HER

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Spike Jonze
Year: 2013
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara
Genre: Drama/Romance/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R

        It's important to have insightful, fearless, innovative, and intelligent filmmakers like Spike Jonze in today's cinematic industry. Many of our modernistic ways haven't yet been put into perspective on film, but director Jonze does just that and more in his 2014 Best Picture nominee, Her.

        Her confidently throws us into the life of Theodore Twombly, a lonely man who works at a company that composes personal letters for people that can't or won't. He spends his nights restless and empty, and his days stuck in reality. This all changes when he becomes infatuated with the newest, highly futuristic OS1, a technology that communicates like a human, and starts to—theoretically—become one.

        Theodore is flawlessly executed by Joaquin Phoenix, who fits the role like a glove. His facial expressions, gestures, and the way by which he delivers dialogue is quiet, genuine, heartfelt, and incredibly powerful. There are pivotal scenes in the movie that couldn't have been expressed through any other actor. It feels like Jonze is the painter and Phoenix is the brush; these two were meant to work together to bring this movie to life, and the result is something to marvel at.

        Amy Adams, in her third movie of the year, has proven that any director who dare cast her is going to get his/her money's worth. She has the admirable ability to embody any given role in the wide spectrum that is film. Earlier this year, she played Lois Lane in Man of Steel with exuberance. Later on, she took on the job of American Hustle—which I believe she is going to receive an Academy Award for—and here, she plays Amy, a documentary filmmaker whose relationship with Theodore isn't really divulged and made important until the last half hour or so of the movie comes around. This last portion of the movie is perhaps the most tender; it's about then when the writing, performances, cinematography, and score all come together like members of an ensemble to bring home the point that the filmmaker was attempting to make. It's at this point in the film that Adams kicks into high gear, and creates a character whose self-realization is both touching and awing. In short, I know for certain that her role in Her didn't consume as much screen time as her role in American Hustle did. I can't say for certain, though, for which performance I'd applaud the talented Ms. Adams for more.

        There's a level of appreciation that has to be had for a writer who incorporates fashion statements from the past to add a layer of intelligence to a futuristic tale. Part of the reason why this film works so well is because of what we, the audience, see on-screen. Considering that he wears high-waisted trousers and collarless shirts, Joaquin Phoenix looks as comfortable as can be on screen in front of the beautiful filming site of Los Angeles. Moreover, the gracefulness of the intimate camerawork benefits every other artistic characteristic of this movie (including the musical score). These aspects are a lot to take in at once. But as one will discover, this movie appeals to all senses, and it's obvious that Jonze has a good grasp on, and awareness of, all of this. It's an atmospheric movie, and I can honestly say that there were few times when the filmmaker didn't have the grip that he should have had on me.

        With all of that being said, it's important to put on the table that I don't believe Her is going to win Best Picture. It's not the Academy's type of film; it's a precocious, sensitive satire that doesn't beg for attention. It's not the meaty, historically rich film that 12 Years A Slave is. However, this is something that I, as a film lover and maturing human being, am going to revisit as the years go by, as it is a movie of incredible wisdom that offers insight into human emotion and capability. It is the most exquisite, beautiful motion picture that has come along in a long time.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

SUMMER OF SAM

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Spike Lee

Year: 1999

Cast: John Leguizamo, Adrien Brody, Mira Sorvino

Genre: Crime/Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: R

        In 1999, Spike Lee decided to direct a film based on a very hard hitting, true story. Depicting the events of the Son of Sam serial murders in New York City (summer of 1977), Summer of Sam periodically delves into the search and capture of famed murderer (dubbed the .44 Caliber Killer ) David Berkowitz. It also peeks into the lives of the people that inhabit one of the Bronx neighborhoods he was terrorizing. "Sam" carries with it a majestic sense of time and place. However, it packs in, very tightly, too many plot layers to go along with the central story. And the fact that this is all done in almost two and a half hours is a jaw-dropping miracle.

        Seeing this film for the first time in 5 years made me revert back to one of my favorite Spike Lee joints which would be Clockers. With shades of Martin Scorsese's Mean Streets and hints of Saturday Night Fever (especially the overhead shot in "Sam" of the two main characters entering a discotheque), Summer of Sam is similar in structure to Clockers.  But it's unable to juggle the plot points effectively like that 1995 film did. The reason: it could be the script which feels too abrasive and without thoughtfulness or ambiguity. Most of the characters talk in a racist manner with huge stereotypes to go along with it. Was that the culture of New Yorkers at the time? I'm not sure because I'm not from NYC and I was only 3 when these events took place. Regardless, this could create a rather large unlikability factor with the audience, an audience who invests their time to view this flick.

