Dredd

Dredd (R) - Runtime: 95 minutes
Starring: Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Lena Heady
Director: Pete Travis
Writer: Alex Garland

Here's a movie I was on the fence about when it came out. I just thought this movie looked more like a really bad B-movie than anything worth watching. But it had really strong reviews and for the most part has been overlooked in this superhero-crazy age of Hollywood. While Dredd may not be a straight-up superhero movie, it certainly has all the trappings. But instead of some boring origin plot or providing us with a ton of backstory to the universe Dredd dwells in, writer Alex Garland chooses instead to drop us in the middle of a typical (at least for Dredd) day as Mega City One's only law-enforcement agency, the Judges. And it's absolutely fantastic.

Judge Dredd is the law. He is all black and white and there is no room for anything else. It just so happens that today he gets stuck with a rookie named Anderson - a tiny woman with psychic abilities who may not be qualified to be a good Judge, but her power gives her a leg up on everyone else. Meanwhile, in Peach Trees, a 200-story slum tower, Ma-Ma is in control. She is a ruthless prostitute-turned-gangster who is peddling a new drug called slo-mo. When you inhale, your brain processes everything as slow motion. When Dredd and rookie Anderson decide to investigate a brutal triple homicide, they get trapped inside the tower with thousands of people trying to kill them.

It's an oh-shit moment when the doors get locked and there's no way out. I just kept thinking how the hell are they going to get out? That's the beauty of this film - it's a complete rush and no moment is wasted. The action is superb - it's highly stylized and the slo-mo drug makes for some amazing visuals as Dredd pops caps in people's skulls, torsos and limbs. Blood and guts fly everywhere and it is a glorious site to behold. It really is quite mesmerizing, but that's just part of the greatness of this movie.

Karl Urban's performance is the best thing about this movie. Neither playing it tongue-in-cheek, nor being too robotic, Urban manages to present Dredd as a logical, best-solution at-hand kind of person. He has no sympathy for people violating the law and even though we never see his whole face, we continue to root for this guy. What could have been a bad prop design for comic effect (that oversized helmet!) is actually seen as pretty badass. It's all because of Urban's performance and the way the film's tone is set. Kudos to everyone involved because this film could have been just as bad as the original Judge Dredd with Stallone.

As for the rest of the cast, Heady is simply maniacal as Ma-Ma. She's simply sadistic and the perfect foil to Dredd's no-bullshit attitude. Olivia Thirlby is actually quite good, too. She looks a little ridiculous in her outfit, but you stop caring after the first 15 minutes when you're seeing people's bellies and heads explode. She doesn't wear a helmet (it would affect her psychic abilities), but that gives a little bit more emotional heft to her story as you can see more emotion on her face.

This is one quick thrill ride that I'm going to have to go back to - it's a tightly-scripted and well-executed action movie. There's plenty of violence and awesome action to satisfy anyone and there's enough of a story to bring some emotional weight to the plot. It's simply an addicting film - the visuals are enough to give it a look. But there's so much to this film and I couldn't recommend this more!

Rating: Own It!

2012's Most Anticipated: The Bourne Legacy

12. The Bourne Legacy (PG-13) - Runtime: 135 minutes
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Edward Norton, Rachel Weisz
Director: Tony Gilroy
Writer: Tony Gilroy, Dan Gilroy

I was super, super excited to see this movie. Then the reviews came out and a lot of people I heard left the theaters disappointed. So I avoided this in the theaters - I just couldn't bear to be let down in the theaters - better to save that shame for home. But I don't know what the big deal was - this movie is straight up another Bourne movie - just with a new character not named Bourne (an ironic fact that's not lost on me). While this probably won't be considered the best entry (it's clearly inferior to the original trilogy), it's a decent start to turning Bourne into a more sour and grim Bond franchise.

The movie starts at the tail end of The Bourne Ultimatum. Basically the events that played out in the last part of that movie are constantly in the background of Legacy. Aaron Cross is another agent in the field - however he's part of a different program, called Outcome, which relies on each agent to take blue and green pills to enhance their physical and mental capacities. Of course, because of the shit that went down with Bourne, the project director, Eric Byer (Norton) decides to shut it all down which means everyone is expendable. Luckily for us, Cross survives and is on a mission to right wrongs with the help of drug tester Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz). The only real problem with this movie is you really have to remember and know what went down in the first three. You really can't just jump into this installment without knowing about Treadstone and Jason Bourne.

And really, that's the only big misstep in this movie - I found myself enjoying the whole experience. A lot of people complained there wasn't enough "Bourne" in this movie - that there wasn't a whole lot of action. Which is fair - the movie never really explodes into full-on adrenaline tilt and I understand people's complaints. I just thought the rest of the movie was compelling enough for me (and most definitely not for Maggie - she pretty much picked up her phone halfway through to look at Facebook) that I wanted more after the credits started to roll. In fact, I think the movie sets up a pretty cool way forward for the franchise: if they can get Damon on board (he might want to after his past few leading roles have seen diminishing returns at the box office), it would be awesome to see Renner's idea of Cross and Bourne teaming up to take down the bastards who keep trying to ruin their lives.

Renner is suitable for the role - he's a good action star and I thought he did a good job filling in Damon's shoes. The rest of the cast is good as well - Weisz is good and Norton could have had more scenes where he's throwing shit around the room, yelling at others about their failures. I love how they expanded the universe and would love to see more agents fighting each other in a battle of wits and physicality - the possibilities are numerous and I can't wait to see if they announce another movie.

Don't expect Legacy to blow you away - it's not that kind of movie. But it's not really that bad, either. I really enjoyed the manhunt going on and it was well-paced that I didn't find myself getting bored through the two hours. If you haven't seen any of the Bourne movies, do not watch this one! You will be lost throughout and it will become frustrating. However, if you enjoyed the Bourne movies, Legacy deserves a shot - it's worth checking out to see if you like it or not.

Rating: Rent It!

2012's Most Anticipated: Zero Dark Thirty

4. Zero Dark Thirty (R) - Runtime: 157 minutes
Starring: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer: Mark Boal

I felt The Hurt Locker was the best movie from 2009 and totally deserved its Best Picture win.  I will admit my feeling of pride when I was calling that out way back before it was getting Oscar love. But Zero Dark Thirty is in a completely different realm as far as public awareness goes. Any movie Bigelow would have done would garner a lot of attention, but the fact she was making a movie about the hunt for Bin Laden and the fact she got the CIA involved to help out, well, that just sends the PR machine into the stratosphere. And for the most part, the hype behind the movie is justified - this is another thrilling and methodical war movie that everyone should at least watch once.

