JollyG87

Tomas Alfredson has balls, and I'm talking huge ones. In crafting this mystery, he chooses to treat the narrative like a poker pro treats his hand in an intense poker match. He never reveals too much. This strategy is sure to disappoint and bore many viewers. After all, the narrative jumps back and forth rapidly from past to present, and we never get a very deep look into any of the characters. In fact, the one we're exposed to the most is George Smiley (Oldman), and his character's most notable feature is that he wears his emotions on the inside, so you can imagine the frustration viewers might have with this. But for me, this risky decision to keep viewers at arms length worked wonders. The entire time I was compelled to find any clue that would lead me to the discovery of the mole. Every time I came up empty handed, but this only increased my determination to keep trying. After finding out the identity of the mole in the end, I believe there is at least one scene that tells you who the mole is before the big reveal. I didn't realize the scene was a clue until the mole was revealed to me. So although Alfredson does play tough, he does give the viewers an opportunity to win. It's a small opportunity. The scene that comes to mind only lasts a few minutes, but it's a credit to him that he at least makes it worth your time to try. Because of this opportunity, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" manages to be one of the best mysteries in the last few years. It's beautifully shot and it rarely plays nice when you're wanting more details. Another incentive to watch this is the astounding cast. Oldman gives one of the best performances I've seen all year, and Tom Hardy does wonders with a small role as a frustrated and confused hitman. Everything about this movie is top-notch, so if you like the mysteries that give you a challenge, you have to check this one out.

Stylistically, "The Artist" is exquisite. Director Michel Hazanavicius wields the camera like a magician treating us to one delightful shot after another. It was wonderful to see all of the creativity that went in to every single moment. The story isn't bad either. There where quite a few moments where I had a big open faced smile and a case of the chuckles. But mostly, those chuckles came because of the talented cast. Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo perfectly portray their characters, Dujardin a struggling silent film actor, and Bejo a hot celebrity rising to the top after the invention of talkies. Together, they radiate chemistry and always keep the movie hopping along even during the unhappiest of times. The only drawback for me was the running time. With a story so familiar, I felt like about 10 minutes of the movie should have been cut particularly when Dujardin is going through the rough times in his life. I know that the familiar story is part of the "silent movie" style in itself, and I also know that many other viewers found the storyline to be enchanting. But for me, I was never swept up in the magic. It started to build for me in the beginning, but it sunk in the middle as I waited for Dujardin to recover and make it back on top for the eventual happy ending. Still, "The Artist" is an expertly handled exercise in style. If you can find the substance as well as the style, you will absolutely love it. But if you're like me, and you only enjoyed the creativity of the storytelling, you won't love it, but there will be plenty to excite you.

While it's certainly not as great of film as the Swedish version, this American remake still provides an intriguing mystery even if the plot points have all been covered before. The movie is over two hours long, but with the storyline and Fincher's pacing, the whole movie goes by rather fast. I already knew the storyline, and I never felt the movie drag. I can only imagine how fast this movie would fly for those unfamiliar with it. The performances are also solid. Craig plays a good Blomkvist, but the real standout is Rooney Mara. When I heard that "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was getting an American version, my prime concern was who would play Lisbeth Salander as credibly as Noomi Rapace did in the Swedish film. Then when I found out Mara was cast, I had my doubts. It was kind of like when I heard Heath Ledger would be playing the Joker in "The Dark Knight." But just like Ledger, Mara turned all of my doubts away the second she appeared in the film. I'm not going to go so far as to say I liked her better than Rapace, but the fact that she was able to go toe-to-toe with her was pretty damn impressive. She definitely has an exciting career ahead of her after giving one of the most transformational performances of the year. In fact, she is pretty much the only reason to see this if you have read the books or seen the Swedish film. If you haven't seen the Swedish movie be sure to do so before you see this. Like I mentioned before, the mystery here is intriguing, but in the Swedish version it is absolutely fascinating, and it all has to do with the pacing. Yes, the pacing is faster here causing the running time to breeze by. But the Swedish version played it smart. It took its time slowly enveloping you in the mystery. This is an element that's missing here, and it constantly keeps this version from reaching greatness. Also, Fincher spends far too much time developing a subplot at the very end. The Swedish version wrapped up the same subplot in a shorter amount of time, giving us the exact same information in a more efficient and focused way. What I would recommend is this. First, rent the Swedish movie and avoid seeing this in theaters. Then, rent this version when it comes out on DVD. It'll make for an interesting comparison to see how two expert directors (one unproven, the other legendary) helm the same story.