        In essence, Summer of Sam is the epitome of restless, scattershot filmmaking. Spike Lee has harbored this style ever since he burst onto the scene with 1986's She's Gotta Have It. Sometimes he gets away with it and sometimes he doesn't. But you can't fault him for directing films that feel alive and have a pulsating sense of urgency. With his "plot over plot over plot" way of doing things, he unfortunately gets a mixed review from me. Bottom line: "Sam" is a mess, but it's an ambitious mess with a couple of really powerful scenes that hint at what a great film this could have been (one of the best sequences is a fantastic montage of sights and sounds accompanied by the tune of The Who's "Baba O' Riley"). With this vehicle, you get a great soundtrack (a mix of classic rock from The Who and disco) and two edgy performances (John Leguizamo as Vinny and Mira Sorvino as Dionna) that highlight the strong points. Also, the appearance of real life columnist Jimmy Breslin (he received letters from the killer and narrates the beginning/ending of the movie) is a nice touch.

        But like I said earlier, "Sam" tries to include everything. You have plot elements such as the infidelity of Vinny in his marriage to Dionna, the glory of the 1977 New York Yankees, the supposed birth of the punk rock movement, and even the local mob joining the police to find the would be Son of Sam murderer. Let's be honest, Summer of Sam is not that bad of a movie. But it's way too cynical and ideological to be great. I'll leave you with this notion: in New York City, the summer of 77' was one of the hottest on record. After viewing Lee's exhausting, profanity laden marathon of a movie, you may feel just lukewarm.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

BOXCAR BERTHA

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ 

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 1972

Cast: Barbara Hershey, David Carradine, Barry Primus

Genre: Crime/Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: R

       Before Martin Scorsese trolled the dark alleys, bars, cabs, and poolhalls of the seedy New York City districts, he made a project that was a little less personal when he shot Boxcar Bertha in 1972. That's not to say that it's a bad film; it's darn good in fact. It just feels like it wasn't exactly his dream picture. You can see little tidbits of his signature style laden throughout even though it sometimes feels like an all out action flick. There's a lingering notion that he just had to make this thing in general in order to get more opportunities to flex his directorial wings. It's also a small film produced by a B movie director (at the time). However, it's alive, ambitious, violent, cynical, and edgy. Taking a sort of Bonnie and Clyde approach, "Bertha" is no doubt a good old fashioned American movie. From the opening title sequence, you can immediately sense a rush of urgency and an aching need for a budding, genius filmmaker to get out.

        Taking place in the 1930's and based on a an autobiography entitled Sister of the Road, Boxcar Bertha is an account of Bertha Thompson (Barbara Hershey) and her lover Big Bill Shelly (David Carradine). They meet, become active train robbers (with the help of some other buddies), and reluctantly get involved in a murder of an important wealthy gambler. The film chronicles their intersecting lives as fugitives for a quick, fast paced 90 minutes. On a side note, "Bertha" is also an exercise that finds ways to a make radical statements about race and gender issues. What's the point you ask? Well, from what I read about this vehicle's background, the railroad south relayed this culture throughout the aforementioned decade.  

        As far as casting goes, Boxcar Bertha is significant in my mind because it's one those movies where you'd think that everyone in it would later go on to become A-list actors/actresses. One in particular, Barbara Hershey, gives a risky, fearless performance that should have catapulted her into superstardom. Yes, she's been a working actress for the last 40 years, but has never quite equaled her potential here. Watching "Bertha", you sense that she was wise beyond her years (she was only in her early 20's when filming began), not to mention adorable in every singular frame. Along with her, you have solid portrayals of vagabond robbers in David Carradine, Barry Primus (Rake Brown), and Bernie Casey (Von Morton). Again, these are respected actors that have hung around for a long time, just not entirely broken through.