The story is centered around Maya, a no-bullshit CIA agent who's tasked with trying to find Bin Laden. The movie is very straightforward: it starts with the haunting echoes of 911 calls from the September 11th attacks and continues in linear and chronological fashion to the very end. In a lot of ways, this is a very similar movie to The Hurt Locker. You have a seeming unstoppable force (in this instance, Maya) who can't function outside of her job. And as much as these movies are about war and torture, both are more about a character study on the toll these two subjects take on people. There's one point where Jason Clarke's character decides to get out of Afghanistan and take a desk job. He just can't take anymore of the torture and surreal world these people live in. But Maya can't. She's completely confident and headstrong to the point where she finds it hard to maintain just decent relationships with co-workers.

And Chastain is absolutely amazing in this capacity - she has a couple scenes in the movie where I was blown away. There's a scene where she confronts her boss about the bullshit red tape she's trying to clear so she can follow her lead and she just unleashes all of her fury at him. If I was within earshot of this conversation in the movie, I might have peed my pants. On top of her great performance, Jason Clarke is just as good and he's not getting enough credit for his role - he's a different character but he's the man who has to torture one of the detainees and it's disgusting and riveting all at the same time.

Speaking of disgusting, much has been made about the torture in this movie and if it is saying torture was critical or not. I don't believe the movie takes an actual stance on this subject - it would have been dishonest if they didn't include these scenes of torture - but to say they played a huge role in the capture of Bin Laden - well, that's up for debate. Personally, I just think the writer, Mark Boal and Bigelow just wanted to tell a compelling story and they couldn't possibly do that without including American torture. It's ugly and brutal and the movie depicts it that way so I don't believe their advocating this practice. But like I said earlier, you can have a really good debate on whether or not the torturing in the movie led to solid information regarding Bin Laden's hideout. There's a fascinating thread on Andrew Sullivan's blog about this whole topic - a must read.

If you haven't decided if you want to see this movie, you should. It's not only a fascinating and thrilling story about the hunt for America's number one enemy, it's also a very deep and smart movie that will have you discussing with others about American ideals, torture and our foreign policy. It's certainly a movie that you'll want to at least watch once, if not twice!

Rating: See It!

2012's Most Anticipated: Life of Pi

40. Life of Pi (PG) - Runtime: 127 minutes
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan
Director: Ang Lee
Writer: David Magee

Life of Pi was supposed to be unfilmable. The book was simply amazing - but how do you take a book that's almost entirely devoted to telling the story of a boy and a tiger living on a boat. It's one thing to write about it - books can delve off into tangents and explain in lengthy detail events, but movies have to be tightly edited and controlled - and watching a boy and a tiger on a boat seems absolutely boring. But Ang Lee and writer David Magee manage the impossible - not only is Life of Pi watchable, it's most deserving of one the best movies this year!

I'd compare this movie a lot to Cast Away - somehow tales of survival are just riveting to me and what seems like the most mundane of plots or events can be extraordinary tales in these movies (for instance the tooth infection scene in Cast Away). The story has a Titanic opening (I know, a lame reference, but this a device a lot of movies use and most everyone has seen Titanic, so it's an easy reference): a reporter goes to visit a man who claims to have an extraordinary tale that will "make him believe in God." Irrfan Khan is Piscine Molitor Patel (or Pi for short) and he begins his tale talking about his childhood. This is where I thought the movie would ruin it for me. Pi keeps talking about finding religion: he's born into a divided household: his dad's an atheist and his mom is Hindu. He soon finds other religions to embrace: Christianity and Islam. So the movie starts out literally preachy. I found this extremely off-putting because I knew what the film was getting at: faith is essential to our survival. And the first half hour of the movie is beating you over the head with this message and the antithesis of this message: having no faith is just plain wrong and evil. Seriously, his atheist dad comes off as a complete asshole who's basically responsible for his family getting on the ship. Basically his family owned a zoo and they sell off all the animals and decide to move to America to start a new life.

But once the ship wrecks, that's when the movie really starts to kick into full gear. Pi finds himself alone on a lifeboat with Richard Parker (the name of the tiger, which has a funny story by itself). After the agonizingly slow beginning, the story really never loses a beat afterwards. I don't want to spoil too much of this movie - part of the charm of this movie is the amazing visuals and surprises that come along. Seriously, this is probably the most beautifully crafted film I've seen since The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Plus the CGI is really, really good. I know for sure that the tiger was mostly animated, but I honestly couldn't tell from looking at it. Everything was just so life-like! If this film doesn't win any technical awards, that will be a shame.

What's really great about this movie is you start to feel like you're a part of it. Ang Lee does a wonderful job of making you feel a part of being on the boat.The movie is always focused on the boat and never strays away from it - and there are some intense scenes of violence that will really scare the bajeezus out of you. The movie is really well-paced and edited, too - it knows when to ratchet up the action (storms, scenes of Pi training Richard Parker to obey him) to gentle scenes of the calm waters in the night or at sunrise.

It's a white-knuckle movie that has it's fair share of calming and beautiful reflective moments. Sure the message in the beginning of the first movie will make you roll your eyes, but you'll soon forgive the beginning once you're transported onto the lifeboat with Richard Parker and Pi. A fantastic movie that you should go see now if you have the chance to see it in theaters.

Rating: See It!

Most Anticipated Review: Taken 2

55. Taken 2 (PG-13) - Runtime: 92 minutes
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen
Director: Olivier Megaton
Writer: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen

I really enjoyed the first Taken - it was a fun movie that didn't overstay its welcome. I don't think I'd ever go back to watching it again - it's one of those "one and done" kind of movies. The thrill is gone after the first viewing. So it's head-scratching as to why Luc Besson would want to write a sequel. It's not that head-scratching for a studio - Taken 2 made just as much money domestically as its first installment. But creatively - this movie wasn't built to be a franchise - and Taken 2 shows how basically you can kill any good will from the previous film.

The story is rather simple (and dull): the bad guys Liam Neeson took out in the first movie have a very powerful father who wants revenge. Meanwhile, Liam Neeson (I can't be bothered to remember his character's name!) is on an assignment for security detail when his ex-wife and daughter surprise him in Istanbul to take a awkward quasi-family vacation! Seriously - the movie makes no attempt to offer you any details on his family life nor what his relationship to his ex-wife or daughter are. ANY. And this is when I stopped caring because the bad guys kidnap his ex-wife and eventually they kidnap Neeson, too! And then it's up to Maggie Grace (the dumb blonde from the first movie who started this whole mess) to save the day and get her father out of this mess. But really that only means Neeson screaming directions into a hidden phone the whole time. Yeah, Maggie Grace isn't exactly gonna punch her way out of this situation.

The whole movie is completely unhinged - reality be damned! I know the first movie stretched the limit on its believability - but Taken 2 extends this logic to an absurdity. On top of the film being not aware of reality, it's really quite dull. Literally three things happen in the movie: Neeson and ex-wife get kidnapped. Maggie Grace helps her dad get free. Neeson hunts down and kills everyone and gets his wife back. That's it - I can be thankful the movie only lasted 90 minutes because it was pretty boring. There's some action in the movie, but never once did I get excited - it just seemed so pedestrian.