Spielberg has always been a master manipulator. He knows just what to do to make a scene feel like it's one for the ages. But in most of his films, he's always had a group of characters we can get behind or a story that is like nothing we've seen before. In other words, he delivers the goods before trying to control our emotions. In "War Horse," I didn't feel like the goods were delivered, leaving me fully aware of Spielberg's attempted manipulation. It was like watching a magician perform a trick I already knew how to do. While the cinematography is beautiful, and the story stays engaging as we follow the horse through multiple battlefields, very few characters have much meat to them, especially Albert who's the boy that raises the horse. All we understand from Albert is that he is a determined boy who loves his horse. That's about it. He's like Captain America where he is the epitome of good. And like Captain America, when you have a consistently "good" character, it becomes quite easy to guess what the character's actions will be. He's a character that's easy to figure out early on, and nothing is done to give him any depth whatsoever. Luckily, there are a few characters along the way that bring the movie back up. My favorite group consisted of a French young teen and her grandfather. The young teen is played by Celine Buckens and she is the standout of the film with only 15 minutes of screen time. She, along with Niels Arestrup who plays the grandfather, are the only actors able to breathe life into their characters. After the horse leaves their company, I have to admit I was pretty disappointed, as the horse never encounters any characters of interest for the remainder of the movie. Also, in terms of the plot twists, I kept getting this feeling that Spielberg was in this world pulling the strings to make everything turn out okay. Whenever tragedy threatened, there was almost always some character acting illogically or an implausible event that brought it back around. Because Spielberg does this early on, I came to realize that everything would work out okay for the main characters, and nothing unexpectedly drastic would happen. This took the fun out of the movie a bit, and it made me just wait patiently for the inevitable ending. Now as I'm looking over what I've written so far, it does seem like I'm trashing "War Horse," which is not what I intended. I enjoyed the movie well enough. "War Horse" definitely is one of the most beautifully filmed movies of Spielberg's career, and while the script doesn't offer much depth, Spielberg moves the film along at a nice enough pace to keep us constantly engaged for over two hours. That's a feat few directors can do, and Spielberg handles it like a champ. Overall, I'd recommend this to people looking for a predictably happy ending, but for the rest of you, I'd wait till it comes out on DVD before checking it out.

It's so hard to find a great dark comedy these days. Often times, a movie will play it dark at first, then so it doesn't lose viewers, it tends to lighten up at the end. Not this puppy! "Young Adult" focuses on a rather unlikable character named Mavis (Charlize Theron) doing some pretty twisted things. You see, this was a girl who was popular in high school. She dated the most popular guy and the less popular all wanted to be like her. Then real life hit. Now she's an alcoholic writing a failed young adult book series. But after receiving an e-mail that her high school sweetheart is having a baby with his happily married wife, she attempts to steal him back. But not out of love for him. The only reason she wants to tear him away from his happy life is so she can experience happiness and relive her glory days. You see, Mavis is not a nice person. The movie establishes this early on, and thanks to Cody's most mature script to date, and a knock-out performance from Theron, Mavis never becomes a nice person by the end of this. The entertainment then comes from Mavis' constant despicable behavior. Just when you think she can't go any lower, she does, and it's here where the laughs come, but only when they don't get stuck in your throat. Theron continues to show her versatility in a role that allows her to branch out and bring out her **** side. I also enjoyed the relationship between Theron and Patton Oswalt. They establish a strange friendship, but it helps to bring out the complexities of both of the characters. The only drawback to "Young Adult" is the character of Mavis herself. She is brilliantly played by Theron, and her characters' action are what drive all of the laughs, but a selfish person can only be so fascinating. Cody, Reitman, and Theron bring the most out of her that they can, but by the end of the movie, the only thing that remains in your mind is happiness that you are in no way like her. Still, "Young Adult" is a terrific comedy for those who like their comedy extra dark.

The action scenes are the one element that makes this mission great. Not only are they creative, but director Brad Bird handles them like an action master. Personally, I haven't seen action this good since "Casino Royale." Unlike a lot of other recent action films, there's no shaky cam, and the action almost always stays focused on one particular element. In other words, it rarely gets out of hand and overwhelming (unlike the last two "Transformers" movies for instance). Take note, this is how action should always be done. It's sad that action this great is now a novelty, but as an action fan, I'll sure as heck take this as a gift. Besides the cinematography, I also thought the makers did a clever job of giving Hunt opportunities to escape his "impossible" situations. It was like the creators adapted Matthew Vaughn's philosophy when he made "Kick-Ass". The philosophy was this: If there's at most a 1 out of 1000 chance that a character can accomplish the stunts given to them, it's included it in the movie. Is it likely Hunt could have done the things he did? No. Is it possible? Maybe. Adapting this philosophy prevents us from laughing at the action, and it allows us, instead, to just go along for the ride. My only quibble with this film is its running time. With its fairly simple storyline and stock characters, 133 minutes is pushing it just a bit. Luckily, the cast keeps things fresh with Simon Pegg giving an incredibly sharp performance as the techie-nerd comic relief. Tom Cruise also shows us that at 49 he can kick some major ass. This is a must-see for just about any action fan, and it has to be seen in theaters. The visuals are too incredible for you to get the same effect on a television.

I don't say this too often about any movie, but this is one of the few where if you do not enjoy it, you simply have no soul. "The Muppets" has to be one of the happiest movies I have ever seen. The musical numbers are brilliantly written and every one of them has this infectious energy that never fails to put a huge grin on your face. The movie also has its fair share of laughs. I particularly enjoyed all of the 80s references to "The Blues Brothers" and "Indiana Jones." There's maybe one area in the middle where the simplistic story starts to drag it down a bit, but then Amy Adams and Miss Piggy sing an hysterical duet that brings the movie back up, and from there, "The Muppets" sails into magical bliss. I'm recommending this to anyone who likes to feel happy. If you're soulless and only enjoy movies that make you feel depressed or angry, stay far away.

