I forgot where I heard it from, but I heard somewhere that "remakes are the new originals." I beg to differ. In 1976, audiences were introduced to Damien, a scary child who was believed to be the son of the devil. Now, I'm not that old and I wasn't there back in 1976 but I did watch the original, and I must say, I was kind of freaked out by it. Maybe it's because I also just watched The Exorcist before it, but I must say that I was freaked out by that movie and all kids looking like Damien. Now it's 2006, or I'm sorry, the year of 6-6-06 (man, do I get annoyed of that) and we are brought a remake of the original classic that didn't really need to get remade. Here's what I hate, remakes of movies that were already good in the first place. We don't need a remake, it's almost like The Pink Panther, where the old Pink Panther movies were good enough, but we had to get a dull remake. The Omen is almost like that, what am I saying, it is like that. This remake of The Omen is, I would say, very identical to the original. The movie begins out showing a mysterioius priest telling Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber), a senior American diplomat, that his wife, Katherine (Julia Stiles) had problems giving birth to the child and that the child has died. Robert doesn't know how to take this news since they've tried numerous times to have a child, but it would always end up a failure. The priest feels his sadness and urges him to take another newborn baby and not tell anyone of what happened, even his own wife. Robert thinks about this and ends up saying yes. He then takes the mysterious child to his wife and they name the kid Damien. Years pass by and Damien starts to act weirder and weirder and strange things start to happen, for example, a nanny hangs herself at his birthday party and he somehow befriends a vicious dog. Damien is a silent boy and Katherine tells Robert that she feels a "force of evil" whenever she's around Damien. Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite) ends up meeting up with Robert telling him that his "so-called" son is the son of the devil. Robert pushes him off, but for some reason, Robert recalls the past events happening and the signs just add up. At the same time, a photographer named Keith Jennings (David Thewlis) goes up to Robert and tells of the mysterious signs. Together, the two team up to find the truth of Damien's real parents and how they must stop this. Back at Katherine's story, she ends up hiring the babysitter from hell named Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow) who gets along with Damien. It's actually more freaky to see Baylock and Damien together because, if I didn't know, I would say Baylock is flirting with Damien. Believe me, if you see the movie, you'll know what I'm saying. There's things like Baylock feeding strawberries to Damien and it just didn't look right. But anyway, back to the story. Katherine starts feeling weird things and ends up believing that her "son" is not who she thinks he is. She finally realized after countless times of Damien going "ape crazy" on her. The main but funniest problem of the Omen: the villian. The center villian of course is Damien, who is played by Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick. This kid is so bad at acting, I wouldn't know where to begin. Unlike the original where the that kid playing Damien scared the hell out of me, the kid playing Damien in here was funny. He was so bad for the part that I found myself laughing. The more he tried to be evil, the more I found myself laughing out loud. But he's not the only bad actor in the movie. There is also bad acting coming from the three main stars: Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, and David Thewlis. The first two are the "heroes" of the movie and they suck at acting. Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles are of course married and in love. Not for one second did I believe that they're "in love." They have zero chemistry together and they both looked lost playing these parts. They both did terrible at acting. David Thewlis is another story, he just plain sucks at acting. There are of course good actors in here though, for example: Mia Farrow, Michael Gambon, and Pete Postlethwaite were exceptional actors in the movie, especially Mia Farrow, she did great as this scary babysitter. The problem is of course the entire movie. It's just really dull, boring, and very unentertaining. I didn't have any fun in the this movie at all. Aside from the clever fancy-looking death scenes, I was bored out of my mind during the movie. I didn't care, I just didn't care for anything in this movie, and that is a huge problem. It has a messy director, it has terrible dialogue, bad acting, and a boring plot. It's a movie so boring that even Satan would fall asleep and probably ask for his money back. A terrible movie that should only be recognized for its clever Final Destination-like death scenes. For everyone who always says that remakes are never as good as the originals, your case just got stronger. A weak and unworthy remake that only wishes it was as good, scary, and entertaining as the original. My grade for The Omen: C-