I'm sure there's talks of Taken 3 in the works. I highly doubt Neeson would be interested (although his next few movies would like to beg to differ), but they could crank out a few straight-to-DVD sequels that will undoubtedly star Tom Berenger as the stand-in for Neeson. This was a completely unnecessary movie and shame on me for watching it. It's a boring movie and feels like everyone stopped caring the moment they got on set. Also, can we just take a moment to recognize the somewhat amazing and truly awful name of the director - Olivier Megaton?!?!? I have no idea how this man managed to get a decent gig in Hollywood without being laughed out of the room. Seriously, change your name dude - I don't respect you as an action director any more because of that name than if your real name was Terd Finkelstein.

Rating: Avoid Like the Plague!

Most Anticipated Review: Brave

27. Brave (PG) - Runtime: 93 minutes
Starring: Kelly Macdonald, Bill Connolly, Emma Thompson
Director: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell
Writer: Mark Andres, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell, Irene Mecchi

I'm going to keep this one short - this was another fantastic Pixar movie. I keep doubting them to deliver, but even their most reviled movie to date - Cars 2 - I actually really, really enjoyed! Brave is just as fun and entertaining as all of the rest of their films.

This movie kind of surprised me - I had it on my list because I love Pixar and I knew I would at least enjoy this movie. But I couldn't gather where the story was going to take me from the trailers. Needless to say, the movie took a surprising turn a third of the way in and I really liked it. I wouldn't say the tale or story is completely original, but it was a unique tale that didn't rely on talking animals or cheap laughs.

Kelly Macdonald voices Merida, a very stubborn and independent girl who only wants to choose for herself her destiny. Of course, her overbearing mother wants her to stick with tradition and marry one of the other clansman to help strengthen the kingdom. But Merida refuses this path and stumbles upon a witch who grants her a spell - to change her mother's mind. Of course, the old saying is very much true in this story - be careful what you wish for!

The visuals are really amazing - they took the English/Scottish countryside and brought a level of mystique and ethereal quality to the landscape. It's a very colorful film and just simply beautiful. I don't think I've ever been so impressed by the setting and style of a family animated film. And the voice acting is superb (as usual) - Kelly Macdonald (Trainspotting, Boardwalk Empire) is a perfect fit for Merida.

This was an easy movie to enjoy - it moves along briskly and is completely funny and touching all at the same time!

Rating: Own It!

Most Anticipated Review: Lawless

14. Lawless (R) - Runtime: 116 minutes
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Jason Clarke
Director: John Hillcoat
Writer: Nick Cave

I don't know why I get so excited for gangster/crime movies. Most of them end up being boring for me - I can never tell who's who and what's really happening. The dialogue and plot can get so convoluted that even with the subtitles on, I can't comprehend. But I had faith in this movie - number 14! I think the main reason was because of Nick Cave as the writer. The last time he wrote a movie was The Proposition with Guy Pearce and I thought that was a brilliant western film when I really at the time didn't care for the genre. So I was hoping that he could bring the same awesome sauce to the gangster film. While the movie has its moments, it largely ends up being a snooze fest in my opinion.

Set during the Depression in Virginia, the Bondurant brothers run a pretty successful bootlegging operation. But then Guy Pearce shuffles onto the scene as Charlie Rakes, the new sheriff, demanding a bigger cut of the profits. It's up to the brothers to make sure they take care of their own and make damn sure that Rakes gets outta town. The story is narrated by LaBeouf, who does a decent job of not being annoying Shia LaBeouf throughout the movie. But he seems to have the worst perspective to tell this story. He's the youngest brother, Jack, and can't be trusted to handle such manly business. The main problem with the movie is that it would have been much more dramatic had they not presented the story through Jack's point of view. The movie would have been much more riveting had there been no narration and more emphasis on Tom Hardy's character, Forrest.

He's the main thrust of the movie - the brother who holds a lot of respect in town and controls every aspect of the business. Plus he gets beat up and shot and stabbed a whole lot - the dude is such a badass. But here we go again - the main problem with his character is Tom Hardy's performance. I could not understand half of what he was saying. He mumbles and grumbles through most every line and if it weren't for subtitles, I wouldn't have understood half the movie! I love Tom Hardy, but he almost got too into character for this one.

As for the rest of the performances, they're okay. Guy Pearce really hams it up as the obsessed neat freak sheriff. And Gary Oldman does a fantastic job of playing a big city mob boss, but gets only 15 minutes of screen time. I don't even know why the character is in the movie - he adds very little to the narrative and offers a motivation for Jack to aspire to be a mobster - but nothing beyond that. Jessica Chastain shows up as the love interest and you do get to see her topless (bonus! With Tom Hardy!), but the sex scene is awkward and dirty (as in germs dirty, no sexy dirty! Minus! Tom Hardy is fully dressed and not sexy for all you ladies watching) - it just seems like another wasted character

While I wouldn't say you should never see this movie, it's really not worth your time unless you're really into bootlegging. Or Jessica Chastain. If you're into Tom Hardy, well, you'll probably find him a little less attractive after this movie. It's a slow story that plods along and doesn't really get interesting at any point. I'm ashamed I put this so high on my list.

Rating: Not Worth Paying For!

Most Anticipated: Savages

45. Savages (R) - Runtime: 131 minutes
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Taylor Kitsch, Blake Lively
Director: Oliver Stone
Writer: Shane Salemo, Don Winslow, Oliver Stone

Boy was this movie terrible. I'm not gonna sugar coat it - this was one of the worst movies I've seen all year. From the annoying narration to the unnecessary grotesque violence to the super lame plot, this movie has absolutely nothing going for it. I'm really ashamed of putting this on my list! You have to feel bad for Kitsch - I love the dude as Tim Riggins on Friday Night Lights, but he can't catch a break - John Carter and Battleship were huge bombs at the box office and now this stinking pile of poop is on his resume as well. He might need to get a new agent.

Savages starts out on the wrong foot - Blake Lively narrates the opening scene with this awful set up: "Just because I'm telling you this story, doesn't mean I'm alive at the end." Oh! So profound! Thank you. Not only doesn't it sound absolutely stupid, but Lively is probably the worst narrator you can get - she delivers her lines like she's on the toilet and scrolling through her Twitter feed while reciting the lines. Listen, I don't expect Morgan Freeman, but c'mon, let's at least make sure there's a pulse in the room! Anyways, she's a girlfriend to both Kitsch and Taylor-Johnson (Chon and Ben - worst pothead duo names ever), the former is the hothead of the group, while Ben is the hippie-dippie free love guy. This is explained by Blake Lively as "Chon likes to fuck, Ben makes love!" Once again, profundity abounds in this movie. So they grow weed and have attracted the attention of Salma Hayek, who is having an identity crisis of her own - she doesn't know whether or not she's a good mum. First world drug lord problems! Amirite? Of course she wants a cut of Cheech and Chong's business, but they refuse. So she kidnaps Blake Lively. Which I was happy about, but then she still kept narrating the movie, which I was not happy about. Shit happens and when it's time for the climactic battle - it ends up pulling a Breaking Dawn Part 2 on us and ends on a much dumber note than before. Seriously, the ending is pure awfulness.