This is a very similar film to "The Tree of Life" in the sense that both of them could be part of a subgenre called "ambiguous art house dramas." But for me, there were some stark differences between the two films that led to "Tree of Life" being great, and "Melancholia" being art-house puke. The most important thing is that there is very little to latch onto in "Melancholia." The story is told rather clumsily, the shaky-cam style takes away from the cinematographic beauty, and the characters are ruined by a script that seems more concerned with big ideas rather than compelling characters. At least with "Tree of Life," it had a compelling middle where character development was at the forefront, and the imagery was beautiful. Another aspect that bothered me was something many independent films are often guilty of which is taking unnecessary pauses. Characters often stare off into the distance, and there are so many pauses in the dialogue. People in real life do not do this, but in the art film world, apparently they do. Then there's the complete shift in the story. Melancholia recklessly jumps from depression drama to an end-of-the-world film. It's so abrupt you're left shaking your head as to why this shift happened in the first place. Then it becomes apparent when looking at Dunst's character shift, and you realize that "Melancholia" is simply a thin message movie about the nature of depression. Aside from a few gorgeous shots (the last shot especially), there's no reason to see "Melancholia." It makes you feel icky inside, and then it does something even worse, it makes you bored and wishing that the end of the world would just come already.

On a technical scale, "Hugo" is a masterwork. Scorsese majestically helms this adventure delivering superb 3-D cinematography and a steady pace. Out of all of Scorsese's films, this is definitely one of his most personal. While delivering an engaging story, he uses the movie to celebrate his love of films, in particular, the ones that got the art of film off the ground. It's during these moments when the movie radiates a sense of magic. But these are the only magical moments. When the movie doesn't focus on film, it's only an interesting story, nothing more. The main issue is that few of the characters are satisfyingly developed. Kingsley's Georges Melies is the one exception. His back story is far more intriguing than Hugo's, and with only a limited amount of screen time, Kingsley gives us a complete heartbreaking portrait of a sorrowful genius. But the film focuses on Hugo, and his story and character is nowhere near as fascinating. This prevents the movie from taking off into greatness. Once Scorsese's love of film shines, the movie starts to soar, but this doesn't happen until the last 20 minutes. Still, it's a very good film that should be seen by anyone who's a fan of Scorsese or a fan of cinema in general. I wouldn't recommend it to younger kids however. The movie moves too slow for them, and they'll most likely leave the theater confused and bored.

In terms of sheer storytelling, there is not a single movie this year that tops "The Skin I Live In." Almodovar expertly reveals the events bit by bit thanks to a series of telling flashbacks. To give you an idea on how he unfolds the story, the most shocking moment has already happened when the movie begins. It's not until those flashbacks do you realize what is exactly going on. Almodovar's beautiful cinematography perfectly complements the disturbing storyline. When this movie isn't trying to unsettle you, it is devilishly sexy. The performances are also top-notch with Banderas playing against type as a brilliant, but mentally unstable surgeon. The script doesn't do the best at developing its characters, but in this case, the movie's action speaks louder than its words.

While this is getting rave reviews, I personally had a miserable time with "Martha Marcy May Marlene." First of all, in any movie the characters need to go through some kind of transformation so we can understand what they're going through. In a way, Martha does change. There are a series of flashbacks that show her happy and carefree as she settles into the cult of a sex crazed looney. Then we see her psychologically damaged after she's escaped and living with her sister. But the movie establishes these two sides of Martha early on and very little is done in the end to give us a complete picture of who Martha is as a person. I also didn't care too much for the outcome of her character. While Elizabeth Olsen gives a knockout debut performance, I found her character to be very self-centered and foolish. First, she was stupid to have joined the cult and believe all of the stupid babble the leader spewed on her. Then she refuses to even hint at what happened to her with her sister. I understand that a person would have a hard time opening up about traumatic events, but they at least need to understand that she's been through some messed up times. She never lets them know. It becomes very frustrating to deal with. Then to top it all off, the movie ends at a random point. I felt like I went through enough trouble in this film to get some kind of conclusion, but the movie leaves us with none. I saw a lot of similarities between "Martha Marcy May Marlene" and "Take Shelter," but the biggest differences for me were the characters and execution. The characters in "Take Shelter" were compelling enough that it could end on a cliffhanger and get away with it. The characters in " Martha" on the other hand, were rather unlikable. Also, the ending is beautifully executed in "Take Shelter," while in "Marcy" the movie ends like the projectionist forgot to put on the last reel.

I saw this last night, but upon my return I couldn't put into words what I thought of the film. Now I think I can. This film is a wonderful character study. You have this man named Curtis who has these vivid nightmares that suggest the world is going to end. He eventually becomes convinced that the nightmares are a prophecy for things to come. He takes drastic action to protect his family, so drastic that it threatens to rip his life apart. His wife thinks he's going crazy, even he thinks he might be going crazy. But he still continues on because he truly believes in what he's doing. I found this conflict fascinating, and the question that writer/director Jeff Nichols leaves us with is equally compelling. Is Curtis a paranoid schizophrenic or is he a prophet? The ending doesn't give you the answers you're looking for. This isn't the kind of film that's wrapped up in a nice tiny ribbon. It forces you to think. The performances are also terrific here. Michael Shannon really allows us to see the conflict brewing in Curtis. We can connect with his doubts as he makes decisions a sane person probably wouldn't make. Overall, this movie isn't for everybody. It's definitely an independent film in the sense that the pace is slow and the movie ends ambiguously, but for those of you looking for a film that will stick with you for days, be sure to check this one out.

