcement as for the rumors regarding his cross-dressing and close relationship with protégé Clyde Tolson(Arnie Hammer).

J. Edgar was going to be a great movie. It just had to be. It had an all-star cast led by the always great Leonardo DiCaprio, Clint Eastwood was behind the camera working with a script from the screenwriter of Milk, and the film was placed in prime real estate to make an Oscar run. Funny how it was supposed to be. Instead what we got was a dynamite performance carrying a messy and cautious script that couldn’t establish a comfortable pace or focus on a clear subject.

There was plenty of material they could have dug up and thrown on screen through the life of J Edgar Hoover, but they seemed to get carried away a bit with just how much they could tackle. Important moments in his life are shown but quickly pushed aside trying to tackle on the next best thing that awaits you. This feels messy, rushed, and most importantly too vague. It might have turned out much better had they picked four or five defining moments for Hoover and ran away with them. Most of the interesting moments in Hoover’s professional career came from his contributions to the FBI and making it become the agency it represents today. He was a very intelligent man who used that very knowledge to work his way to the top and quickly I might add. It’s his field work and shady dealings that actually became a bore. They jump too much time without notification and sometimes can become a bit confusing to catch up. A simple years later at the bottom of the screen could have done wonders.

The films biggest strengths and weakness come when they explore J Edgars sexuality and the complicated relationship he forms with Clyde Tolson. The film certainly applies that he’s gay, but quickly cuts away from these moments between the two as if telling you to look away, this is wrong. It didn’t take enough risks and paid for it. The performance laid out here by DiCaprio is simply outstanding. It’s arguably the best performance of his career. Despite the script holding back, he shows the vulnerable and egotistical man Hoover was said to be. His counterpart Arnie Hammer as Clyde Tolson shows he is an young actor to watch out for following closely in the show of DiCaprio. The rest of the cast turned in fine, but very minor roles in comparison.

One of the film’s most curious aspects was using actual makeup to age the actors as they move along. It’s something that takes the eyes to adjust too, but outside of Arnie Hammer, they did an exceptional job of them. Leonardo DiCaprio was barely recognizable under all that rubber and makeup. This seemed to be the only risk the film decided to take, and if the rest of the film followed suit it might have been the quality it was expected to be. It’s not a bad film by any means, but years from now we’ll look back at this project and just wonder, what if……

Overall Score: 7/10

Straw Dogs (2011)

David and Amy Sumner (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth), a Hollywood screenwriter and his actress wife, return to her small hometown in the deep South to prepare the family home for sale after her father's death. Once there, tensions build in their marriage and old conflicts re-emerge with the locals, including Amy's ex-boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard), leading to a violent confrontation.

I have never seen the original Straw Dogs, which has somehow escaped my list, but from what I’ve gathered, it was a vicious film that went on to become a critical darling. With all this acclaim and recognition, this remake ultimately seems unnecessary. There is no reason to remake a film that you cannot improve. It defeats the purpose of a remake. Despite the wave of caution, I sat down and watched Straw Dogs and by the end wished I had just gone out and got the original instead.

The film is filled with fake characters played by untalented actors that chug through a half assed storyline that brings all them onto a one way collision into each other. When David decides to move into his wife’s hometown, a group from the community harasses him because his city lifestyle doesn’t fit in with the town. Because of his reactions to these harassments, his wife begins to question his manhood. All of this coils inside him just waiting to be released. This is supposed to be crucial for his character because the latter half of the movie turns into a home invasion flick, but James Marsden plays the character all wrong. He’s too confident, too charming, and too comfortable in the role. You never believe in the character and cannot root for him to overcome these obstacles.

On the flipside, the villains are a little more developed, placed in situations that create more of an intrigue to them. The main source of it comes from the ambiguity of the rape scene. It makes you question the motives behind them and the wife. It’s not disturbing by any means, but the difference in intention between the characters gives the audience something to think about.  They do a good job here, specifically, Alexander Skarsgård, who is recognizable as Eric from True Blood. His deadly calm stare can burn a hole right through you.

If you’re looking for a decent film with some thrills and some violent death scenes, you could definitely do worse than this remake. It does enough to not be terrible, but not enough to be considered good.  It’s a film that you can watch and enjoy, but you don’t really have to.