If you can't tell already, this movie is a mess. I never once felt Salma Hayek and her crew (led by creepy Benicio Del Toro) were menacing. Sure they decapitated heads and lit people on fire, but it seemed so unreal and fake that I couldn't really feel any terror. It didn't help either that Harold and Kumar never really seemed to freak out ever during this movie. "Oh hey man, did you see that video the drug cartel sent us of decapitated bodies?" "Yeah. Hey! Let's smoke some pot!" "Cool." Yeah, the movie was like that.

I'm disappointed in all parties involved in this movie - Oliver Stone is way better than this - I think he hit his peak in the mid-90s with Natural Born Killers and it has been a slow descent from there. And the cast? They all seemed to have missed the point that this was an action/crime movie and thought they could load up on cheese at the craft service table and forgot to bring some energy. It's a dumb movie and you will be made dumb if you watch it!

Rating: Avoid Like the Plague!

Most Anticipated Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

7. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (PG-13) - Runtime: 169 minutes
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage
Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro

I had a falling out with the LOTR trilogy a few years ago. I hadn't watched the movies since I purchased the extended editions when they originally came out. So about 2004 was the last time I had seen any of those movies. It wasn't until my brother asked me to go sit in the theater for a whole day (13 hours) to watch all three extended editions of the Lord of the Rings a couple of weeks ago that I remembered why I loved these movies so much. I can't put my finger on it, but there's just something magical (pun intended!) about these movies. It's the combination of the story, characters, music and the sprawling vistas that melt my brain. I can't help it - these are fantastic movies, despite me not enjoying the source material that much.

But I cannot say that for The Hobbit - it's a great book that I've always loved it way more than the LOTR trilogy of books. It's just more playful and adventurous than those installments. So when the movie finally got greenlit, I was super stoked to see how awesome del Toro would make these two movies. And then he dropped out of directing and Peter Jackson was on board. And then they decided to split up the book even more and make it a trilogy. I became utterly despondent - this seemed like a major cash-in for the studio and not a creative license to fill in holes in the story to connect to the LOTR trilogy.

And I was further dismayed at less than stellar reviews it was getting. My heart hang heavy. Going into the movie I expected to be bummed out for at least a third of the movie knowing that most of it was just filler and fluff. But that same Middle-Earth magic began to make its way out of the screen and into my brain again. It was so nice to come back to this world again! The music, the sprawling vistas and the delightful characters once again had me fall in love. I swooned, for sure. And I wasn't disappointed at all. Sure, there were scenes that could have been left on the cutting room floor, but it didn't bother me - I was back in Middle-Earth!

Don't get me wrong - the movie has some flaws to it, but it's just such an entertaining ride throughout. I honestly didn't get bored with this movie at all. Only afterwards, upon reflecting, did I think that a couple of action scenes could have been cut. But I didn't notice it the first time around - it may get worse upon multiple viewings. But that aside - there's a lot to love in this movie. The dwarves are all very fun, but Ian McKellen as Gandalf is once again, fantastic. He's the glue in this movie and he's the reason why this whole series goes from good to great. Martin Freeman as Bilbo is great, too! He's done the British hat trick - he's played three great British icons - Dr. Watson, Arthur Dent (from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and now Bilbo! That's astonishing and here he's amazing.

I'm not going to bore you with too many details about this movie. You're either going to love it or hate it. If you are a fan of the LOTR, you just have to see this movie. You may not like it as much as the other movies, but you'll still enjoy yourself. If you do not care at all about this franchise, than you're probably better off sitting this whole trilogy out as well.

Rating: See It!

Most Anticipated Review: Django Unchained

1. Django Unchained (R) - Runtime: 165 minutes
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino

I don't think I realized how big a fan of Tarantino I was until I watched Inglourious Basterds. During that film, the whole time I was completely enthralled - the real world didn't exist and I was completely beholden to the story unfolding in front of me. And then I started to look back at his film career and there really hasn't been a misstep as far as directing goes (as for slapping his name on every awful, schlocky horror/action/martial arts movie, well...). And Django Unchained is no different - this is at times, a tough film to watch, but also very rewarding in both its joyful glee at revenge fantasy (much like Basterds) and its comic timing. It's definitely one of my favorite movies this year!

It's a simple revenge story - Django gets hired by a bounty hunter named Dr. Schultz, to take down some nasty outlaws in exchange for finding his wife, whom he was separated from at a slave auction. I thought the movie was going to be all about finding these outlaw brothers and Django and Schultz becoming buddies while taking out a bunch of racist slave owners. But the movie went in a completely different direction than I thought - Django and Schultz find the brothers quite quickly and take them out within the fist half hour of the movie. The rest of the movie is all about finding his wife and what happens when they do find her at Leonardo DiCaprio's Calvin Candie's residence, Candieland.

The movie is over two and half hours long, but not once did I feel it drag. Tarantino knows how to keep a movie going and every minute of this movie was fun and exciting! The movie does slow down a bit - but it's completely terrifying during the last half of the movie when they attempt to deceive Calvin Candie into selling Django's wife to them. DiCaprio puts on his best performance since The Departed. He's a completely demented slave owner and you're never too sure what he's capable of and it's truly horrific and intense. Playing the complete opposite of DiCaprio's deranged Candie, Christoph Waltz is the most charming and well-intentioned character in the film. Never once does he stray from his moral high ground, which is a complete surprise. He's the idealistic and romantic hero that we all wish were more prevalent during this troubling time in American history. Waltz and DiCaprio deserve at least some consideration for an Oscar - they're both the driving forces behind this movie, even more so than the lead character.

Which is quite interesting to read into - even though this is a revenge fantasy about slavery, even the lead black guy cannot overcome the power of white people in this movie. This has a lot to do with the performances more than the writing, so read into that what you want. Django does have his moments and in the end he is the last man standing and gets the last laugh. Jamie Foxx is Django and completely convincing as he progresses through being a submissive slave to owning his role as a free man.

I want to take a minute about the violence in the movie. Tarantino has been getting a lot of flak for the violence in his films and it all came to a head when he got blindsided by an NPR interview (read the synopsis here). It seems like more and more people are joining this chorus of criticism of our violent culture and how films and video games, while not being linked to violent behavior, somehow has numbed us to violence and glorified bloodshed and guns. I don't understand this - anyone who has watched Django and hasn't been disgusted at most of the violence portrayed in it. It's not an easy film to watch and the glorified shootout at the end is not exactly realistic and purely fantastical for a reason (much like the completely over-the-top shootout in Basterds). When someone boils down such a complicated issue to these talking points, it ruins the conversation and drives the focus away from the real issues.

