What’s good about it: It is hilarious; very funny and it will resonate with every young man who wants more out of their teenage years.  The story is compelling and there are tons of great action scenes.  It parodies everything from first-person shooter games to kung-fu action flicks.  People have said that it is superficial, but I kept hearing a dialogue between the filmmakers and the audience about what we are as a culture.  We are violent, foul mouthed, pre-pubescent kids who don’t truly understand the effect of consequences.  But the film doesn’t stay in an accusatory tone: it acknowledges our nature as Americans and then moves on to see what happens to the characters.  

What’s not so good: Crude and rude.  I wonder sometimes how anyone can honestly depict our modern culture onscreen without offending the majority.  We say, “How dare they depict an 11-year old who is obscene and violent”–but then would we see anything different if we walked into any public junior high school?  The violence and profanity is pervasive, but it is a part of the story they are telling.  One thing I hated was how often they had to reassure us that the lead character is an “ordinary” kid.  We get it!  ‘Do’ don’t ‘tell’.  And am I really supposed to buy that this kid is going to get the girl: it seemed very contrived that the ‘guy-gets-girl-if-he-tries-really-hard’ formula really worked for him.  It would have been more interesting to see him fail and have to deal with those consequences.  

Overall, I truly enjoyed the film.  Seeing that ‘doing good’ is not always easy and that even superheroes bleed (or die horrible deaths) was important.  It was a well told story, even though they pushed for some things.  I would recommend seeing it in theaters, but just be prepared to be offended: which I would recommend being offended now and again to everyone…B+

What’s good about it:  Very fascinating story!  I was hooked until the very end and I truly wanted to know what was going to happen.  The most important part of this movie is the story…no doubt about it.  Everything from the music, to lighting, to performances was to serve the plot.  The acting was stellar (Kingsley soared with spectacular subtlety).  It is an unconventional Scorsese film in that it is not a character study.  He usually centers his work on the protagonist but, in my opinion, we are more interested in the mystery and the motivations than the character himself. While we do examine DiCaprio’s character Teddy Daniels, he is merely the catalyst for the mystery to which we are more interested in.  I was just fascinated from start to finish…no other way to say it…

What’s not so good: This one is not for everybody.  Very dark subject matter and graphic content.  The editing is very stylized and I could definitely see how this could be a turn off to some: cool effects don’t always equal most effective choice.  I did not feel the two hours at all; but others have complained about it being too long.  And ultimately, the concept takes a big suspension of your disbelief–at the end of it all you really have to choke down the doubts that something like this could actually happen.  This is one of those weird films that doesn’t really fit in any category when we try to sell it to the masses: not quite a suspense, not quite an action, not quite an art film, and not for everybody.

I really enjoyed this film and I think I will enjoy it more on a second viewing.  I don’t find any fault in Scorsese making his films a bit inaccessible (this is actually his highest grossing film to date and it still didn’t make a ton of money).  Filmmakers will love to see this as an example of a master filmmaker handling exceptional material.  A-

What’s good about it:  If you want to know what a visually stunning film is, then look no further than Avatar.  Cameron is right; 3D is the wave of the future for film.  He created a whole world with Pandora and the Navi were always fascinating.  I did not feel that we were looking at a film in which the director just wanted to see how many special effects he could do; everything served the story.  Sam Worthington did a fine job and the supporting cast made the cliché characters seem realistic for the scenario.  What I really loved was that they were always ‘doing’ something, there was never a long, drawn out explanation or brooding scene–we learned by having the main character experience the world around him.  The 3 hours flew by and it was lots of fun to watch.

What’s not so good:  Cameron is formulaic.  You know how the story goes way before you get in the theater.   I am telling everyone that it is DANCES WITH WOLVES in space.  Don’t get me wrong, Cameron knows what type of story he wants to tell and he tells it well, but the screenplay is extraordinarily predictable.  I have heard that people think this film is only for the tree-huggers and environmentalists.  I disagree except for one point: everything that the humans did was bad and everything that the Navi did was good.  Sure there were scientists trying to fight the machine–but ultimately, HUMANS=BAD.  So if there was a “message” to the film then I don’t think it is clear, because the world of the Navi seemed too perfect and I just felt like being a human sucked.