        Something of note: no one is a bigger fan of Martin Scorsese than me (except my fellow critic Cole), but I'll never figure out why there is never any controversy over his excessive use of racial slurs and overall lapses of racial bigotry in his films (Boxcar Bertha has a handful of it). When other directors make an attempt at it (Quentin Tarantino comes to mind), they get a lot of criticism from other films critics and even their peers. Scorsese somehow gets a pass. Now this is not a knock on the famed director, it's just one of the great mysteries of his work that I'll never quite understand. Another note: two actors that share a solid amount of screen time in "Bertha" (Harry Northup and the previously mentioned Carradine) are featured later on in Scorsese's classic, Mean Streets. What's strange is that they make unbelievably small appearances in that film. It's as if they got demoted. No really, I'm not kidding, they literally have no lines whatsoever.

        Overall, Scorsese's second feature film has style and it's far from boring. This flick enthralls you from the get-go. I'd call it the movie equivalent of a sleeve of firecrackers. To be honest, I'm not sure if a lot of you have taken in "Bertha" (I could be wrong). If you've viewed it, disregard the last comment. If you haven't, then give it a look-see. Oh and if you're wondering whether or not the world's greatest living director shows off with the camera (aggressively I might add), don't worry, you'll get that here. Boxcar Bertha is experimental, exhausting, and full of jump start energy (be aware of the ending though, it's not for the faint-hearted). The tagline for its poster reads, "life made her an outcast, love made her an outlaw." What I can say is I guess this movie "made" me a fan.'

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE GREAT GATSBY (2013)

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½
Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Year: 2013
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan
Genre: Drama/Romance
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Having read the several warnings of The Great Gatsby (2013), and its terrible display of the classical novel from the critics, I was a little shaky with the impression I was given upon entering the theater. But then, I had never witnessed another telling of the story, so I assumed that I might like it a little bit more than the critics. Well, I was quite mistaken. I love this film to death. It clocks in as an almost flawless, fine piece of work brought to you by no other than the visionary Baz Luhrmann.

        Epic storytelling is rare, and even more so within cinema, because it can be more difficult to illustrate a story without using the power of words to elucidate its tellings, morals, and major events. The Great Gatsby (2013) does all of that exceptionally well . The story is fleshed out among many characters, and there is never a time in the film when I felt un-absorbed, or uninvolved. It captures its time and place exceptionally well, and each scene is filled to the brim with marveling visual wonder. Something exuberant about the film, too, is how mystifying the plot could be. I was so interested an so engaged that there would be no machine in the whole world that could pry my eyes off of the screen.

         The story is magnificently told. It’s utterly incredible, and is told with such wisdom that I felt moved as an audience member. Touched, I’d say, by Gatsby’s pure ingenuity as a man who just loves a woman for who she is (and DiCaprio’s excellent portrayal). All of each character’s internal conflicts build up to a fascinating, and upsetting conclusion. One may feel at times like they want to get there sooner, though, because the first twenty-thirty minutes might cause a headache (with the noise and rapid cutting). 

        The best thing—or one of the best things—about The Great Gatsby is how interpretive it is, as far as character motivation goes. But it’s not that it’s poorly done; no, it’s quite the opposite. It’s delicately crafted by the narrator’s word usage, and that of the other characters’ in the film. If I had to put a name to it, I’d say it’s ambitious and ingenious. 

        49% on Rotten Tomatoes? Give me a break, this film is a masterpiece. If it isn't the greatest this year, I'll be shocked (though you can never underestimate Scorsese, who is making a film to come out later this year). I just can’t speak for those who have read the novel, because with my experience as a reader-and-viewer, the movie doesn't quite match up. What I can say is this: I might never read the book, so that I can entirely cherish the movie, without having witnessed its predecessors. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Baz Luhrmann is a one of a kind director. He doesn't seem to emulate any style. In fact, he has a style all his own. He's the perfect choice to direct a movie that takes place in the roaring twenties. In The Great Gatsby, he fills the screen with so much and it's difficult to take in everything with one viewing. This film is perfectly cast, it's shot with total command of the camera, and the attention to detail in every scene is impeccable. The story however, didn't quite hold my interest. It didn't feel like there was enough of it to inhabit a 2 hr. 20 minute vehicle. I unknowingly found myself staring more at the visual wonderment instead. Now like my nephew,  I've never read the book that it's based on. In essence, I'm committed to evaluating The Great Gatsby as a feature length film. It's not a bad one. It's not a great one. So I guess it's somewhere in between the two.