Spoiler alert! I also found the ending to be something to think about - the last person Django kills in the end is Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson plays a very loyal butler who ends up telling Candie about Django and Schultz's nefarious plan. He's as much a villain as Candie (in a different way) and it's interesting to think about what this means in the grand scheme of things. A simple interpretation is that even slaves can become part of the problem. There's even a moment where Django talks about the most despised slaves are the black slave drivers and head house slave. I think it might be more complicated than that and I can't wait to delve into the movie again to tackle this issue. End of Spoilers!

If you don't mind uncomfortable violence and a lot of verbal abuse, than you'll love Django. It's a fun film and one of Tarantino's funniest for sure. I never once lost interest and that's a testament to great filmmaking. It's surely going to be one of the most talked-about movies this year and you're doing yourself an injustice by not seeing this movie. Wonderfully cast and exceptionally directed - this is a contender for best of the year!

Rating: See It!

Most Anticipated Review: This is 40

21. This is 40 (R) - Runtime: 134 minutes
Starring: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Albert Brooks
Director: Judd Apatow
Writer: Judd Apatow

I'm a big fan of Judd Apatow. He knows comedy and has, I think, been growing as a director through each of his first three films. Unfortunately, his fourth outing is somewhat of road bump (at least I hope it's only a road bump). What could have been a stroke of genius with making a sort-of sequel to Knocked Up, This is 40 ends up being a funny mess of a movie. It has its moments - and I laughed hard in some places - but as a cohesive movie, it does not work at all.

I can't really explain the plot to This is 40 - basically it's a look into the life a somewhat dysfunctional family and their trials and tribulations. What bothered me the most about this movie is there's this forced conflict of money problems. Of course Paul Rudd's Pete has been losing money - his business is failing, he's lending out money to his chump father and he doesn't say a word to his wife about this! This is basically the same plot structure of the most laziest comedies/sitcoms. The whole plot hinges on this dishonesty and I cannot believe that a couple that has been together this long could be so uncommunicative with each other. The movie tries very hard to show us these are real people but this is not how real people react in real life. I found this to be a very hard pill to swallow.

The other problem with the movie is the characters themselves. As side characters in Knocked Up, they were nice comic relief. Here, everyone is a complete asshole with pretty much no likability. Almost every character, including one of the kids, are such selfish jerks that the movie made me feel no sympathy for their problems. These characters don't develop - at the end of the movie, I felt that nobody learned anything - they're all still going to be a bunch of assholes living under a different roof.

It's a movie that seems stitched together - there's no real advance in the story. It's like Apatow had a few great comedic scenes he wanted to film, but decided he could extend into a feature-length film. So there's no development of a plot whatsoever - it's extremely frustrating because the movie is OVER two hours long! There's absolutely no reason for this movie to be more than an hour and a half. It suffers from poor editing (or no editing) and a lack of progress from an actual plot. Even the acting isn't top notch - Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann defintely inhabit their roles really well, but everyone else seems like they half showed up to this movie. John Lithgow, Albert Brooks, Chris O'Dowd and Jason Segal all seem to be phoning it in; they don't seem present within the movie.

Don't get me wrong, I laughed a lot - that 's a testament to how well the jokes land in this movie and how Apatow can still make me laugh despite not making a great film. It's just a terribly plotted movie and the characters are completely unrealistic. Some of the movie is just lazy filmmaking and bad editing. I cannot recommend this movie, even as a rental - there's just nothing really memorable about it!

Rating: Not Worth Paying For!

Most Anticipated Review: Moonrise Kingdom

29. Moonrise Kingdom (PG-13) - Runtime: 94 minutes
Starring: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis
Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola

Let's just get this out of the way: I really, really enjoy Wes Anderson's movies. In fact, there hasn't been one movie I haven't enjoyed that's he's done. I've been a fan since he made Rushmore and even though he's pretty much not grown as a filmmaker, he's still one of the more imaginative and creative filmmakers out there. I'd call Anderson comfort food - you know what you're going to get and it won't ever surprise you, but it won't disappoint you either.

Moonrise Kingdom isn't a disappointment either. The story follows two young lovers who have a myriad of problems at home. They decide to runaway together and set up camp in the wilderness on their home island in the face of a breaking storm. Like most Anderson films, the characters are quirky and slightly off from reality but there's a certain charm and likeability to their traits. And the cinematography and design of the whole movie is gorgeous. What's a little different from most of his movies this time around is the story is always driving forward to this inevitable ending confrontation with the kids and the authorities that is also represented by the storm hitting the island. Usually Anderson's movies meander a bit and linger on certain scenes. But here, there's this drum beat of a pace that keeps pounding until the climax of the movie.

And although the pacing and story is quite refreshing from this perspective, there's still the always charming and oddly bizarre characters that seem somewhat familiar. There's a lot of stuff going on in this movie - there are a lot of characters and they all seem to carry their own baggage. And even if the cast is excessive, it's such a tightly wound movie that nothing really comes unravelling - the characters are all memorable and they all have their roles to play in the outcome of the ending. If I'm being vague with my description, Moonrise Kingdom is a hard movie to describe without telling the whole story and characters in great detail. You'll just have to trust me that this is a more rapid-fire, faster-paced Wes Anderson film than his previous installments and it's a fun ride the whole way.

The cast is exceptional, of course and I really think the standouts are the two lead kids. They totally sell their romance and I thought their whole relationship was truly romantic, if not a little absurd. They're both a little odd (and slightly mental - which after watching this right after the Sandy Hook shooting, it was interesting to see it from this mental health angle. At one point Suzy goes into a daze and stabs a kid that's attacking them! I really don't know what to read into this other than that it was more funny than serious from the film's perspective).

If you're not a fan of Wes Anderson this movie will not change your mind about him. Otherwise, if you like him or if you're just looking for a fun, quirky movie, Moonrise Kingdom will fill that void. It's an oddly romantic film and somewhat of a dismally cheerful movie (if that's a thing). It's really quite entertaining and I think multiple viewings are in store for this movie from me.

Rating: Own It!

Most Anticipated Review: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2

23. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (PG-13) - Runtime: 115 minutes
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
Director: Bill Condon
Writer: Melissa Rosenberg

At long last I finally get to see how this all plays out. While I still think the first Twilight movie is the best (and probably the story should have just stopped there!), Eclipse was a fun movie, but the other two (New Moon and BD Part 1) could have been boiled down into twenty minute prologues before their subsequent sequels. It's a fairly satisfying ending to the franchise and I hope I never have to hear the name Renesmee again.

I'm not going to summarize the story - most people are familiar with it anyway and I don't feel like rehashing the fairly dull details. Suffice to say, the head vampires find out about the human/vampire hybrid child and want to kill it because it's like a metaphor for abortion, or something like that. So the whole movie is the build up to the end showdown between the Cullen family versus the Volturi. I honestly cannot remember too much about the rest of the movie except for the ending, which I will get to in a minute.