I've giving it this high of a rating for one reason and one reason only. I could not stop laughing hysterically. The plot is ridiculous and none of the characters matter, but this movie has to be one of the funniest I've seen since "Anchorman." Like "Anchorman," "A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas" relishes in its stupidity. It doesn't care about being realistic or giving you characters to sympathize with. It mostly just wants to hit you upside the head with laughs for 90 minutes. Most films that try to do this are not successful simply because they can't keep up the hilarity for that long. But the makers of "A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas" never let up. The film starts out strong and it ends the same way. Some of you might not find this to be as funny as I did. If you're easily offended by distasteful jokes, or you're wanting to see an actual Christmas movie, you might want to skip this one. But for those of you who like your humor shocking and in-your-face, you will love this new "Harold & Kumar."

Hollywood has used cancer as a dramatic crutch for so long. It's still a topic that flourishes in Lifetime movies and Nicolas Sparks stories. But finally, we get a fresh take on it with "50/50;" a movie that miraculously turns the subject of cancer into a hysterical comedy. Now that's not to say that cancer is the punchline. There are actually quite a few touching moments where the cancer diagnosis is treated quite seriously. What the movie instead focuses on is the odd friendship between Rogen and Gordon-Levitt. The two characters complement each other wonderfully. Gordon-Levitt treats his cancer as a death sentence to no longer have fun in life, and Rogen wants him to use his cancer to hook up with beautiful women. It's this dynamic that leads to "50/50" being one of the best comedies of the year. It made me laugh as hard as "Bridesmaids." Besides its comedic moments, "50/50" also succeeds as a drama and romance. While some of the dramatic scenes don't hold enough weight, the movie still outshines 90% of cancer dramas. What does carry the movie through to the end is the believable chemistry between Gordon-Levitt and Kendrick. I think I might be slightly biased due to my huge crush on Anna Kendrick. But the actors seem so natural together that you can't help but root for Gordon-Levitt to make it through alive so he can make beautiful babies with that lovable woman.

This movie hit me upside the head on so many different levels. I'm still not sure where to begin. Perhaps I should start talking about the beautiful cinematography, or maybe the shocking bursts of violence that wonderfully compliment the movie's quieter moments. But then what about Gosling's performance, and the way the script paints a blank canvas for him to work his magic? The man has very little dialogue, but with a simple look and nod we know everything we need to about him. Yeah, we'll start there. The movie rests on Gosling. He makes for a compelling "Mad Max" sort of character where he's soft spoken, but piss him off and he's a man capable of extreme violence. Albert Brooks is also terrific against type as a stone cold gangster. But really what made me love this movie was its unique style. I've never seen anything like it. The music was refreshingly unique and the way the movie shifts from a gentle calm to an extreme level of brutality is a work of art and frankly, it's sheer movie making magic. This is a film I will never forget for years to come.

If all movies were crafted as carefully as this, this would be a run-of-the-mill thriller. The story itself isn't that fascinating, but because the film is perfectly put together in a non-sequential order and edited down so every scene serves a purpose to the plot, you can't help but be utterly riveted by the proceedings. This is one of those thrillers that throws you into a state of confusion early on, and then as you piece together the details, it begins to take you in its grip. The performances are also pretty dang good with the two women playing Rachel (different ages) being the standouts. Helen Mirren is great as always, and I can now say I officially love Jessica Chastain. She's debuted her chops to mainstream audiences in 3 films this year including this one, and I've loved her in every one of them. She made an impact on me in "The Tree of Life," she was one of my favorites in "The Help," and here she proves she can stand toe to toe with acting greats like Mirren and Tom Wilkinson. I was reading some snippets of what other people thought about "The Debt," and Tom Long from the "Detroit News" said it best: "The Debt has the overall air of an Oscar contender that never got into the ring -- well-made, but not spectacular. Still, it serves as a fine, full introduction to Chastain's potential." Those were my thoughts exactly, only written a lot more eloquently.

Horror movies don't have to be scary, but if they're going for the chills, they have to do one thing at least. They can't blatantly show the antagonists. This is a mistake "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" makes, and it completely kills the movie. Early on, the film is decently creepy. We get a very disturbing opener, but 30 minutes in the creatures come out to "play" and we get to see every bit of them. By seeing the creatures, "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" turns into an incoherent fantasy masquerading as a horror film. Another thing that bothered me was the little girl, Sally. Bailee Madison is a terrific actress, but her character is forced to make so many illogical choices that it's hard to appreciate what she does here. After she has been attacked by these creatures in a way that would force any child into therapy, her character pleasantly takes a bath and doesn't seem to mind that she's vulnerable and alone. What child does that? It's these inconsistencies that take us out of the situation. On the positive side, the cinematography is alright and the performances are all fairly strong. Katie Holmes, who is an average actress through and through, gives one of her best performances here as a concerned girlfriend of Guy Pearce. But there's not really much to appreciate here. If you want to catch a horror flick, see the new "Fright Night." It's not scary either, but it's a heck of a lot of fun.