If you've never heard of Keeping Up With The Steins, I wouldn't blame you. It's actually not that big of a movie, but it has a surprisingly big cast. Is there much to explain here, not really, so I'll just get it done. The movie is narrated by Benjamin Fielder (Daryl Sabara) and he is about "to become a man." His family is Jewish, so in Jewish terms, "becoming a man" means it's time for his bar mitzvah. HIs two parents, Adam (Jeremy Piven) and Joanne (Jami Gertz) and his grandma (Doris Roberts) are reasonably rich. The movie takes place in Brentwood, California which means this place is chalk full of rich and wealthy people. Joanne just wants the best for Benjamin, but Adam wants to have a way better bar mitzvah than the Steins' bar mitzvah because it was so good. You see Adam used to be best friends with the father, Arnie Stein (Larry Miller) until they got in a fight. Pretty much, that's where the title Keeping Up With The Steins ties in, he wants to not keep up with them, but surpass them. All in all, Adam starts not thinking about what Benjamin wants and Benjamin starts to get mad. So what Benjmain does is he invites Adam's dad earlier than expected, whom he's never gotten close to because he left him and his mom years ago and has never forgiven him for that. Did I mention his mom is Doris Roberts' character. Well, anyway, Adam's dad, Irwin Fielder (Garry Marshall) and his new hippie wife Sandy or Sacred Feather (Daryl Hannah) get the invitation and immediately come to Brentwood. Benjamin does this out of anger but also curiosity because he's never met his grandfather. Benjamin finds that his grandfather is not mean-spirited at all but is a nice person and starts to get closer to him. Keeping Up With The Steins is not at all even close to original. Everything in this movie we've seen before. I would call this even TV material. That is why I cannot give it a positve grade. But did I have a fun time? I would I say I had a reasonably fun time. It may not be original, but that doesn't mean you won't have a fun time. What really keeps the film going is the great supporting cast, I mean, there are a lot of stars in here, and it all blended great together. There were also a few hearty laughs here and there. The main problem, as I stated, is the story and the unfunny jokes. The story is just so unoriginal, it's predictable and dull. Some of the jokes are funny, but a lot of them are not. Would I still recommend this film, I would say that it's a decent rental, Jewish or not, it's still a good rental. Oh and just a little note: I'm not Jewish. My grade for Keeping Up With The Steins: C+

Probably the biggest reason a lot of people went to see this movie is that the star couple in this movie is Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn, who are also going out in real life. These filmmakers are pretty smart, wait, they started going out after the making of this movie. Never mind, these filmmakers are just lucky because I believe without them going out in real life, this movie wouldn't have made the money it did. I could say The Break-Up has a fresh and original plot that just had too many flaws to keep up with. The last thing I would call The Break-Up is a comedy. This movie is just too depressing to be a comedy, therefore it goes under drama, although it really is a dramedy. The Break-Up begins on a baseball game where Gary Grobowski (Vince Vaughn) and Brooke Meyers (Jennifer Aniston) first meet with each other. At first sight, Gary ends up "wowing" Brooke and then we are taken to the beginning credits, where we see almost two years pass by taken in pictures and how their relations only looks perfect. We then see them arguing up to the point where Brooke just cannot take it anymore. Riggleman (Jason Bateman) is their realtor and suggests some time apart on account of their condition of not being a healthy couple. After another loud and obnoxious argument, they both think that the other is trying to keep the condo none of them can afford all to themseleves. I mean come on, Gary is a tour guide who works on top of a double-decker bus that goes around Chicago and Brooke is just an assistant for some art deco or something. I know those two jobs added together don't equal that nice, fancy, and large condo complex. Out of major stupidity, the two continue to start living with each other which eventually leads to a war between the two which then leads to heartbreaks and then to choices that Gary and Brooke must decide. Now, there are some funny moments in The Break-Up, mostly from Vince Vaughn, who kills me with his usual jokes. I mean he was really funny. I also loved it when they put Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau as Gary's best friend together because they had chemistry and they were just great together. Also, John Michael Higgins as Brooke's gay brother, Richard, provided some laughs. The real problems lay within the main story, including the missing chemistry from Gary and Brooke. I saw zero chemistry between them, which made me question if there is any chemistry between Vince and Jennifer? Also, the two rage out in some really harsh war. After awhile, I got tired of it, Brooke and Gary started acting like immature little kids. It's not realistic at all. I mean, if you had two people who just broke up living together still, I don't know if they would be this harsh together. Obviously, if they were mature enough, they would of broke it up like mature adults. But no, it's just some lame and unrealistic movie where they just hurt