Overall Score: 5/10

In Time (2011)

When Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is falsely accused of murder, he must figure out a way to bring down a system where time is money - literally - enabling the wealthy to live forever while the poor, like Will, have to beg, borrow, and steal enough minutes to make it through another day.

With such an intriguing universe, In Time set itself up to open a completely new world to its audience. Money has become useless and actual time has become the only form of currency available. At the start, this bizarre new world that is thrown at us becomes overwhelming with information about how this world operates and the inhabitants that function within the society. It keeps it fresh and appealing, showing off a new perspective on things we do every day and how much they have changed now that the population has become ticking time bombs that can die if their time runs out. But considering just how many possibilities they could have went, part of me feels like the appeal wore off faster than it should have. If the world of the film was the sole reason you walk into the film, you’ll most likely walk away with disappointment.

On the other hand, most of the characters are entertaining, albeit a little underdeveloped.  Justin Timberlake in the lead role in an action film may not feel right on paper, but the guy is just fun to watch. He won’t blow you away here, buts he’s completely solid. His chemistry between Amanda Seyfried (who is looking far hotter than I am accustomed to) allows to the film to work past some of its weaker elements like the films antagonist Raymond, played by Cillian Murphy. The character feels far less potent then he should be and he spends too much time making mistakes that allow the leads to get away just in the nick of time. He also seems to bicker to the protagonist about this universe past but always stops right before he actually gives you a full answer. It’s very frustrating.

If you’re in the mood to watch a purely entertaining film, In Time will be just enough.  If you’re feeling for something that will challenge your mind, give it a pass. Outside a few creative and heart pounding scenes, this feels a little better than generic. It’s a film that is easy to recommend to the average moviegoer, but I feel hesitant with everybody else. If you don’t watch a lot of movies, why waste your time with something above average when you can watch something great.

Overall Score: 6.5/10

Real Steel (2011)

In a future world where flesh-and-blood boxers have been replaced by towering mechanized fighters, pugilist-turned-promoter Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) reconnects with his estranged son, Max, to convert a discarded machine into a World Robot Boxing contender.

They didn’t seem to wait very long to reboot the Transformers franchise, and this attempt didn’t seem to fare much better than the previous two installments. All joking aside, this is actually just a live action rock’em sock’em robots movie. With it comes a very familiar underdog boxing story that is filled with plenty of clichéd cheesiness but is bailed out a bit by some surprisingly fun fighting sequences spread throughout the film.

With the boxing aspect of the story, you get absolutely nothing new from the predicable formula that comes with it. An undervalued robot with no chance in hell of winning, since it was found in a god damn junkyard, rallies up the strength to take on some of the best fighting robots in the world. It’s easy on the mind, and the simple plot is easy to follow. You have fun with this aspect of the film. It’s a tiny change of pace seeing how the robot handles itself rather than an actual human being. Where the film strays off and falls off the cliff is with the robots owners, the father and the boy he sells for money. This relationship between the two is so fake and forced; you just simply cannot get by just how terrible Hugh Jackman is as a father. It just isn’t possible for you to root for this guy to succeed, yet the film plays it off as one big funny joke. When you get to the climax, it goes completely over the top bad, and you realize that this is just a shot for shot remake of Rocky 6. That isn’t the type of film you should strive to become because it was awful.

 Hugh Jackman plays the funny asshole of a father pretty well if that’s what they wanted to aim for, but something tells me that is not the idea they were looking to achieve. He doesn’t hurt the film, but it’s hard to root for a protagonist that isn’t relatable in the slightest. What makes matters worse is the child actor who I refuse to even look up the name for, comes across as a spoiled, bored, brat. Maybe it would have been better if the kid just fell off the cliff a quarter into the film. Then maybe we would have got a gritty robot fighting movie that would have ended up being a whole lot better.

Real Steal has some good action scenes that are pretty entertaining but they come at the cost of watching a terrible relationship bond that feels like filler material to just get to the next fight. If you have a kid, nephew, or mentally challenged adult with you, I am sure they will enjoy it. They seem to be the target audience for a film like this and at least you have an excuse to why you took time out of your day to see a film of this quality. Watch if you must, but try and avoid.  

Overall Score: 3/10

Drive (2011)

 A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.