DAYS OF HEAVEN

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½
Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Terrence Malick

Year: 1978

Cast: Richard Gere, Sam Shepard, Brooke Adams

Genre: Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: PG

        Days of Heaven will forever remain one of my all time favorite films. Its director, Terrence Malick, took almost two years to get it edited. You can tell. However, please don't let that diminish your opinion of it. As a connoisseur of many types of films, I am confident when I say that Days of Heaven is one that touches greatness. It's a movie's movie, and it's filmmaking in its most purest not to mention, most exposed form. Almost every image on screen is indelible. Pretty much every character is realized. Every nuance of nature has its own still frame and to be honest, film as art has never been more important than it was when this masterpiece got released in the fall of 1978. It notably launched the acting careers of Richard Gere and Sam Shepard. And it pulls off something very special. Let's be honest, how many other movies do you know that have a short running time of 90 plus minutes that manage to be this massively epic in scope? Yup, I couldn't agree more.

        Part vagabond adventure, part love triangle, and part early 1900's parable, Days of Heaven tells the story of Bill (Gere), a laborer out of Chicago who commits an accidental murder (kills his boss) and then flees the state with his lover (Brooke Adams as Abby) and his sister (narrator Linda Manz). The three of them end up somewhere in the plains of Texas (Alberta, Canada was the actual shooting location), find jobs on a wheat farm and become involved with the rich landowner (Sam Sheppard in his first true role).

        The storytelling in this film, although choppy, eventually finds its focus, and releases itself like a sledgehammer in the final act. When it comes to the musical score, there is a sort of haunting eerie beauty to it. However, it also resonates a feeling of radiant hope. The story or plot along with the music however, sort of take a back seat to the visual splendor. Make no mistake about it, this is probably one of the most beautiful films you will ever see. Its cinematography won a well deserved Academy Award and with this being Malick's second major release, he pretty much announced himself to the world as a prominent visual auteur. Every scene is filled to the brim with little nooks and crannies. You get beautiful waterfalls, close-ups of locusts in their natural habitat, sped up windmills (even wind is a star in this flick), and incredibly lush sky imagery. I read somewhere that a critic said you can take any image from Days of Heaven and frame it as a painting. Darn, that's what's I wanted to say!

        Anyway, if you are a budding filmmaker, an aspiring movie critic, or just a radical screen buff, this is the ultimate step into one's film education. Days of Heaven is a sort of cinematic translator. It will make you understand the power of cinema and its never-ending possibilities. Don't hesitate to check it out. Remember "heaven" can't wait.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Rating: Days of Heaven will remain to be one of the most beautiful films ever made. That's probably the best thing I could say about it seeing as it wasted quite a few other things with pretentious direction and lack of emotional depth. This is a movie that garnered up some serious critical acclaim, though I found too many things wrong with its artsy approach to deem it a masterpiece.

ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 1974

Cast: Ellen Burstyn, Alfred Lutter III

Genre: Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: PG

         Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore marks the fourth time director Martin Scorsese left his mark on the world of cinema with a feature film. But, he hadn’t left his true mark quite yet, seeing as he had much more success to come, and this is one of his lesser known films.

        Ellen Burstyn won an Oscar starring as Alice, the 35-year old widow whose odyssey to find happiness is chronicled in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Her performance was realistic enough, but like the rest of the film’s presentation, was too light hearted for the actual deep material. But viewers who aren’t looking for something too dramatic will be satisfied, because otherwise, it’s pretty enjoyable.

        Its best aspect by far is her relationship with her precocious, ADHD like 10-year old son, which makes me think of the plot line as his adventure too (they shared the same amount of screen time). Several scenes displayed their trouble with the dynamic living conditions, and anger, while other scenes displayed their giddiness, and unconditional happiness. Such scenes include her desperate search for him after she angrily thrusts him out of the car (not moving, of course) due to his misbehavior; the happy scenes include water fights in their temporary apartment. You won’t cry (like I said, it’s not dramatic enough), but you’ll still empathize, and laugh a whole bunch, if you can understand relationships with children.

        If you’re looking for a Gangs of New York, or Taxi Driver, you won’t get it here. No, what Scorsese has given us is a well-crafted, real-life story, that isn’t supposed to be taken too seriously, but is supposed to be enjoyed.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

SOMEWHERE IN TIME

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Jeannot Szwarc

Year: 1980

Cast: Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, Christopher Plummer

Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Romance

MPAA Rating:  PG

        Somewhere In Time is a movie that I somewhat embraced as a kid. I was intrigued by the whole concept of time travel (the gist of what's on screen). Also, it was unique in that it was filmed almost entirely on Mackinac Island (I grew up in Michigan so go figure). However, after a recent viewing (almost 30 years later) and a need for random nostalgia, I found the film to be a well intentioned but borderline misfire. 