The first thing that bothered me about this movie was the CGI baby/toddler/child. Yes, instead of finding real, cheap babies and children to fill the screen with as Renesmee (seriously, the most effed up name on the planet! Gawd!), the filmmakers decide to throw away money (although it wasn't really well spent!) on a CGI baby. And it's disgustingly unreal and awkward in so many ways. I understand they wanted to show us how fast this kid will grow up (she goes from being a baby to like ten in less than a year), but it was handled so badly that I threw up a little in my mouth every time the kid was on screen. Seriously - they CGI'd a toddler's face to match the real (Mackenzie Foy) actor's face! Every time the kid was on screen it was completely distracting and I think I could have suspended disbelief just a tad more if the kid was real, just played by different actors at different ages. Although Maggie doesn't necessarily disagree with me, I don't think this absurdness bothered her as much as it bothered me!

And now onto the aforementioned big showdown. I really was looking forward to that wrestling-style spin and kick combo that Edward and Bella did in the trailer and this showdown did not disappoint! There was so much violence (but not that much blood! This is a PG-13 affair and think of the children!) that I was completely shocked at how much heads were decapitated and jaws were ripped apart without any real blood spilling or guts hanging out. I will spoil the whole ending here, so beware. The battle starts with Carlisle's head being ripped out! I was like, "Oh hell yes!" and shit started flying everywhere and the earth literally opened up to swallow wolves and vampires alike and so, so many people died. It was epic and awesome! The whole time Maggie's jaw was on the floor and at one point she was flipping off the screen and yelling obscenities at the movie. I asked her why she was so upset and she told me this didn't happen in the books AT ALL! I started laughing and couldn't help but revel in all the delicious carnage. It was really fun to see all those people die - it made the story seem more powerful - all of these martyrs dying for their cause.

BUT WAIT! Snap back to reality and it was all just a vision of the future from Alice! Nobody died! She shows this to the head Volturi dude and they all conclude it's not worth fighting over. So instead of the previous shitstorm becoming a reality, they all go their separate ways and Edward and Bella live happily ever after with their poorly named and creepy looking daughter. Who also happens to fall in love with Jacob in a way that just sends chills up my spine in a bad way. The whole ending is pretty awful.

Maggie was upset in a much different way. The movie totally punk'd her - she thought the whole overly dramatic battle was real and that the movie completely deviated from the book. Psyche! I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant and obvious scheme to lure in a male audience. They promise us with an epic battle and they deliver, but it's all not real! I felt a little bit shafted, albeit from a different perspective than Maggie.

So while I maintain the Twilight Saga is a decent to mediocre story, I think the universe Stephanie Meyer created is much, much more interesting than Edward's, Bella's and Jacob's silly little romantic story. Aside from the sparkly vampires, I'm way more intrigued by the history of the vampires, including the Volturi and how they came to power. That's a story I'd like to hear and I think it would be way more bloody and dramatic than a cheesy love triangle. Would I see these movies again? Probably not, but I was more invested into how the story would end and the movie does a fairly decent job of keeping my attention.

Rating: Rent It!

Most Anticipated Review: Safety Not Guaranteed

54. Safety Not Guaranteed (R) - Runtime: 86 minutes
Starring: Aubrey Plaza, Mark Duplass, Jake Johnson
Director: Colin Trevorrow
Writer: Derek Connolly

Much like Jeff, Who Lives at home, Safety Not Guaranteed is a small, quirky comedy that packs a lot of warmth and heart into its characters. It's a charming movie that runs under an hour and a half. It's hard not to at least like this movie, if not completely fall in love with the characters. It's surely high praise, but when a movie does so many things right, it's easy to forget some of its flaws.

The premise is simple - Darius (Plaza) is a Debbie Downer intern at a magazine and gets sucked into a story that "journalist" Jeff (Jake Johnson) wants to write about - a classified ad that reads: WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed. Jeff is a major toolbag and just looking for an excuse for a paid vacation and maybe make fun of the dude. But Darius (not the best name on the planet!) starts to question her intentions when she begins hanging out with Kenneth (Mark Duplass).

It's not a movie that has a lot of belly laughs - it's a bit more subtle than that. But it's clever and just quirky enough to make you smile. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "hipster" movie, but it definitely has that hipster sensibility. The great thing about this movie is you really have no clue where it's going and the ending is masterful. I don't want to spoil the story too much, but it's an ending that a few will loathe and most people will smile and say "fitting."

The performances are great - Duplass is quickly becoming a favorite dude of mine (he can act, write and direct - triple threat! Watch out, ladies!). Aubrey Plaza plays pretty much her role in Parks and Recreation here and that's not a bad thing. But once again, props to Jake Johnson for stealing every scene he's in. Even though he's a complete douchebag, you grow to love him for all of his flaws.

The movie does feel a bit rushed and the love story that develops between Kenneth and Darius seems a bit out of left field to grasp. I wouldn't say I didn't see it coming, but felt it needed more time to sink in for the audience as well as the characters. But this is a minor quibbles in an otherwise charming and quaint movie.

Rating: Rent It!

Most Anticipated: Skyfall

11. Skyfall (PG-13) - Runtime: 143 minutes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench
Director: Sam Mendes

It was an odd choice for the studio to pick Sam Mendes to direct this installment of the Bond franchise. After all, he's done nothing but a handful of American-focused dramas and a comedy - it's not like he's established himself as an action-oriented director. But the risk paid out - Mendes nailed this one and made it into one of the best Bond movies ever.

Unlike Quantum of Solace's meandering and messy plot, Skyfall gets straight to the point when it comes to the story. Bond has been presumed dead, KIA and a terrorist has taken a valuable document listing all MI6's agents locations and real names. Duh - Bond's not really dead and it's up to him to ferret out the villain. Unlike previous Bond films, the villain doesn't show up until halfway through the movie. But it is quite an entrance for a Bond villain. It's not flashy - but it is effective. Javier Bardem is suitably creepy and mysterious enough to warrant him at least consideration for top 5 Bond villains. Whereas most villains main source of motivation for being evil is money - Bardem's Silva is strictly out for revenge.

It's nice to see the franchise get back to its roots in some form or another: gadgets are back (although not that flashy - again I'm sensing a theme here), the villain is outrageously comical (the dude literally has his own secret island and that hair. Oh that hair.) and there's actually some steamy, sexy sex going on (Bond bags three ladies in this one!). While I enjoyed the previous two Daniel Craig outings, they were lacking in the camp/fun department. I call this the Bourne effect. It seems like Bond was trying to hard to be Jason Bourne, rather than himself. And while that paid off with Casino Royale, it was showing its wear and tear in Quantum of Solace. Thankfully, Skyfall fuses the more serious parts of Bond with the camp and cheesiness from yore in an entertaining way.

For the serious part - Skyfall delves into the past lives of Bond and M. Silva is a figure from the past out for revenge and apparently has enough money and goons to make his dream come true. As for the more campy elements - Q returns with his gadgets, Komodo dragons make an appearance and the aforementioned sexy sex happens quite a bit. Plus there's a lot more jokes/humor in this movie than the previous two combined.