There are plenty of times when you see a great film but still find a few things wrong with it. Rarely do you walk into a film and right from the start love every second of it, but   daresay that Drive is one of the few exceptions. The movie just flows at you in such a smooth but vibrant way, you cannot help but fall in love with everything. It’s a film that will leave its audience with its jaw dropped having just spoiled them with something that just doesn’t happen all that often. Films just don’t come together and be executed effectively as well as Drive did; that’s why it’s my lock to be the best film of 2011.  

Its story has been one that has actually been told quite a bit in cinema but the creative manner in which it is handled has it stand out from the rest of the pack. Driver as the film likes to call him, gets caught up in a romance that could be the end of him. It forces him to do things so crazy, so violent, and so brutally awesome, you cannot help but just cheer for him to kill every last one of them.  Where the film is at its best is when it does very little. It lets scenes play out and interactions take place between characters with loud music pumping and very little dialogue between them. It adds a tense emotional vibe to each scene that makes every moment seem like it’s better than the last. Where it seemed to be most shocking is in its violent moments. They don’t hold anything back and ends up being one of the more brutal films I have ever watched. The violent scenes are there for entertainment, but if you give it some thought it opens up the possibility of a backstory you dare wish to witness. It’s not entirely original, but when you handle so many things right, it feels like you’re watching a refreshing classic.

The strongest points in the film stand with its characters. Ryan Gosling as Driver gives one of the best performances of the year. Gosling has always been a dynamic actor who goes full out in his roles, but here he gives something you’ve never seen before. He’s a killer willing to do anything to protect what he loves, but you flip to that soft side and wonder where he channels all of that rage. It’s scary to think about. It is not his best performance of his career, but it’s definitely my favorite. It’s a character that should leave its mark for years to come. The cast around him all make springing turns in less than predictable roles. Carey Mulligan plays a sweet innocent woman who channels her emotions effortlessly through her body movement and tone. Bryan Cranston delivers a small, but vital role turning in a complete reversal from his TV alias. The two protagonists in Albert Brooks and Ron Pearlman create a foe with high tension. They effortlessly place fear into anyway who stands in their way.

One of the more creative inputs into Drive comes from its musical score and overall use of the city of Los Angeles. Around every scene comes a score that symbolizes the tone of what’s going on. Every film does this, but here with this film, it’s almost flawless. Outside of a few mismatched moments, it creates a tension in your blood that keeps it flowing from beginning to end.  The use of the city helps it become a character in itself. It’s hard to put into words, but once you see the camera pulling back and catch a sight of the landscape you’ll now it’s so damn controlled and authentic.

Drive is a movie that must be seen in the theater. Seeing it at home won’t dampen the quality, but the audio comes roaring to life sitting there on the big screen. It’s just another part of the film that was well thought out enhancing an already great experience. I don’t care if there is nothing about this movie that appeals to you, this is an absolute must see and come award season, should be worthy of earning a lot of gold, whether it does or not remains to be seen, but I cannot tell you how much you will love this film. It’s a film fans wet dream.

Overall Score: 10/10

Moneyball (2011)

 An all-star cast brings to life the true story of Billy Beane, a former jock turned general manager who uses unconventional methods to bring the best players to the Oakland A's, a major league baseball team struggling against financial hardship.

It’s a very unfair comparison because the two films have almost nothing in common, but Moneyball is very similar to The Social Network in a lot of ways. They both came around a little before the award season started swinging, both are quite bit of buzz to them, but most importantly their approach to the subject matter is different than just its surface reflection. Where the Social Network was a movie about Mark Zuckerberg that just had Facebook as a fuel to get going, Moneyball is about Billy Beane and how he viewed the game of baseball rather than the game itself. It has a few moments just like its trailer, where it wows you, but simply falls short of matching The Social Network in most ways.

Billy Beane struggling to put together a winning team with a severe lack of money is a tale of unbalanced sides. On one hand you get a natural semi-slow pace of a man going against a wave of criticism to do what he feels is necessary to win. This is when the film is at its best because it has that great musical score playing while Billy Beane battles himself in whether this scheme is as crazy as it looks. The dramatic tone and underdog scenario helped you want him to succeed while enjoying the successes of risk. What the film struggled with most was its comedic light-hearted approach the rest of the film took. Can the film be funny? Yes, but it didn’t feel quite right with its subject matter. I didn’t come and see Moneyball to laugh; I came to see the struggles Billy Beane placed upon the game of baseball. It just felt so out of place, yet is heard in most scenes. That tone seemed overshadowed a lot of the positive notes the film established and dirve the momentum of seriousness into the ground.