each other, and it just wasn't funny, it was just kind of sick to see these two people just get in this all out war that makes the audience seem bored. Honestly, I didn't really care for these two characters all that much. I mean, they're both likeable characters, but after I saw what they did to each other, I just lost total interest in both of them. Another thing, we hardly got to see anytime where Gary and Brooke were actually happy, I think we actually need some more time with their happy times to have to endure their unhappy times. The Break-Up just seemed to be a dull and lifeless bore with really no point and a very abrupt ending that came out of nowhere. The next question is "is it a date movie?" The answer is no, do not even think of taking a girl out to this movie, you're making the wrong choice. It's just a depressing, boring, and unpleasant experience that may even get you dumped after the movie. Now I wouldn't say it's predictable because the ending did get me as a surprise, but other than that, almost none of this works. It's just a stupid and pointless disappointment that I would not recommend to anyone. My grade for The Break-Up: D+

Here is a recap of the past X-Men movies and what I thought about each of them: 1) X-Men (B) 2) X2: X-Men United (B) As you see, I've always thought of the X-Men movies as "normal B material." And X3 doesn't change a bit. I can say that X3 is probably the weakest out of the bunch. It doesn't stay true to the comics, but to be honest, I don't really care. Bryan Singer gives the X-Men movies over to Rush Hour director Brett Ratner who, is honestly, not that good of a director. For one thing, he doesn't know how to make long movies, for instance, this is a short movie, unlike the other X-Men movies where they're all over 2 hours. Nope, not this one, it's less than 2 hours. The story for this 3rd installment is almost all about the return of Jean Gray and how she has two personalities. One of course is the kind and gentle Jean Gray who is stuck between a love triangle between Wolverine and Cyclops. Then there is her other personality which is the rage of the Phoenix. Then of course there is a "cure" for the mutants which threatens the exsistence of this race. What I love most about the X-Men movies is this fictionalized world where mutants is a race that almost no one respects. I love to think of it as a subliminal message to today's world. Back to the story, there is this little boy played by Cameron Bright named Jimmy who is "the cure." Which means that if any mutant gets near this boy, their powers are suddenly lost and doesn't work. This of course brings up questions for the people. Magneto is of course the evil one and wants this boy to die so that mutants can stay mutants. But Xavier's team has to save this boy before Magneto gets to him. There are of course new additions to the movie including the Beast played by Kelsey Grammar, which is basically Frasier with blue make-up. Then there of course is the most talked about Juggernaut played by Vinnie Jones who is by the way hilarious in this part. I'm sure you've heard many people insult and question the other charcters like "Where's Gambit?" or "Where did Nightcrawler go?" and things like that. X3 is rumored to be the last X-Men movie (although there are prequels lined up focused on other characters) and this movie did not meet up to the fans' expectations. The flaws are pretty obvious like, of course, the crummy dialogue the actors have to work with and the crappy acting, especially by Hugh Jackman. He did good as Wolverine in the other X-Men movies, but for some reason, he just kept on making bad jokes in this one. Also, Halle Berry had a bigger role in this movie, and she failed to prove she's good as Storm also. The biggest part is the dialogue, it's just so corny. The good things in this movie is the story and the awesome special effects, including things like the Golden Gate bridge being lifted to make a pathway to Alcatraz. Despite some disappointed fans, I still recommend this movie as it still keeps it cool and good-looking style it promises. If you do see it, don't forget to check out that little thing after the end credits. My grade for X-Men: The Last Stand: B

I think it's a known fact that we do get too many CGI movies where it contains talking animals. It's a fact. Let's see, we have Ice Age 2, Madagascar, The Wild, shall I go on. But you should also know by now that I am a huge sucker for CGI movies in general. Even though they're aimed for little kids, I still have a fun time. I guess it brings out the little kid in me. When I walked into Over the Hedge, I was expecting complete and utter crap, judging from all the other crappy talking animal movies we get. But was in for a surprise, Over the Hedge was a fun and bloomy delight with a good story and great jokes. It also has some of the finest animation I've ever seen from a CGI film. Over the Hedge starts off with R.J. the raccoon (Bruce Willis) trying to steal a load of food from a hibernating bear named Vincent (Nick Nolte). While he's trying to steal the food, he gets caught by Vincent. Startled, R.J. lets the food go where it is destroyed. Vincent is then angry to find that R.J. is trying to steal the food so he then makes a deal with R.J. R.J. has one week to get every one bit of food that Vincent had and replace it before