        "Time" tells the story of playwright Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve)  He is mysteriously visited by an elderly woman while doing a play as a college student somewhere in Northern Michigan. Fast forward 8 years later and he is living in Chicago. He's still a playwright but has a serious case of writer's block and out of nowhere, decides to visit the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island. A sense of Deja Vu kicks in and Collier realizes that the woman he met 8 years ago was a famous actress from the year 1912 (Elise McKenna, played with restraint by Jane Seymour). She in fact did a play on the Island so he decides to go back in time to see her.  After Reeve's character successfully realizes that he has mastered the art of time travel (he dresses up like someone from 1912 and puts old coins in his pocket. Oh yeah, he also lies on a bed and says over and over that he is in the year 1912), he goes to great lengths to find her and fall in love with her. This is all to the disenchantment of her overprotective and overbearing manager William Fawcett Robinson (a very young Christopher Plummer).

        If you look at "Time" in hindsight, it's the type of cinematic exercise that probably could have gone from being 1hr. 44 minutes (film's running time) to maybe 2 hours and some change. It's weird saying that because if you ask most moviegoers about the length of a film, they'll probably say it's too long or drags too much. "Time" is the opposite. I'm not saying it's because it feels like scenes were literally left out on the cutting room floor. That's not the case. What I'm saying is that additional scenes could have been added to explain the general actions of the characters more. What we get from "Time" is something that was editing too tightly and got rushed out to theaters back in 1980. The ending, although terrific on paper, lasts for maybe 30 seconds. Then there's the musical score. It's hauntingly beautiful but it seems to come in at wrong points in the movie. It feels like a cheap solution to beef up dramatic momentum when it's obvious to anyone watching, that there isn't any. The film also has the mistake of giving the lead role to the late Christopher Reeve. He looks the part, he's in every frame, but it feels like he's trying way too hard. You can tell back then, that he wanted to break out of the whole type casting thing for his success with Superman (1978). Added to the miscasting of Reeve is the love story between his character and Jane Seymour's character. Besides the fact they are both involved in theatre, there is real no blatant evidence to back up the notion that these two people would actually fall in love. They spend one day together (5 or 6 scenes in the whole movie) and there is barely any conversation between the two of them. If it was lust I'd accept that. But it's annoying that we as an audience are manipulated into thinking that these two people belong together when in fact they barely know each other. Among other things, this in a nutshell, is the biggest misstep with "Time." The biggest bright spot however, is the casting of Christopher Plummer as the antagonist. He's menacing and cold. He pretty much does the whole Robert De Niro thing by out acting everyone with his eyes. Sadly though, he doesn't command much screen time and is woefully underused.

        Ultimately, Somewhere In Time is not a bad film. It's just the type of film that had the potential to be so much better. I mean, its beautifully shot and has a great sense of time and place. But when it came to character development and a strong script, everyone involved, was "somewhere" else.

Written by Jesse Burleson

PLAYING FOR KEEPS

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Year: 2012

Cast: Gerard Butler, Jessica Biel, Dennis Quaid

Genre: Comedy/Romance/Sports

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Playing For Keeps is constantly being advertised and promoted. Because of all the hype about it, I decided to watch it, as I was anticipating it to be great. The film is about Gerard Butler who plays a out-of-a-job ex-soccer player who tries to connect with his kid, of whom his ex-wife, played by Jessica Biel, has majority custody of. He does this by coaching his soccer team and trying to spend quality time with him. There are many new movies that I am disappointed with because I was expecting them to excel. But I really wasn’t expecting Playing For Keeps to be one of those.

       Dennis Quaid and Uma Thurman co-star in the film and incorporate one of the dumbest subplots I’ve seen in a film so far. Just because Gerard Butler has long hair and an accent doesn’t mean every woman that is a parent of a child on the soccer team will automatically fall for him, and seduce him. But I guess I’m wrong, because that’s exactly what happened. The reason for that being that the plot itself wasn’t enough for the film, so they needed to throw in some inadequate, poorly developed characters to drag out the already too long film.  