Despite some distaste I have for most of this film, Brad Pitt makes it work. As Billy Beane, he shows all the signs of a former player who struggled to live up to the lofty expectations placed upon him and use it as the key motivation behind trying to change this game of baseball. His struggles are relayed back to you through subtle moments of just Pitt gazing onto the field. These tiny moments are when the film is at its best. Now I have no idea why they decided to cast Jonah Hill in this film, but he doesn’t do much. He has a bit of his past roles shown here, but for the most part he checks down his annoying habits and just acts. It’s nothing to praise, but something could have been a disaster didn’t end up biting them in their ass. As for some of the cameos, they were fun to watch as a baseball fan, but meaningless to the average movie watcher.

As disappointing as the film was for me, I don’t really have a hard time recommending it because my expectations were far too unreachable when I look back upon them. It’s a decent baseball movie that focuses on an intriguing character that has enough layers to them to keep you entertained all the way through. It won’t be on any best of lists this year, but I can see this having a spot among many favorites lists for many others. Give this a watch if you were already planning to see, but if it wasn’t give it some thought to add to your list.

Overall Score: 7/10

Contagion (2011)

Steven Soderbergh steers big stars through this big-screen disaster-thriller about a global team of doctors tasked with tamping down a deadly outbreak of infectious disease before it annihilates mankind.

These pandemics films come and go every single year; maybe because they all usually perform well financially or lazy creativity, but it’s a guarantee to get one of these suckers. A lot of the time these films deal with the survivors and their struggle to survive, but Contagion is very different; both in tone and pace. This isn’t a fast paced thriller following the violent outcome starting from the virus, but instead leans heavily on showing the behind the scenes perspective on the people responsible for finding a cure. It’s a great change of pace and unique feel, but I hardly hope this trend continues.

The film is solid. That’s as good as it’s going to get but on the other side, it’s never at one point bad. It’s going to keep you entertained the entire time, but it will never wow you with that one moment that makes the film stand out in all of this chaos. The multiple character arcs tended to be a little too much because a few of them felt rushed with little to no screen time to develop a vital point to their stories. Some could have been completely left out and the film would have had the same effect. What it did right was its procedures. You never know if a cure can be made let alone get it out to everyone before a serious dent in the population dies away. It takes months to get things done and during that time were shown a little bit of chaos this had caused and a lot of the science that comes out of it. If you have the patience the plot can become very interesting to watch even if some of it runs by your head. It’s very smart lightly played out story.

With these characters, you got a lot of huge names. It worked and it didn’t work. In proving to be a bit ballsy, nobody is safe despite how big your name is. If a character makes mistakes they will die, as simple as that. It’s refreshing than what we have grown accustomed too. On the other side of that argument, I see no reason to waste a big name on such minor, forgeable, bland roles that never became developed. This isn’t what you’d call an actor’s showcase, but more of an ensemble cast that works well together in the same vein as the Oceans trilogy, (a fellow Soderbergh film). This is the type of film where the story trumps the characters quite a bit.

If you’re interested in watching a thriller that scares the living shit out of you without actually ever being scary, than Contagion really hits the spot. Its realistic approach to how a simple disease can spread is terrifying and will likely turn you into a germaphobe for a few days after the viewing. It’s not like any films of the genre; it moves slow, takes its time and stretches out a story over months without revealing a whole lot. Action junkies are warned to stay away, there isn’t much of that here, but a hard to form tension is created that helps the film succeed.  

Overall Score: 7.5/10

Apollo 18 (2011)

 If you buy in to official statements, Apollo 17 was NASA's last manned mission to the moon. But what if found footage of a secret Apollo mission that had taken place the following year could prove otherwise -- and explain why we haven't gone back?

In what may be an overused statement with nearly every one of these releases, all of these found footage films all seem to follow a pre-determined path because they are forced to because of the style they choose. Things begin on high hopes, strange things start to happen, something happens to the filmmakers and all that is left of their “experience” is the footage that they shot found by some unknown person who decides to make it into a movie. Apollo 18 follows this path pretty much too a tee, but all things considering, it might be the most ambitious films I have seen from the genre.