Vincent wakes up from hibernation. R.J. is of course a loner who has no family who friends. I don't know about anyone else, but I smelled a lesson miles before it came. R.J. then stumbles upon a group of animals who just woke up from hibernation and learned that during hibernation, suburbia has taken over most of their wooded area. Moving ahead, R.J. tricks them into going into suburbia and loading up food not telling them that it's for a bear voiced by Nick Nolte. Over the Hedge does no harm in CGI entertainment and is surprisingly satisfying. It has enough jokes for both kids and adults to keep them entertained. Yes, there is some flaws for Over the Hedge, but I won't go into that. Over the Hedge is created to entertain, that's it. It's a, dare I say, cute film that should link to everyone. What I loved the most in here are the colorful characters in here and the different personalities they share. My favorite character that I must point out is Hammy the squirrel voiced by Steve Carrell. There is even a sequence that I won't spoil that is near the ending involving Hammy drinking a caffinated drink that makes the whole experience seem worth it. Over the Hedge also makes some true remarks on how our whole world is centered around the word "food." Over the Hedge is a surprisingly smart, witty, colorful, and fun ride the whole way. I would recommend it to almost anyone. My grade for Over the Hedge: B

Robin Williams, of course, is one of America's greatest actors. In other words, he's a very well-known actor. Williams hasn't starred in a famly movie for quite some time. He's been doing some total downers like One Hour Photo or Insomnia the past years. But finally, he stars in a family movie again that is, to be honest, not a terrible movie. But it's also not a good movie. The biggest surprise to this movie is that the movie actually made me laugh, and not little laughs, big laughs. I actually found myself laughing out loud. I don't know if it was the coffee that I was drinking, but I was laughing. The problem is that the laughing burned out within 40 minutes of the movie. RV has the most unoriginal plot you can think of. It's about a middle-age overworked father named Bob Munro (Robin Williams) who has a wife (Cheryl Hines) and two children (Jojo and Josh Hutcherson). He's works for a soda company and does the best he can and kisses his boss's butt everyday. He plans on taking his family to Hawaii, but his boss makes him work during the vacation. So Bob changes plans and takes his family on an RV road trip not telling his family that he actually has to work during this time. What's funny about the Munro family is that in the first 40 minutes, they absolutely hate each other. I mean they hate each other, all they do is insult each other and make rude remarks, and you know what, it's very funny when you see them as an unhappy family. But then after 40 minutes of the film, the Munros actually start to get along and learn lesson together. Yuck, makes me want to puke! The funny thing is that in the first 40 minutes of the movie, I actually thought it would be a good movie, but after that, the movie starts to go downhill very slowly until it reaches it a bad grade. RV is a film that's far from horrible but is not that close to good. RV is guaranteed to get a few laughs out of you no matter how stupid you think it is. My grade for RV: C

Here are the three most commonly asked questions regarding The Da Vinci Code film: 1) Why is this film so controversial? 2) Will I like the film if I haven't read the book? 3) What is up with Tom Hanks' hair? To answer question #1, basically the story claims that Jesus Christ was married to the so-called prostitute, Mary Magdalene and that the Holy Grail is actually not a "cup" but documents from the time of Christ that has proof that Magdalene and Jesus were married and the tomb of Mary Magdalene. To answer question #2, honestly, I don't know. I'm one of the millions of people who's read the book and absolutely loved it from start to finish, so I can't answer that. My best advice is for you to go and see it and tell me for yourself. To answer question #3, I also can't answer that. I don't know why Tom Hanks decided to have and keep that hairstyle, in my opinion, it looks like an angry beaver is on top of his head. From one of the previous sentences, you can see that I have read the book and I loved it. I loved the book, but I hated the movie. Here is what I say: the more you loved the book, the more you will hate the movie. The reason is because I felt that the movie butchered the book. By now, I now know that if you are making a book-based movie, you obviously can't keep everything in the book in the movie. The problem with the movie is that Ron Howard changed things he shouldn't have changed and kept things that he should have changed. I think that the movie gets all the fun and excitement the book contained and throws it in the trash. I found the film a bit dull and boring in some parts. I also felt it was stupid and corny. I mean whoever did the screenplay for this movie did a terrible job, the dialogue is just preposterous, it's stupid, it doesn't go with any of the characters. The basic storyline for The Da Vinci Code begins with the murder of curator Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle) at the famous Louvre Museum in Paris. He was murdered by an