       Character development and motivation is a problem for many films including this because when filmmakers want their characters to do something, it’s not always easy to have that make sense to the viewers. And so many parts in this movie had that problem. No information was given on Jessica Biel and Gerard Butler’s relationship. Why did they fall in love? Why did they divorce? I can firmly state that I’m not the only one who had that question after watching the film. The Story Of Us is a fleshed out, fully developed, enjoyable movie that has very real life, fully developed characters. Every single action in that movie was completely understandable because of the information we were given in the “Story”. Playing For Keeps is a movie that was meant to tell a story, not describe a scene.

       The movie tried to do something similar to what Life As We Know It did. At least it modeled itself after something good. This, however, took it farther with the relationship between Butler and his kid, which to me was the best thing about the film. And as far as entertainment goes, the movie provides, but not all the way through the lengthy 105 minutes. So to anybody who asks for a shorthand review of the movie: The trailer was better than the film.

Written by Cole Pollyea

SAFE HAVEN

Cole's Rating: ★★

Year: 2013

Cast: Julianne Hough, Josh Duhamel

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Romance

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        "Chick flicks" can be good; they just have to be done well. What aggravates me as a critic is when poorly done chick flicks win the audience's approval because of sappy, happy endings. Safe Haven is a mixed bag. Katie (Julianne Hough) flees to North Carolina escaping from her dark past, and she meets Alex (Josh Duhamel) and falls madly in love.

       I admire Josh Duhamel as an actor because I see him as a real life person. His acting is very honest and believable. In my opinion, that is most present in Life As We Know It. To me, he did seem too young for his character, as he was playing a widow with two children, both of ages 7-10. Matt Damon played a similar role in We Bought A Zoo, however I thought that his age was perfect for the role. I still enjoyed his screen presence, because it is easily enjoyable. In the remake of Footloose, and this, Julianne Hough eerily resembles a younger Jennifer Aniston. She looks exactly like her; I wonder if somewhere down the line they are related... Anyways, her acting was believable. she played a disturbed young girl better than most actresses could. She also has a great future as an actress ahead of her. Seeing as she contributed largely to the outcome of the film, I thought that Colbie Smulders’s acting was laughable. “He’s coming,” “Who?” “You-Know-Who”. When did this film turn into Harry Potter?

       Something that irritates me when I’m watching a movie is when I notice errors. Within the same beach scene, Julianne Hough had changed outfits at least three times, where we saw her get in the car with only the clothes on her back, and a bikini. This was the case with a few more scenes also. Also there was a big error on the knowledge of Colbie Smulders’s character, knowing about Katie’s past. These errors can mean one of two things, or maybe both. One, the movie was hastily filmed, with some type of time crunch. Or two, the producers were not smart enough to notice it. But I’m opting for the former reason.

        With all that time spent on Hough's character, the ending was the movie's low point because it tried to make us care about a character that the movie spent little time developing. Had they recast, and added some extra scenes into that character, then maybe it would have worked. But to be honest, I didn't like it one bit. It had a good, original backstory, and likable characters, so let's leave it at that. It shouldn't have gone for the home-run.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Year: 2004
Cast: Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet
Genre: Drama/Romance/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R



       If you’ve ever seen The Number 23, you’ll know how great of an actor Jim Carrey can be when he isn’t acting in a comedic role. In fact, I can’t decide which type of performance I prefer more. A movie like The Cable Guy is one that offers both. With this movie, we are blessed enough to be exposed to Jim Carrey’s ability to play a serious, dramatic role. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is about a couple, Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) and Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet), whose relationship turned defective and damaging. When a company offers the ability to erase their memory of each other, they agree and have it done. So the majority of the movie takes place in Joel’s head, attempting to hide in his memories with Clementine, as he realizes he truly does want her in his life. 

       It’s only every so often that you see a movie title that you have never recognized or seen before (most people haven't), such as this. And the even less common, when it has an innovative idea. People often try to categorize movies: mobster movies, supernatural horror movies, and there are many more. But I’m not sure how to classify this one. The closest movie to it would be Inception, but that’s not even close. Memory is something that has been a curious subject for me for many years. I have always wondered how it works, why I remember certain things, why I don’t. When I found this movie, I was intrigued. 

       The need for great visual effects was not necessary, but the need for editing was. And this is evident in the film. The editing was great, despite the excessive time and scenes spent on the Kirsten Dunst’s and David Cross’s character being irresponsible and careless around Joel’s unconscious body. Nevertheless, no words will be able to describe my favorite scene in the movie, that took place on the beach. Joel was in the house that him and Clementine met eachother in, and it was flooding with water. As she was slipping away from him, he had to yell louder so she could hear him. It was as if it she was a voice over. The writer of the film, Charlie Kaufman, who won an Oscar for the screenplay, has some obvious imaginative skills. If you haven’t got that from the review yet, you will when you watch it.