The idea that there was something on the moon that prevented us from wanting to go back is an attention grabber. That’s the film rope to try and reel you in, but what they do next is either going to keep you guessing or turn you off from boredom. In a really slow process, the astronauts quickly arrive on the moon, and once there, they begin to do their mission of setting up surveillance equipment to spy on the Russians, but slowly they begin to realize that was never their mission. They were brought up there to discover the moons best kept secret.  This process is very slow and I realize some maybe many (according to the RT score of 24%) become bored of this routine and setup, but the people that will enjoy it witness a very authentic feeling story that is carefully constructed to make it feel like its actual found footage. The mystery on the moon isn’t copped out with them revealing full circle what it is, but what many people including me will be left in the dark on everything about the mystery. It answers absolutely no questions one might ask.

As for the actors themselves, they are all relatively unknown actors into the roles which make the film feel more authentic. They did a pretty damn good job. Typically there is one annoying character in all of these films, but with only three actors shown throughout, they all made due on their screen time. The lead, if you’d like to call him that, Ben Anderson did a great job of establishing his character and made you root for him and feel the weight of the consequences that came due to the choices he makes. To me, he felt like a real astronaut, a real husband, and a real friend.

The department that comes down to the biggest disappointment is its horror aspect. It’s simply not scary. It can be tense in a few of its moments and being stuck in space with small spaces and low oxygen, these are terrifying scenarios, but in terms of actual jumps, I can count on one hand how many times that happened. If you’re looking to watch a highly ambitious film that falls a little short, but can still appreciate what it tried to accomplish, Apollo 18 is a real winner. Its not the best, but is probably my personal favorite found footage film.

Overall Score: 6.5/10

The Devil's Double (2011)

 Dominic Cooper stars as Uday Hussein -- Saddam Hussein's depraved, decadent elder son -- and as Latif Yahia, the army lieutenant forcibly drafted to be his body double, in this drama based on Yahia's autobiographical novel. With his family's fate on the line, Yahia surrenders his identity to embody the hated figure but gains a conspirator in Uday's concubine, Sarrab (Ludivine Sagnier), as he plots his escape.

The Devils Double is a kind of film that is completely inaccurate of its source material but benefits because of it by giving the audience an entertaining story. If the material isn’t worth watching, you pull it all in ways to make it work and fit for the story you want to tell as a filmmaker. Despite all the inaccuracies with the language, the looks, and the cast, you allow yourself to look past all of that and enjoy what is a decent flick that is carried by a vicious yet perfect movie character.

The film opens up with a man named Latif being brought into the violent world of Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, to be his body double. They perform the necessary tasks to make the two men appear identical pretty quickly, and then the film goes off into what is a very fast approach. It never hides that its trying to be an action thriller rather than a history lesson and thus gives us a fictional portrayal based loosely on facts that allows us to see just how crazy Uday Hussein is. In just a short amount of time, you witness the corruption, vicious, mentally unstable doggie that Uday is; all seen through the eyes of his body double. Where the film takes a somewhat disappointing route is with this character. Latif is presented as the protagonist caught up in a terrible situation, but the arc was both boring and predictable. Scenes without the Saddam family felt unnecessary and stale in comparison to the rest. It felt a little rushed and if not for the dynamite performance by Dominic Cooper, the film would have been very ordinary.

As you can tell from the trailers, Dominic Cooper plays both Uday and Latif. With one character, he’s a complete lunatic, willing to kill anyone, anywhere, for absolutely no reason at all. He’s unpredictable; that’s where all the entertainment is. He has this sort of laugh he does throughout the whole film that simply is incredible and makes the character work. On the other side, he plays a character whose supposed to be pretending to be another, essentially he is trying to portray another version of himself, which seems very difficult to do, but Cooper manages to do just that. He simply is the movie and without him, the film would’ve fallen flat on its face. A brief appearance by Saddam himself is well placed and shines a light on just how crazy Uday is when even the devil himself cannot stand him for what he is. A few forgettable roles with minor side characters are present but thankfully aren’t given enough time to bring the film down farther than it was.

If the trailer fascinated you, than you should get exactly what you wanted out of The Devils Double; a violent, thrilling look into the life of Uday Hussein. If you’re a history buff looking for something more accurate, look away, this isn’t it. The performance alone comes highly recommended, but as a whole film, you shouldn’t walk in expecting whole lot, but its entertaining to say the least.  

Overall Score: 7/10