If you want to see a film in theaters it has to be Avatar.  It is a cinematic experience (with a slight headache from the 3D, but who cares).  Let this be a lesson to all the Transformers, GI JOE’S, Star Wars, National Treasures, Spiderman’s, and X-Men out there…you can have a special effects movie that actually is good.  Remember, the characters matter, every shot matters, words matter, and plot matters…there, now I’m done.  B

What’s good about it:  I have to give props to Quentin for once again being original.  This is a Tarintino film in that it steals something from every war film you have ever seen and rehashes it in a brand new way.  This works cinematically, we are drawn in by the familiar concept but then awed by the new direction it takes.  The acting is stellar–I agree with most of the critics with their praise of Christoph Waltz as the villain.  Costumes reflected that care and effort were poured into them and many of the locations were equally impressive.  The script was tightly written (Tarintino has a knack for dialogue that every screenwriter should learn from); it was dark but funny at times.  It is a grand effort and undertaking and ultimately an enjoyable film.

What’s not so good:  I felt that there were some Tarintino-isms that were pushed into the film mainly to show the audience who was directing the film.  He used quick flashbacks, title names under a character, and music choices that screamed his name.  While they served projects like KILL BILL, I felt like they were only thrown in to make us aware that we were watching a Tarintino movie.  They praised the director for being so brave to change the historical ending, but I kept thinking–”big whoop”.  I never got to know any of the characters well enough to care who dies and who lives.  The ones that had the most promise were killed the fastest.  I never related to anyone I just watched a violence fest.  Tarintino can write great scenes, but sometimes his movies suffer holistically.  I loved the scene in the bar with the German officer figuring out if the men are American spies, but looking back I wished that I would have cared more for the characters in that scene.  To me all the soldiers were interchangeable and whoever died was of no consequence to anybody. 

This is a fun watch and a great movie to study scenes, but I do not join in with everyone in thinking that this is a great Tarintino film; it’s just okay.  I think he was just trying to make a cool movie, and he did–just not his best. B-

What’s good about it–Fantastic visual effects; it does what they should and they add to the movie and they do not BECOME the movie.  Filmed in Johannesburg, the cameramen went down and dirty and went for guerrilla filmmaking which gives the film a raw and grizzly feel.   The story is original and very compelling.  It was filmed in a very documentary style and you fall right into the world that the filmmakers created.  I was fascinated and I had no idea where the film was going to take me.  And I was moved too!  The film had something to tell me and I was angered by the aliens and by the humans.  It turned the camera around on us and made us think.  The acting was very good and I felt a connection with Wikus as his eyes were slowly opened to a different perspective.  You feel something and you want to do something after you see the film and that is a difficult artistic achievement. 

What’s not so good–Make no bones about it, this is an action movie.  For me the third act was a little bit of a let down as far as the story goes.  It became extremely violent (we even had our summer movie giant killer robot at the end).  It reminded me that I was not watching a message film with action, but an action film with a message.  Not really a critique, just know what movie you are watching…it will help.  There are a lot of questions left unanswered, but the answers are not easy ones to find (especially if you parallell it’s message with our world today).  It can be messy and a tough ride, but hang on because it is worth it.

I will want to watch this film again, and I wonder if a sequel might be in the future.  It doesn’t have to be, but the story certainly could go on.  I would highly recommend seeing this film, but bring your trash bags in case blood splatters on your shirt.  A-

What’s good about it–Everyone will connect with this film.  Everyone has felt this kind of pain/happiness and there is no great leap to relate.  The performances are understated and natural with no sign of a “cheeky romantic comedy wink”.  The film uses Tom’s memories to it’s advantage and spreads it’s wings to create a strong narrative that does not seem cliche.  I laughed out loud several times and that is not an easy thing for a movie to do for a tight-wad like me. 

What’s not so good–It may profess to not be a romantic comedy, but ultimately, the film is a indie romantic comedy.  You have the depressed male hero meeting the overly eccentric female who opens his world to knew ideas yet the world is not as picture perfect as idealized.  It follows the indie film formula, so the overall message is not necessarily new (which I am okay with).  I found the film far more accessible than most indie films and for that I applaud it.  But I was more satisfied watching ANNIE HALL then this one. 