This is the best movie of the summer period. The only movie this summer that has come close to this level of quality was the last Harry Potter. Everything else is not even in the same ballpark. Not only does this movie give us an exciting and thought-provoking story, but it also delivers state-of-the-art effects that bring us one step closer to flawless computer animation. The character of Caesar (played brilliantly in motion capture by Andy Serkis) is one of the most compelling characters of the year. Thanks to Serkis, we come to understand all of Caesar's actions even though he doesn't really speak. We get to see his joy as a young ape swinging through the redwoods, and his hostility and determination when he finds himself locked in a facility with other apes. Through Andy Serkis' wonderful portrayal, I found myself having a strong vested interest in the outcome of this ape, and through that, I was able to hook myself into the storyline. The story, by the way, is expertly handled by Hollywood newcomer, Rupert Wyatt. Wyatt first gives us a chance to get to know the characters and the situation at hand. There's no rushing along in this action movie. Once that is set up, he delivers the goods. We get the chance to see how Caesar becomes the leader of the apes, and that leads to a stunningly crafted action scene that will overwhelm your senses with joy and excitement. This is one of those rare summer movies where you actually feel like there is some craftsmanship involved in making it. If you've been looking for a summer action movie that will blow you away, look no more. The apes are finally here, and they make for one hell of a fascinating movie.

There's only one real problem with "Cowboys & Aliens." It's not very much fun. The characters are developed decently well for a summer movie, Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford excel as cowboy tough guys, and the story has the potential to be a fun summer ride. But director Jon Favreau and his 5 screenwriters squander that fun by not giving the cast much to do. The action is sparse, and when there is action, it consists of Craig pointing and shooting at aliens like a live action game of "Area 51." Oh, and there's also some cowboys running away from a series of explosions. I admire the fact that they were wanting to make a serious alien invasion movie, but just because you're making something serious does not mean it can't also be fun. That's what the makers seem to have forgotten. The movie starts out strong when its strictly a western, but once the aliens come to invade, it becomes a dull adventure.

For the first hour and a half, "Crazy, Stupid, Love." is a blast. The movie hits you with one hysterical situation after another. None of it feels contrived. Thanks to the screenplay by Dan Fogelman, the movie is able to find morsels of humor in Cal's (Steve Carell) despair over his divorce. The performances also help carry this film along. Gosling and Stone have instant chemistry in their brief moments, but the real connection lies with Carell and Gosling. They are polar opposites. One is suave and handsome, and the other is awkward and depressed (I'll let you figure out which is which). Carell and Gosling play off this contrast to perfection. Everything about this movie works, until the last 15 minutes of the movie. It was like I was transported into a totally different film. Instead of having great dialogue and believable situations like it did for most of its running time, it takes the Hollywood way out by giving us stale dialogue and contrived situations. I still liked the movie overall, but it could have been something really great if they would have spent more time on the ending. "Crazy, Stupid, Love." is still a film worth seeing.

Out of all the major Marvel superheroes, Steve Rogers is definitely the least interesting of the bunch. He's a lot like Superman where he's basically the embodiment of good... and well... that's about it. The movie runs into this problem. How do you make a good movie when your hero is simply a patriotic do-gooder? Well thanks to Chris Evans' performance and a script that has fun with the material, Captain America ends up being a superhero movie full of fun and excitement, even if it doesn't quite overcome all of its obstacles. The movie's strongest element is its pacing. The screenwriters smartly focus the movie's running time on how Steve Rogers becomes Captain America which is the most interesting part of the story. When it comes to the development of the romance between Rogers and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and Captain America's mission to take down the Red Skull, the movie breezes on through like a WWII highlight reel. There is a more drawn out action scene where Captain America has to rescue Allied prisoners, but the filmmakers seem to realize that once you see Captain America take down one group of Hydra soldiers, you don't really need to see it again. The movie does get a little too cheesy for its own good, but unlike "Green Lantern," the cheesiness only hits for brief stints, and I mean come on, it's Captain America. That's practically a recipe for cheese right there. The only real problem "Captain America" faces is its less than fascinating hero. He's so purely good that every choice he makes turns out to be a predictable one. Like I said before, the filmmakers handle him well, but there's only so much you can do with the character.

Up until this movie, I've never loved a Harry Potter movie. Throughout the years, they've just been consistent sources of entertainment. I always knew going into a Harry Potter film that I would not be let down, but I also knew that I wouldn't be blown away. But leave it to this series to end on its strongest note yet. This movie is the perfect reward for all of us who have followed the series through both the books and movies. While Part I focused primarily on setting up the story and developing the characters, this one focuses on the payoff. Here, it's basically one action scene after another, and that's okay because we've had enough time to get to know the characters. By this point, you care about the characters, so the focus isn't so much on the spectacular effects as it is the characters that surround it. That's what all summer movies should strive to do, but this summer, only Harry Potter has bothered to do so, and what a treat it is. If you've followed the series, get ready for the most exciting movie of the summer. If you're new to the series, go by Blockbuster and have a Potter marathon. The movies you watch might not be great, but it will all be worth it once you get to this spectacular end.