       This is a movie that I will definitely remember as a unique, and weird film. The connotation for weird may be negative in most circumstances, but not this one. The idea of having each person’s memories wiped of each other instead of just not seeing each other is absurd. But it made it an interesting movie, and trust me, you won’t want to have this movie wiped from your memory.

Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take on SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Jesse's Rating: B+
Cole's Rating: A

Director: David O. Russell
Year: 2012

Cast: Bradley Cooper Robert De Niro, Jennifer Lawrence

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: R 

        When you watch a David O. Russell film, you know what to expect. This is a good thing. He's a talented director who sticks to what he knows best. Rapid fire, whip smart dialogue, solid casting, and off the wall plot descriptions. If you've seen "Three Kings" and "I Heart Huckabees" (2004), you know what I'm talking about. He gets the most out of his actors. It seems as though the camera is peeking in on them.  Scenes in his movies get drawn out, taking to the extreme. But I like it. The rawness of Russell's filmmaking fascinates me.  

        Up for multiple oscars at this year's Academy Awards, we get "Silver Linings Playbook" (2012). This is Russell's ode to the city of Philadelphia. We get Bradley Cooper as Pat. A mental patient (former school teacher) who gets out of the hospital early and goes to live with his parents in the outskirts of Philly. His dad is Pat Sr. played by Robert DeNiro. Pat Sr. is a huge Eagles fan who has been kicked out of Veterans Stadium for getting into fights during the games. Then there's Pat's loving mother Delores played by Jackie Weaver. She goes to pick up Pat and his buddy (played by Chris Tucker) at the hospital with the help of the courts giving him permission to leave a little early.  While trying to get his life back together (he lost his wife, his house, and his job), Pat meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a young woman with similar pain in her life. The two meet and form a beautiful relationship. Listen, I cant divulge too much into the story so I'm just gonna say that the whole film comes down to a bet involving a dance contest and an Philadelphia Eagles/Dallas Cowboys game. 

        "Silver Linings Playbook" is a feel good film with a few rough edges. It shows that even though every family has problems and a certain level of dysfuntionality, they love each other regardless. I like the relationship and the dynamic between Copper's character and his parents. I also adore Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany.  Almost every performance in this film is solid, but Lawrence just plain hits it out of the park.  Somehow, she is able to out act Deniro, Weaver, and Cooper all in the same scene.  In her early twenties, she's got one heck of a career ahead of her.  

        All in all, "Silver Linings Playbook" is not a perfect film. It leaves a couple of loose ends with the characters.  The Chris Tucker character and the brother of Cooper's character along with his Shrink, don't really have a lot to do. You don't know what their motivation is because they fade in and out of the film. Then there is the script.  Like I said, the acting is terrific, but you get the sense that the actors just run out of things to say so they improvise to the point where it's not needed. Yes, I do like Russell's style of directing, but this is what keeps "Sliver Linings Playbook" from being a bonified 4 star movie.  However, when the film is over, you feel invigorated and it has the power to get a moviegoer to see it multiple times. That's why I'm recommended it highly. It reminded me of the 2006 film "Little Miss Sunshine." That was a another feel good film with similar themes and nuances.  

        One thing to notice and wonder when watching "Silver Linings Playbook," is why the heck does Bradley Cooper always wear a trash bag when he's running? Oh, and be on the lookout for Jackie Weaver's varied facial expressions throughout the film. Priceless.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE

Thatcher's Rating: A

Year: 1955
Cast: James Dean, Natalie Wood
Genre: Drama/Romance
MPAA Rating: Approved          

           Rebel Without a Cause isn't just a movie in my words, but rather a masterpiece. Somewhat of a cult classic as well considering it wasn't meant to be one. After all, you can't just say "I'm going to go out and make a cult classic" and hope that it ends in success. 