Albino Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany) who is working for Opus Dei. On his last moments, Jacques begins to write a message. We are then introduced to a symbologist named Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). Lt. Collet (Etienne Chicot) asks Langdon to come and help them at the murder to see if he may have any information that can help them get to the murderer. He is then taken to the Louvre Museum and meets with Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno). Robert finds that Fache is a stirdy and grumpy man who is hard to impress. Fache shows him the body of Sauniere, which looks exactly like one of Da Vinci's sketches, The Vitruvian Man. Fache also shows him a message Sauniere left which read "13-3-2-21-1-1-8-5 O, Draconian devil! Oh, lame saint!" Fache asks him what it means, but Langdon has no idea. Unexpectedly, a French judicial cryptologist barges in with the name of Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tatou). She claims that the Embassy has a message for Langdon that is a meaning of life or death. Sophie gives the phone to Langdon and realizes that it's Sophie's answering machine. Sophie then tells Langdon to enter a code and not ask questions. Not knowing what to do, Robert dials in the number and sees that there is a message for him, from Sophie Neveu. The message tells him he is in terrible danger. Making a fake excuse to Fache about a friend getting into an accident, he tells him that he needs to go to the bathroom to wash his face. Fache lets him go. As Robert enters the bathroom, he finds Neveu waiting for him. She says that Robert is the prime suspect for the murder of Jacques Sauniere, her grandfather. He says that under the message her grandfather wrote, there was also "P.S. Find Robert Langdon," which Fache wiped up before Langdon arrived. Because of that, Fache believes that Langdon is the killer of curator Jacques Sauniere, which he isn't, he's being falsely accused. Sophie also let him know that Lt. Collet put a GPS tracking device inside his coat so that they can keep track of him. Sophie also tells him that P.S. doesn't stand for Postscript in this situation, but instead stands for Princess Sophie. Sophie then gets his tracking device and throws it out the window with a bar of soap onto a truck. The cops stunned, they immediately leave the Lovure Museum to chase that bar of soap. Langdon and Neveu are inside the museum at all times, now two wanted criminals. Sophie believes that her grandfather is trying to tell her something important, but she can only find that out with the help of this Robert Langdon. Now, they both have only a limited time to go through Jacques' puzzles and riddles that he left them to find the answer of what her grandfather was trying to tell her, it could be the location of the Holy Grail. The real problem with The Da Vinci Code is that it doesn't take any risks like the book did. As you should know, both the book and the movie are getting boycotted by Christians, Albinos, foundations, etc. I thought the book was a lot more controversial than the movie, the book took the story of the Grail very seriously. It stood by what it said and Dan Brown risked almost everything in telling this story, but the movie, I felt didn't take the story very seriously. For starters, it hardly took any time to tell the story of the Grail, of how it tied with the maybe marriage of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. As a lover of the book, I felt betrayed. Also, I loved how in the book, there were many puzzles that took the characters a long time to solve, but in the movie, the characters seem to be stupidly smart and solve it very quickly. At 149 minutes, The Da Vinci Code went surprisingly too fast. I think that whoever wrote the script for the film forgot to develop the characters a lot more than in the book. The book gives the characters a lot of depth. The cast is also not that great. Don't get me wrong, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou are great actors, but these parts aren't right for them. In the book Langdon and Neveu had chemistry and later fell in love. In the movie, they have zero chemistry, which was a total let down because Tom Hanks is a great actor. It's not that Tom Hanks is a bad actor, because he's not, it's just that this role doesn't fit him, and it's very obvious if you've read the book, heck, probably if you didn't read the book you would be able to see that the role is just not right for him. Audrey Tatou as Sophie also wasn't cast very well. Well, for the most obvious she doesn't have the green eyes Dan Brown gave so much detail to in the book. She did do ok, not as awful as Tom Hanks as Langdon, he looked lost and it felt awkward seeing him play the part. Although, I did think that Paul Bettany as Silas and Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing were cast perfectly, they played their roles very well. To be honest, I have been waiting for this film all year and was hugely disappointed with the outcome. I think that The Da Vinci Code can never be made into a decent film. The film looked great, especially with the exotic locations the film was set in, but the film, to be honest, just didn't have enough of almost everything, I expected much more. The film did have its moments, but not enough, and sometimes the dialogue was just so cheesy that I found myself to almost laugh out loud. The flashbacks were also not filmed and placed very well throughout the movie. The Da Vinci Code is a film that only wishes it was as good as the book. The Da Vinci Code fails at being a decent movie. My grade for The Da Vinci Code: C-