If you're looking for a movie that brings on the laughs, look no further than "Horrible Bosses." It's a comedy where the energy of the cast never fails to bring on the fun. Everyone sells their roles perfectly here, particularly Charlie Day and Jennifer Aniston. The script isn't bad either. There's a number of memorable quotes and fun situations to keep this movie going. The one big weak point is the concept itself, and that causes the laughs to diminish a bit, but just as the movie starts to sink, there's an inspired performance to bring it back up. See "Horrible Bosses" if you want some R-rated summer fun.

This has to be one of the greatest revenge movies I have ever seen. For 2 hours and 23 minutes, there are acts of vengeance committed on almost every scene. The movie never gets stale, and it always keeps you guessing as to what will happen next. It's gloriously violent, but it never feels exploitative. Choi Min-sik also plays one hell of a sadistic serial killer, and seeing Lee Byung-hyun deliver his vengeance against Choi time and time again never gets old. Of course, in the last 20 minutes the movie perfectly shifts gears into a suspenseful thrill ride, and the conclusion will leave you horrified like any good thriller should. I absolutely loved this movie. It was violent, twisted, and thrilling as hell. I don't remember a time where I've been shocked so many times during a movie. "I Saw the Devil" keeps you horrified, and when it doesn't do that, it holds you in suspense. Besides delivering the typical revenge message of "Vengeance doesn't solve anything," it also delivers a more subtle message. Don't mess with South Koreans.

odriguez and Tarantino knew how to do it. They both created Grindhouse movies that were made to entertain. The camera work was purposefully amateuristic and some of the scenes were clearly played out for laughs. Jason Eisener's "Hobo With a Shotgun" is not that kind of movie. It is a joyless, sick and twisted movie with no intention to entertain you. He takes the elements **** movie and combines them to make the biggest pile of trash possible. Rutger Hauer is the only shining light in this abysmal grindhouse flick. By the time it was all over, I felt queasy from all the gratuitous gore and trashy dialogue. Skip this unless you enjoy the joyless torture porns.

I don't know how anyone could "dislike" this movie. It's so dang happy all the time. The characters are all pleasant, and Hanks and Roberts seem to have a blast on-screen together. All in all, "Larry Crowne" is the kind of movie that is guaranteed to make you smile. Sure, the movie is about as fluffy as you could possibly get. There's hardly much of a conflict, and a lot of the supporting characters don't have much to do except smile and say some pleasantly funny lines. But I felt like Hanks who wrote and directed this movie had a clear understanding of the kind of movie he was making. He keeps the characters simple and never tries to bite off more than he can chew. As a result, "Larry Crowne" keeps you engaged even when it's not particularly great. All in all, "Larry Crowne" is a safe bet if you want to be entertained. It won't win any awards, but it will certainly deliver if you're a fan of Hanks and Roberts.

It's the same crap with a different title. Michael Bay bombards us with mediocrity once again. Just like "Revenge of the Fallen" the characters are worthless, the jokes are bad, and the action scenes are too long and repetitive. Granted, this time around the movie does try to take itself a little more seriously. Gone are the racist robots and the constant kid jokes. But saying this is better than "Revenge of the Fallen" is like saying "I Am Number Four" was a better movie than "Battlefield Earth." Michael Bay lowered the bar so much with "Revenge of the Fallen" that he really has nowhere to go but up on this one. The final action scene does have its cool moments, but the action is poorly staged and way too long. I felt like I could have watched the beginning of the action scene, left the theater for 10 minutes, come back and not missed a thing. It's one of those action scenes that's impressive for the first 5 minutes before it overstays its welcome and stays at the same level. I guess if you liked "Revenge of the Fallen," you'll enjoy this as well. It's the same movie with a few improvements. But if you felt like Michael Bay grabbed the money out of your wallet the second time around, stay away from this. You're going to have the exact same experience.

Despite the fact that "Green Lantern" is getting pummeled by critics, the movie itself isn't that bad. In fact, it does something that no other comic book movie has done yet this year. It takes its time introducing the characters. This was the first movie where I didn't feel like I was being rushed along from one plot point to the next. Before getting into the main story, we learn that Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a brash fighter pilot who has the potential to be something greater, and that his friendship with the beautiful Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) is a complicated one. In short, the screenwriters do a nice job of laying the foundation to potentially expand the depth of the characters as the movie progresses. But the problem that arises is that the writers don't do anything more past that point. They fail to take any of the characters in interesting directions. Sure, the characters change as they are supposed to, but every choice that's made is something we've seen in other films. The action is filmed well, but the action scenes themselves don't do anything to lift you out of your seat. This leaves us with only the storyline to rely upon. And what a lame storyline it is. Apparently in the universe, there's green energy which is a manifestation of willpower and yellow energy which encompasses fear. Also, floating around in the universe is a giant octopus with a computer animated face named Parallax. The mythology of "Green Lantern" is hokey, and when there's nothing else to **** us in (no compelling characters or action set pieces), the mythology sticks out like a really ugly blemish. I feel bad for Ryan Reynolds. He really does all he can with the role, and he shows that he can be a competent leading man. But the problem is that the movie surrounding his performance is so mediocre that he can do nothing to save it. Skip this and wait for a summer movie that brings the excitement.