~

           First off, let me start out with what REALLY makes this movie...the star, James Dean. Mister Dean is a personal favorite of mine considering he's not all that meets the eye. He appeared to be a young, different teenager with a blonde pompadour and a  heaping dose of swagger. People knew who he was when he walked in the room, his icy eyes hold a whole different past. As soon as you see him onscreen crawling up to a toy monkey with cymbals at the introduction of the film, you get a sense of foreshadowing as if anything could happen from here on out. James Dean does more then make an appearance, he imprints himself in your brain. And this is why he's the only person who was able to fit Jim Stark, the story's protagonist. The film opens with Stark getting busted for petty drunkenness. As he stumbles around the station, two more characters are partially introduced; Judy (Natalie Wood) and Plato (Sal Mineo). There's more to them later on, but the introduction of them using a slight camera view and intro to what their feelings are about their actions is fantastically done. Things are intriguing until Jim's parents arrive, played by Jim Backus (Mr. Magoo) and Ann Doran. I would like to briefly applaud Jim Backus who blends into this role like a chameleon. What you see is an all around pleasant guy; he says practically all the right things and can say something sad or negative without crushing your heart. I felt the decision to have a comedian play a character with emotional issues was a perfect and ironic choice, as Jim's dad struggles with being a push-over (Jim's mother being the pusher) to the dismay of Jim himself. This back and forth argument is so clearly existent in a scene at the station. The realism and honesty of teenage angst and parental confusion is the beating heart of this picture and I praise it strongly for that. When no others could portray this rampant concept, director Nicholas Ray was able to and lets it out of it's cage to run free. You've got to see this film, not only will you be able to connect with it on such a deep and emotional level, but it's entertaining and you'll love to see the best bits of James Dean's short life (R.I.P.)

Written by Thatcher Boyd                                                                        

MEET THE PARENTS

  Cole's Rating: A
Thatcher's Rating: A-
Uncle Jesse's Rating: C

Year: 2000
Cast: Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Teri Polo
Genre: Comedy/Romance
MPAA Rating: PG-13



   De Niro. The very sound of his name brings up recollections of shoot-em-up, mafia movies such as Casino and Heat. But, as he has proved over the course of his acting career, he can pull off multiple different roles, one being the intimidating, retired CIA agent future step father by name of Jack Byrnes in the wonderfully entertaining romantic comedy about male nurse Gaylord ‘Greg’ Focker, (Ben Stiller) who travels with his girlfriend Pam Byrnes, (Teri Polo) to meet her family in attempt to win her parents affection, and get permission to marry Pam. Jack Byrnes truly is as tough as he sounds. He gives Gaylord the hardest time about dating his daughter in several circumstances that cracked me up so much that my gut hurt after the movie ended; however, his soft spot is how passionate he is about his furball cat named ‘Jinxy’ that is his most beloved living thing, or so it seems to the viewers. Meet The Parents is a humorous, clever story of a hard-earned romance with several mistakes along the way, one being the poor acting of Teri Polo, what is so surprising all the time? “Oh honey, I must have forgot to tell you about my ex-fiance Kevin!” Despite that, Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro stole the show with the amusing relationship and interaction between the two. Directed by Jay Roach, Meet The Parents made it to my list of favorites, which is not easy for a film to achieve!

Written by Cole Pollyea

LES MISERABLES

 Cole's Rating: ★★★
Thatcher's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Year: 2012
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfreid
Genre: Drama/Musical/Romance
MPAA Rating: PG-13

A great, entertaining storyline with beautiful, heartwarming music, all wrapped up in one movie? Well if you don’t think it’s possible and you’re interested, Les Miserables is the movie for you.

Les Miserables is a musical directed by Tom Hooper that heart-wrenchingly described and illustrated the poor living conditions of the less fortunate in France, and also reenacted The French Revolution with emotionally wrecking effects to which I was highly effected by.


As to the devoted, impressive cast. Hugh Jackman (X-Men), Anne Hathaway (Love And Other Drugs), Russell Crowe (Gladiator), and Amanda Seyfried (In Time) are just a few of the actors/actresses in the movie that made it what it is. Now, if you don’t typically enjoy musicals like myself, knowing that some of the actors from my favorite movies were in it made it feel more familiar while watching a movie that I normally wouldn’t. They’re performance was highly satisfying, but short lived for some, which I personally would’ve enjoyed to see more of. 

Now, before seeing this movie, if someone asked me, “Hey Cole, do you want to go see a three hour long musical based upon the French revolution?”, my answer would be a swift no. But this movie truly opened my eyes. Sure, it was 98% singing. Sure, it was three hours long. So if that is going to scare you off, it shouldn’t. Because if I was entirely informed on what I was going to see, I probably would have been scared off too. I’m here to tell you don’t let it scare you off, it’s definitely worth it.

Written by Cole Pollyea