Never have I seen a film that began so quickly and ended so quickly. Also, never have I seen a film with not even the least tiny bit of character development. I'm telling you, there is no character development in here whatsoever. Because there was no character development, I found myself not caring for anybody. Because I found myself not caring for anybody, I could never seem to memorize any of their names, not one. No matter how many times they yelled it into their microphones, I just never seemed to memorize any of the character's names, and that, is when you know you have a horrible film on your hands. Poseidon was so poorly done I don't even know where to begin, and it's a surprise because you would of thought the director of such films like Das Boot or The Perfect Storm would know his way around water movies, but no, Wolfgang Petersen flops the whole remake. To begin, I've never watched the original Poseidon Adventure, but after seeing this, I have no desire to. As I stated in the opening sentence, the movie began quickly, way too quickly. I mean in the first 6 minutes or so, that boat is already flipped over by bad and tacky special effects. Ok, I'm sorry, I'm probably being a little too harsh, dreadful and shameful special effects are used in Poseidon. I mean, I've seen better special effects on a made-for-television special airing on Lifetime! I've seen enough movies to know that special effects can be better than what Poseidon has to offer. Awful, just awful is the word used to describe not only the special effects, but the whole movie. I mean, who wrote this script? There is nothing good in here at all, I mean that, at all. Wolfgang Petersen had a good idea on his hands, but messed it all up. Ok, the story you are now wondering. Ok, there are these people on this boat named Poseidon, hence the title. If you were reading the beginning of my review, you would've known that I didn't memorize not one of the characters' names, you know that's true. Please forgive me if I use "that guy" or "that girl." Well, there's this guy (Josh Lucas), another guy (Kurt Russell), this girl (Emmy Rossum), this old guy who is gay (not kidding, and he's Richard Dreyfuss), this other girl and this little kid, oh yeah, and this other guy (Kevin Dillon). Again, I apologize for using "this guy" and "this girl." Oh yeah.....Jennifer, that's Emmy Rossum's name. Ok, I remembered one person's name, now for the other few. Just to be clear, Richard Dreyfuss' character in the movie is gay for actually no reason, I don't know why, well anyway he tried to kill himself before the tidal wave hit, I also don't know why, do you know why? It's because Wolfgang Petersen forgot two little words while making this trash: character development! Yeah, so when the boat flips over, Josh Lucas' character (who's a little too smart for his own good) thinks he's all tough and smart and gathers up this random group and they start trying to head off the ship. Yes, Josh Lucas thinks he can get off a ship that just been flipped over by an unrealistic tidal wave surrounded by special effects that's now underwater, way to be optomistic Josh! Well anyway, Josh Lucas' character is so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so ,so, so, so, so, so, so, soooooooo smart. He is so, so, so smart! Why is he that smart? I mean this guy will take one look at a room filled with water and know what to do! How is he that smart? Oh yeah, we don't know because Wolfgang Petersen forgot character development! Thanks Wolfgang! Because of you, I have no idea why these characters are like this. Ok, so Josh Lucas' character is so stupidly smart you just want to go up to shoot yourself. This guy knows what to do anywhere anytime, he's like Dr. Phil! Oh yeah, and then you got Kurt Russell who is.....what's her name....Jennifer's dad who has a fiancee that he hates, sounds like a sitcom. Well, apparently, his character had a wife who died and I think he was mayor from what Kevin Dillon said. But we will never know because Wolfgang Petersen forgot those two words...can you repeat after me: character development. Oh, and you got this loud and annoying little kid they're dragging along who is not even afraid that they are all at risk at dying! You also have no emotional sentiment and unrealistic stunts that look stupid. The whole movie is just a ugly-looking bore with no character development, almost no story, and faked feelings+characters that I seemed to have no feel for at all. Poseidon was hugely disappoointing and very unsatisfying and I apologize for my review being so repetitive and unfunny, but I am just going crazy for paying $9.50 for the second-worst film of the year by far. Do I recommend Poseidon? No, absolutely not, avoid it at all costs, I am urging you. It looks bad, It flows bad, It begins bad, It ends bad, it is bad. It's not slow, it's too fast, yeah, I never had a film that's like that: too fast. I felt like Poseidon should have had more, a lot more, of well everything. You see, character development is one of the key things you need in a movie, if you don't have character development, you don't have a movie, and if you don't have decent-looking special effects, that can also be bad. Poseidon is horrible and very, very poorly done. This is a disaster of a disaster movie. My grade for Poseidon: F