Special mention has to be made for the direction and cinematography of Skyfall. There's a fight scene in Shanghai at the top of a building that is simply stunning. The lighting and camera angles make for some beautiful shots. The final act of the movie is also quite riveting - Mendes knows how to make destruction look beautiful and successfully captures Bond's almost-demise perfectly.

That's not to say this movie has some flaws - the final act, while stunning, drags a little bit and could have benefited from a shorter ending. And while I do say the movie gets back to its roots - it has a very limited leash. The movie isn't flashy enough in certain points. The gadgets are not really gadgets (seriously - a tiny tracking device and a palm-print ID'd gun? That's all you've got, Q?) The film itself acknowledges this when Q says "What did you expect, an exploding pen?" But that's what we want! So I'll knock the film a little - it plays it safe when it comes to reality-bending devices and plots (although the villain is pretty unrealistic from the get-go. Seriously the dude has an island and a bajillion supercomputers with which he can hack into any secure server in the world. Plus he has an unlimited amount of money and resources and he's able to predict his enemies actions/reactions.).

Aside from these nitpicking annoyances, the movie is solid. It has some amazing action scenes, a pretty involved plot that really has some character development and there's a decent amount of jokes. It may not match any of Sean Connery's outings as Bond in charm or wit - but it's pretty fantastic for a modern action movie and it deserves to be called one of the best Bond films!

Rating: See It!

Most Anticpated: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

30. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (R) - Runtime: 101 minutes
Starring: Steve Carrell, Kiera Knightley
Director: Lorene Scafaria

This was another movie where I didn't know what to expect! I honestly thought the movie would be a lot funnier than it ended up being. Instead, the movie meanders along without really going anywhere and you start to ask yourself if anything is actually going to happen. And then when something finally does happen, the movie ends. It's a very disappointing movie that will leave you asking "That's it?"

So it's the end of the world, literally for everyone. And Dodge's wife decides to leave him with only two weeks left for humanity. Dodge is a quiet man who doesn't really like to do much. His life is boring. But then one of his neighbors comes busting into his life and they're on a mission to find his first love and to get her back to her family. It sounds like it would be a fun, if not quirky, road trip movie that would provide some laughs along with a little bit of drama. Instead, it's pretty much all drama with a few jokes sprinkled in and it just drags.

I think that's the biggest problem with this movie - the pacing is excruciatingly slow and while there are some wonderful comedic moments (Penny's boyfriend using her as a human shield comes to mind), the movie falls flat. None of the decisions these two friends make makes any sense. It takes forever for the movie to get to where it wants to be and then it just ends. I'm not spoiling anything here because nothing really happens in this movie. This is supposed to be the end of the world, but the movie doesn't feel like it.

I feel like Steve Carrell's character is a mix between his Dan in Real Life (sad widow) and the 40 Year-Old Virgin character (shy awkward guy). It just isn't that funny and I really didn't feel sorry for the dude nor did I care what was going to happen to him. And then they fug up Knightley to make her seem like a quirkey, adorkable hipster girl - but she has no depth either. They have this big revelation at the end of the movie for Dodge's past, but I just groaned out loud when they got to that point. Who cares!

All in all, this is one lousy movie. I thought it was going to be way more funny and just plain fun! Seriously, how can the last two weeks of civilization be this dull! Maybe this is how the writer felt she would be like in the end times - and good for her - but it most certainly doesn't make a very interesting story.

Rating: Not Worth Paying For!

Most Anticipated: Cloud Atlas

43. Cloud Atlas (R) - Runtime: 172 minutes
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant
Director: Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski, Tom Tykwer

I didn't know what to expect from this one. On one hand, you have the guys who were behind the Matrix trilogy, on the other hand, you have the guys who were behind the Matrix trilogy. Yeah, I didn't initially want to put this on my list, but when an eighth movie dropped from 2012 to 2013, Cloud Atlas stood out as something unique and possibly brilliant. I dare say this movie is as pretentious as you can get (well, maybe not Tree of Life pretentious, but close enough) - but damn it sure was a fun pretentious movie and one of my favorite movies this year.

There's six separate stories interwoven throughout the movie and they're all loosely connected to each other, whether by characters or loose plot threads. The story is hard to quantify and explain in a simple paragraph - but suffice to say that there's a lot of fate of humanity-esque plots for the future storylines, but also the movie mixes in some comedy and very moving and dramatic character-driven stories as well. It all blends together and is exceptionally edited that no matter where the movie takes you, you're never in for a dull moment.

I had a lot of fun with this movie - there's a sense of urgency you start to feel about halfway through and you really start to wonder how things are going to shake out for each timeline's story. Even though it seems overwhelming, it's nice how the movie weaves in and out of each story. It helps add to the "everything is connected" narrative driving most of the plot. If you love epic action stories, this has a couple. If you love a sad romance story, this movie has a couple as well. Even a comedic plot line is thrown in for good measure. So this movie has something for everyone and I dare say it's just so well put together.

The performances are great as well! It's amazing how versatile all the actors are in this movie - Tom Hanks goes to places I've never seen him go before. Hugh Grant and Hugo Weaving are magnificent as well. They all play different characters in each of the six timelines and when the final credits roll, it was interesting to see who they all played! I didn't realize it was a certain actor until they showed those credits! It was fun to watch some of these iconic actors slip into roles that made them nearly indistinguishable from there normal looks. In fact, part of the movie can be read as an allegory for gender roles and the different masks we put on for certain social situations. It sounds a little bit bullshit, but if you delve deep enough, the movie has a lot to say about our social culture.

And besides all the great characters and actors and the deep, meaningful story, the movie just looks amazing! I loved how each timeline had it's own distinct feel to it. The future didn't feel to cold or sterile, nor did the past look to stale. Each timeline was beautifully shot and put together. Even the costume design I was impressed and normally I don't care about that stuff at all!

This was an epic undertaking for the Wachowskis and they deserve all the accolades thrown at them. This is a great movie that doesn't wear out its welcomes, even after two and a half hours. I think this movie has a little bit of everything for most people to enjoy. It's a deeply moving story about how our lives ripple out to affect the future and the consequences of our actions, good or bad. There's a lot to read into the story and how they're all connected, but each timeline's story has it's own layers also. I loved every minute of this movie!

Rating: See It!

Most Anticipated: That's My Boy

48. That's My Boy (R) - Runtime: 116 minutes
Starring: Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg
Director: Sean Anders

This was a complete misread on my part, folks. I really thought I could enjoy another Adam Sandler movie, but he's just not funny anymore. I thought with Andy Samberg as the other leading role and Sean Anders, the director who's been flawless in my opinion, with Hot Tub Time Machine and She's Out of My League, that it would salvage this movie. But no, Sandler is a train wreck now and he's not even trying anymore. But the problem with Sandler is that no matter what, he's going to make these awful movies and he'll make money off of them. That's My Boy is probably the worst movie I've seen all year and you're best to avoid this one at all costs.