I can see why this movie is dividing a lot of audiences. It's the kind of film that takes its sweet time, and whenever it feels like it, it goes off on surreal tangents. But for me, there was so much to appreciate here. The biggest thing that I loved about this film was the detailed attention to its characters. Mallick takes sequentially scattered moments of a family, and uses them to flesh out the characters in a way that gets us to understand their entire world. I was also impressed with Brad Pitt as he gives the most truthful performance of his career. Those two elements kept me hooked in even when Mallick was off showing us clips of space and the motion of fluids. I know he had a purpose for those scenes as he spent three years editing this film, but I couldn't exactly figure it all out. Honestly, I don't think "Tree of Life" is a movie you can figure out. It's like a surreal painting. The beauty and nuance come from what you get out of it. It's like the movie offers you a "Choose Your Own Meaning" option. "The Tree of Life" was a refreshing experience. The characters are fascinating and the cinematography is breathtakingly gorgeous. If you're a fan of Mallick's work, or you enjoy head trips similar to a David Lynch movie or 2001: A Space Odyssey, do not miss seeing "The Tree of Life." It's a unique movie-going experience.

The poster of "Midnight in Paris" perfectly summarizes the whole movie. You have Owen Wilson walking through the streets. He's the character that is front and center. Writer/director Woody Allen uses Wilson to share his own thoughts about what it means to live in the present and admire the past. Then you have the magical backdrop of Paris behind Wilson. Behind Allen's camera, the streets of Paris beautifully come alive in this film. You feel **** into the look and style of it all. Allen has always been a master at capturing a setting, but he really outdoes himself here. And beneath all of the beauty and insight comes a sharply funny script from Allen and a pitch-perfect performance from Owen Wilson. Allen gives him the prototypical "Woody Allen" character, and he completely embraces it and makes it his own. All in all, "Midnight in Paris" is a magically charming movie. It's one of those films that will leave you with a big fat grin on your face, and at the same time, it will leave you in awe of such a beautiful city like Paris.

Besides the fact that this might be one of Abrams' weaker films, "Super 8" is a highly entertaining sci-fi adventure. One of its biggest strengths is what it chooses to focus on. Instead of focusing on the alien itself or the massive destruction the creature causes, Abrams chooses to center in on his main characters; a rag tag group of film making teens who get caught up in their town's hysteria. It's in these characters where "Super 8" stands above most alien invasion movies. And while the action isn't the main focus, it certainly is impressive. The train sequence at the beginning is an amazing special effects achievement, and it's definitely one of the most exhilarating sequences so far this year. For those of you who don't know, this movie was made as a way of honoring the work of Steven Spielberg. It feels like a Spielberg movie from the alien invading plot to the way it focuses on the kids' experiences in frightful times. It's kind of a mix between E.T. and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, "Super 8" isn't nearly as strong as those films, but it's satisfying nonetheless. The flaws are mostly minor as the movie shifts its tone a few too many times, and the ending doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. There's also moments where the movie feels a little too familiar. We have the father and son who are dealing with the grief of a dead wife/mother in a conflicting way, as well as the secret government army intent on keeping a lid over the whole situation. Abrams just isn't quite able to make it feel fresh enough to surprise us. But overall, if you're wanting to see a movie that's worth the 8 dollar ticket stub, this is definitely the way to go.

There was a good movie here somewhere, but it got lost when the studio hired 4 writers to helm the script. The main problem with this new X-Men movie is that it's all over the place. It's all over the place with its characters, its story, and its style. The main reason is that no scene lasts more than a few minutes. The movie jumps around so much that it's difficult to get involved. It was like the makers had three hours of material, and they were pressured by the studio to assemble a movie that was under two and a half hours. Because of this, the movie jumps around from scene to scene, and none of the characters get any moment to shine. The movie desperately tries in vain to get us to care about them though. The dialogue gives off this manipulatively sappy vibe to it, and director Vaughn accompanies it with some overly dramatic music. Speaking of Vaughn, I didn't really care for a whole lot of his directorial choices. He messes around with too many styles. Sometimes the movie feels like a live action comic book, and other times it goes for a campy Indiana Jones/James Bond vibe. It's like Vaughn didn't have a clear vision for how he wanted to tell the story. There's also a lot of unintentionally awkward moments that Vaughn could have fixed by presenting them in a different way. But "First Class" isn't all flaws. There's some neat visual effects, Fassbender plays an amazing Magneto, and Kevin Bacon plays one of the X-Men's most menacing villains yet, Sebastian Shaw. When the script doesn't ****, Jennifer Lawrence also has a few nice moments as Mystique. And there are a few moments where Vaughn's style meshes with the rest of the movie. But other than that, X-Men: First Class ends up being squandered potential. It would be nice for once in a comic book movie where the makers stop worrying about covering all of the bases, and instead, focus on a compelling story with rich characters to leave us wanting to come back for more.

It's one thing to use a similar formula and storyline. In a sequel, it's actually almost a requirement to do so. But that does not mean a movie should give us the same jokes. "The Hangover Part II" is so similar to its predecessor in every way that there is hardly a surprising moment in this entire film. The art of surprise is entirely what makes something funny in the first place. But since you can see mostly everything coming before it happens, the laughs end up being few and far between. Also some of the characters that were awesome in the original are just annoying here. Chow (Ken Jeong) continuously uses his obnoxious laugh, Stu spends the entire movie screaming, and Alan is just randomly stupid. The only character you can get behind is Phil. To make matter worse, the ending is truly painful and it reinforces that sense of deja vu you experience throughout the entire film. I understand that "Hangover" fans have to see this (I heard bad things before this and I still went), but after you see this sorry excuse for a comedy, head on over to "Bridesmaids" to get some real laughs.