September 11, 2001, as we all know, is one of the most tragic days in American history. It's a little weird to think back because it actually wasn't that long ago. I mean I could even remember what I was doing that day, it's a little scary. People are constantly asking the question "isn't it too soon?" My answer: no. People are constantly forgetting what happened this day, not to mention the courage the passengers got up on Flight United 93. I think it's good that as brave as a director Paul Greengrass is "shoving" this story back into our faces. What happened on this day changed many peoples' lives. It is a day where four planes were hijacked by terrorists. Three planes made it to their destination. One plane didn't, this is the story of that plane. It's been a while since I've seen a film that's so heartbraking and jaw-dropping. Never before have I seen that has had my heart racing like this film. The last moments of the film were so intense, gut-wrenching, and heartbraking, I could hardly manage to stay in my seat. The film is what it is: a story of 9/11. There is no politics or character development, it's what we know, it's as if we are a passenger on that airplane. The film had no famous faces, but also had people that were actually involved during that day in the control stations. To be honest, I was quite bored during the first half of the film. It's because it was at the control stations, but I understand why they had to show that, it's because they had to get everything together and build up the tragic events on that day. After that, we are taken to inside United 93 in the air when it gets hijacked, and let me say, those are some heartbraking moments. Paul Greengrass filmed this movie very well. I started to ask myself what I would of done if I was in the similar situation. The passengers on United 93 were just people. They were people with a life, people with families, they weren't people that woke up that morning and decided they were going to be a hero, they were just normal human beings just like us put in a horrifying situation of life and death. I mean I could feel everyone's fears on this plane and I haven't even met these people. These people are Americans, these people are heroes. As I said, the last scene in United 93 is probably the most intense feeling I've had in a movie ever, I mean it. I found myself scared for the people, I was even talking to myself on the last moment. United 93 is an emotionally intense gut-wrenching film that provides its own message of courage and determination, and will have you sitting in your seat speachless. United 93 is nothing short of amazing and is the best film so far this year. Should you see United 93? The answer is yes, but don't rush into it if you're not ready, see it when you are. I highly recommend this heartbraking film. My grade for United 93: B+

Jennifer Aniston, Frances McDormand, Joan Cusack, and Catherine Keener are the four leading ladies in Nicole Holofcener's low-budget indie dramedy, Friends With Money. The cast is great, they're everything you could ask for, they were funny, dramatic, and most importantly they had great chemistry together. The only problem is that the whole film never seemed to be about anything. I mean, yeah, this movie is about four friends with a problem of their own, but I didn't find the film worthy of all their talent. Oh, here's the story: the film is about four friends. Franny (Joan Cusack) has money and is very rich, but is looking to save it. Christine (Catherine Keener) also has money and is spending it. Jane (Frances McDormand) also has money, but spends it wisely. And then there is Olivia (Jennifer Aniston) who is poor and is working as a part-time maid. Olivia, to be exact, is a lazy pothead. All of her friends seem to worry about her, but Olivia insists she is fine. They all have a problem somewhere along the lines. Olivia is unhappy and fines herself lonely and desperate for money. Christine finds herself constantly fighting with her husband. Jane is bored with life, she feels as if she is "waiting to die." Her husband, whom she loves very much, may also be gay. To be honest, I didn't find Franny to have a problem. If there was a problem, I guess I missed it. I mean, she has pretty much everything her other friends don't have: happiness, a great sex life, a great husband and family she loves very much, and money. She also seemed happy and un-depressed (unlike the other characters) throughout the movie. There really isn't much to explain here except that Friends With Money seems to be a character(s) study. It's mainly a drama with a twist with comedy and a great performance by Frances McDormand who had me laughing out loud in the theatre. It was a decent movie, but never seemed to stay on task, I also didn't find myself caring too much for the center character of the movie, Olivia. I mean I found myself thinking that if she got up once in a while and stopped smoking pot, she could get somewhere. Also at the ending, everything felt unresolved. This is the kind of movie where I would recommend as a rental. My grade for Friends With Money: C+