The gist of the movie is that Sandler plays Donny - a drunken asshole who in middle school, knocked up his teacher. Absurdly enough, he gains full custody of the child because the teacher is sent to jail. It's a really dumb premise (but all of Sandler's movies are - even Billy Madison was childish), but the way it's delivered is extremely annoying. Almost all of the jokes fall flat and none of the characters are even remotely funny.

The big problem with this movie is the main character, Donny. He's annoying and not charming at all. With older Sandler titles, you at least found parts of Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore to be likeable. Here, Donny's rude, crude and just plain awful. At no point do you understand why his son would want him back in his life. Plus, the other minor characters are almost too weird to function in this movie. It's as if the writers decided that having characters who are so oddball and quirky were funny enough. The only really funny character was Milo Ventimiglia's character who played this weird brother who's in the army. And that's mainly due to his performance more than the material.

And Donny's voice! Unnnnhhhh his voice! If you remember Sandler at all back from his days when he made comedy albums, he had this character called the Buffoon. It was probably his worst character he made (wait, no, Jill from Jack and Jill tops that!). He puts on this awful voice (much like Donny's) and talks about his butthole the whole time. It's not funny and apparently Sandler thought it was time to dig into the well to create his character for this movie.

There may have been some funny moments or jokes in the movie, but I couldn't tell you what they were, because I forgot them amidst all the awfulness. It's like eating a roast beef sandwich with all this crap stuffed into it - mustard, lettuce, tomatoes - you can't even taste the roast beef because the rest of the crappy ingredients overwhelm you. There may have been some funny jokes, but they got lost amidst all the really, really bad ones.

Adam Sandler himself hasn't made a great movie in a long, long time. I thought Funny People was great, but that's more of a Judd Apatow movie than Sandler. You'd have to go back all the way to 2004 to find a decent Adam Sandler comedy (50 First Dates). I think this was the death knell for movie - I'm not even going to bother watching any more of his movies. Yes, this movie was the final nail in the coffin for me!

Rating: Avoid Like the Plague!

Most Anticipated: Argo

41. Argo (R) - Runtime: 120 minutes
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman
Director: Ben Affleck

Mr. Affleck is 3 for 3 in my book. Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and now Argo are all really, really good movies. This was a movie I knew, when I instantly heard the story and who was attached to it, that this was going to be good. Affleck is good at creating some great drama and tension and Argo is filled with some nail-biting scenes. I don't know where I'd rank this movie, but it's a great movie and possibly one of the top 10 movies this year.

If you don't know by now, during the Iran hostage crisis, there were a handful of Americans trapped inside the Canadian ambassador's home. It took a crazy and bold plan to get them out alive and the movie tells the story of how Tony Mendez took it upon himself to get them out. This required faking that these six Americans were actually Canadians and they were on location to shoot a science fiction film, titled Argo. The movie starts up casually enough - you see the beginnings of the riots in Iran it slowly builds to a crescendo when the U.S. embassy gets invaded. It's truly horrific and the movie does a great job of filling you with absolute terror for all the individuals whose lives would forever be changed.

Six people manage to safely get away and were continually rejected until the Canadian ambassador opened up his house to keep them safe. But they couldn't stay there forever and Tony Mendez is brought in to extract those six Americans. He convinces the CIA to create a fake movie for the extraction and this is where the movie breaks up all the drama with some well-timed comedy. Mendez hooks up with John Chambers (Goodman), a makeup and effects guru to get the science fiction movie off the ground. There's a great performance as well from Alan Arkin, who plays a big-time producer who fronts the money for the fake movie. The scenes in Hollywood are great - there's some great jokes and Goodman and Arkin are fantastic.

The great thing about this movie is that it all moves quickly. You're never left wondering where this movie is going and it does a fantastic job of making you sit on the edge of your seat even though you may already know the ending. The final thirty minutes are so well paced and tense that my heart was racing just a little bit. That's a good movie and it deserves all the accolades it's going to get this awards season.

A must-see movie this year, Argo is a smart, intense story that excels at delivering a good mix of drama and comedy while being very informative.

Rating: See It!

Most Anticipated: The Raven

25. The Raven (R) - Runtime: 110 minutes
Starring: John Cusack, Alice Eve, Luke Evans
Director: James McTeigue

I had really high hopes for this movie. When I first heard about this movie - I thought it was going to be a really cool thriller where Edgar Allen Poe lives out his last dies sinking into madness - believing that a killer is out to get him. I had just finished reading the novel Drood, a story about Charles Dickens last days who becomes obsessed with this mysterious man named Drood. Alas, my hopes were set too high - this movie was a HUGE let down. While John Cusack does a good job playing the part - there was just too much suck in this movie to recommend.

The story starts off well enough - someone gets killed and the police chief comes to find out that it resembles one of Edgar Allen Poe's deadly stories. At first suspicious of Poe, he finally realizes that Poe isn't the killer, but is just the inspiration and recruits him to help with the investigation as more gruesome murders occur under the guise of Poe's stories.

Unfortunately the movie does a piss poor job of re-creating these death scenes from Poe's fiction, with the exception of the first double murder. One guy gets killed by this swinging axe that keeps lower itself - he soon gets cut in half and supposedly it's a take on the Pit and the Pendulum? It's possibly the dumbest murder scene I've seen in a long time and the CGI blood doesn't help. The rest of the murders (actually now that I think about it, there's one more murder - LAME) aren't shown and have no real connection to Poe. So basically the whole movie loses it's steam after the first scene. I found myself not caring whatsoever about what's going to happen.

And I found myself not caring about Poe himself. Cusack does a good job acting as Poe - but dear god, his character is probably one of the most pretentious twats I've seen on screen this year. His first appearance in the movie is him drunkenly stumbling around the bar, berating the customers for not knowing who he is. You'd think he'd grow as a character and learn to be not such an ass, but he does this throughout the whole movie. The movie tries to make him more sympathetic and quirky by giving him a pet raccoon, but it ends up being a weird distraction that adds nothing to his character.

And then the movie itself is just boring a dull and somewhat confusing. This is solely the director's fault - because I had to rewind the movie twice to figure out what the hell just happened. There's one scene where Poe's insufferable girlfriend gets kidnapped, but I didn't realize this until the next scene when everyone's scrambling around trying to find his girlfriend. I skipped back to see what I missed, but you don't actually see her get taken away - one second she's dancing with Poe and the next chaos ensues and you hear Poe scream "Emily!" and then the movie jarringly cuts to the next day. There's more scenes like this in the movie that I scratched my head at, wondering what just happened.

While this movie had a lot of potential to be a really good psychological thriller, instead it lowers itself to a really awful made-for-tv serial killer movie. And you know what? You're better off watching the TV show Castle, because at least that show knows how to keep you invested in the mystery. The Raven should have been at least a good movie, but fails to even rise to the level of mediocrity.

Rating: Avoid Like the Plague!