This is a fine film!  I recommend it to all my friends (moviewatchers and novices alike).  There is something to be mined for everyone.  Very creative and a lot of fun

Rating=B

What is good about it:  It is fun.  The art direction and costuming present us with a world that is closer to fairytale than real life.  There is always a hint that we should not take the story too seriously, just as we should never truly trust what Ruffalo says.  The story is character driven and we are intent on finding out what choices will lead them to happiness.  Adrian Brody has the unique ability to be so sympathetic yet never rolling over into cliche.  And Rachel Weisz is quirky, fun, and she exercises impressive comedic chops.  

What’s not so good:  Like most con-movies, it can be confusing.  I was a little lost on where the plot was leading at times, but luckily the characters were interesting enough that I didn’t mind.  I think the film avoided cliche so much that it could have actually benefited from a car chase or two.  Just something to help us spring board into the next step of the plot with more energy.  The film meandered about but ultimately the story is not about the heist, but about the brothers (and the title is still confusing to me…their names are Steve and Bloom.  So perhaps it is meant to say the brothers “bloom”). 

This is a great movie to see with friends or on a date.  The comedy is hilarious and the relationships are touching.  You want to go wherever the movie takes you.  A solid “B+”.

What is good about it:  I saw the trailer and immediately looked to find where the nearest theater would be playing it.  It was a brilliant movie and completely absorbing.  Sam Rockwell is–as always–dynamite and fascinating to watch.  The film was shot with a budget of $5 million, using models and in camera effects.  The result is authentic and organic, and I believe more films would do well to follow the “less is more” approach to effects work.  The story is not terribly complex, and it leaves room for interpretation which I believe will reach movie-goers who do not directly gravitate to sci-fi.  I truly enjoyed the experience.

What is not so good:  It is a slow film.  Let’s be honest, we have one actor and one location–so anyone expecting a fast action should keep away.  It is cerebral and introspective which again is a hard sell for audiences.  It demands something more from a viewer that requires us to engage the material, and so it won’t always work for everyone.  I felt the explanation for Sam’s situation in the film was arrived at too quickly and thus some suspense was lost, but I feel that the film sacrificed some gimmicks in order to entertain the themes that the movie presents. 

I will tell you to go see this film, but not to have extrodianrily high expectations.  It is classified as “hard science fiction” which can be hit or miss depending on your mood.  However, I do think that you will be surprised and ultimately satisfied after watching the film.  A strong “A” from me and I hope to see more risky fare like this from the studios.

What’s good about it…

All the action you could want from a superhero movie: lots of cool fights and lots of shout outs to the fans.  This is really a fan movie; I mean, we finally get Gambit and even though he was a little silly–I finally got to see his STAFF SLAM ATTACK!  The real story though comes with Sabertooth and Wolverine…that is probably the weightiest part of the film and what I was most interested in.  I also loved seeing Wolverine with the team of mutants that Stryker teamed up (harkening to the teams we have seen in the other films). We see some favorites like Blob, Bolt, Deadpool, Cyclops, and many others.  It redeems somewhat the time I wasted with X-men 3. 

What is not so good…

If you are not  an X-men fan, then this will seem as a sloppy film.  It interjects so many fights that it really gets more repetitive than exciting.  The story is far too complicated (his girl is killed, then not killed, then working for the enemy, then back with Wolverine, then killed again).  The story is with Sabertooth and Wolverine…that is where it should have stayed; forget this weird Deadpool mutant hybrid storyline.  They really don’t even explore Wolverine as Weapon X–which is why he cannot remember anything (not because of a stupid adimantium bullet lobotomy…that was really lame).  They could have done fine making this a Weapon X story, but it was more of a Wolverine story. 

I give it a C-.  There are several reasons why this isn’t a spectacular movie.  They toned down the really intense stuff (it’s PG-13), they spent too much time trying to give fans what they wanted, and Hugh Jackman produced.  But they at least created a story that was true to the characters and that seemed to add to the other X-men films without repeating too much or killing off beloved characters.  My biggest critique about X-men films is that it should always be about the team, and not about the individual–but alas, I still enjoyed this film.