"Everything Must Go" has two things going for it that really make it a worthwhile movie experience. First, Will Ferrell gives the best performance of his career. Here, he doesn't rely on his trademark shouting or his random one liners to captivate us. Instead, he delivers a very low-key nuanced performance that gets us to care about his character's situation. Second, the script by Dan Rush is wonderfully honest. It carries the film along at a nice steady pace and every moment rings true. There's no manipulation here. Rush also does a nice job of keeping this seemingly simple premise interesting. He's able to pull back the layers of Ferrell's character and give us details about his situation at just the right time. Now we've seen elements of Ferrell's character in other movies. Because of this, "Everything Must Go" isn't the most engrossing of character studies. But Ferrell plays it so well that you can't help but get involved in his situation. If you're strictly a fan of Ferrell's comedies, avoid this one. But if you're a fan of Ferrell as an actor, you can't miss this. Ferrell proves that he's more than just a comedic actor. He can handle drama just as well and deliver something special.

If you're looking for a comedy that will make you cry laughing, run to the theaters and see this now. "Bridesmaids" is hysterically funny from beginning to end. Better yet, it doesn't just rely on gross out gags for entertainment. Screenwriters Kristen Wiig (who also stars) and Annie Mumolo also manage to create complex characters, and they provide fresh insight into the meaning of friendship and true love. I especially loved the development of Melissa McCarthy's character. Here's a character that could have been the stereotypical fat girl, but instead she's treated as a real person, and ends up being one of the emotional anchors of the film. A lot of people have been calling this the female Hangover, and I don't really see much of a comparison. The stories are completely different. Yes, they both center around wedding parties, but "The Hangover" was much more of an ensemble piece while this one centers around Kristen Wiig's character trying to find herself. There are a few moments where "Bridesmaids" tries in vain to keep you laughing, but for the most part, it is one hilarious ride filled with gags that everyone can relate to. Guys, this is not a chick flick for only females. You will laugh just as much here as you did in "The Hangover," if not more. This is a comedy that everyone should enjoy.

In terms of the style of the whole thing, this adaptation of "Thor" could not have been better. The dialogue has a bit of that Shakespearean bravado to it, but it's not overly done. The costume translations are the best of any superhero movie to date, and the creation of Asgard is just how I pictured it when I read the comic books. Branagh handles the action scenes like a seasoned action director, cleverly mixing CGI animation with close-up shots of the real people. Even the cast is perfect. Chris Hemsworth plays Thor, the trickiest hero in the Marvel universe, and he does so wonderfully. He encapsulates Thor's brash arrogance and sympathetic nature with ease. I also loved Tom Hiddleston as "Loki". He's able to bring what few actors can to a villain; humanity and sympathy. You come to understand why Loki commits the actions that he does. You don't necessarily agree with them, but he's able to become a character who commits actions for a purpose rather than for mere evil intentions. So why isn't Thor a "great" movie? Well, this adaptation suffers from a lot of the same elements of other book adaptations. It feels rushed. There's so much story and so many characters that even at a two hour running time, Branagh is unable to explore it all sufficiently. It would have been better if we saw more of Asgard in the beginning, and also more character interaction between Thor and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). Also, very few of the characters are developed sufficiently (Loki and Odin were the only characters I felt were explored fully). Now this is kind **** and a bad thing. It's bad in the sense that you don't feel like you got the complete movie experience when it's all said and done, but at the same time, this "Thor" acts like the first "X-Men" film where it more or less introduces all of the characters leaving room for more character exploration in the sequels ahead. It's kind of like the series premiere of a TV show where the movie "Thor" is there to hook you in to the concept and leave you wanting more. Overall, "Thor" is an immensely good time at the movies. It could have been something really great, but it settles by delivering an engaging story with fun characters and terrific action scenes.

The ghosts in "Insidious" are not the "Paranormal Activity" kind where you rarely ever see them. These ghosts definitely make their presences known by running through hallways and wearing really creepy costumes. They're like a combination between the ghosts in "Carnival of Souls" and "The Shining." Because of this, "Insidious" might not be for everyone. But if you dig old-school horror films, you're in for a treat. James Wan takes his haunted house style of horror and runs with it. His film never lets up on movie atmospherics, and at times, it is truly terrifying. But with that said, the movie does get a little too hokey at times, and the characters aren't all that compelling aside from Lin Shaye as the psychic. But if you want to see a horror film that offers something different, check out "Insidious". Whether you laugh the whole time or you're scare straight from it; "Insidious" delivers the goods.

The concept is too silly for its own good, and the movie wraps itself up a little too conventionally. But the movie still manages to work thanks to Matt Damon, and a few fantastical concepts that keep it intriguing. Damon really carries this through. He is so convincing in his role. You can see the determination seared in his face as he tries to run away with the girl of his dreams. I also liked how they were able to run through doors that would take them to different locations in the city. Also, the whole idea of these agents keeping everyone on a certain path was pretty fascinating as well. "The Adjustment Bureau" is a thoroughly enjoyable movie for most of its running time. It's just slightly ruined by an ending that leaves you feeling empty.