I have now seen a record 3 movies this past week: Despicable Me, (a really good movie) Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, (an excellent movie) and now I have seen Steve Carrell's other non-kids film Dinner For Schmucks. Right off the bat I'm going to say that this is a remake of a French movie. The only thing these movies share is the premise. After that, both films branch out into their own things. I have seen that original French movie and I can tell you that it is actually quite good. (it's way better than this movie, but what do you expect? It's a remake.)

Both films have the same premise. A guy wants to get a big promotion at work. He sells his boss on an idea and gets invited to one of the bosses special dinners in which they have to bring a "special person" (translation: an idiot) along so that the other guests can make fun of him or her. The guests then decide on who's idiot is the best and the winning idiot gets a trophey. In Dinner For Schmucks, the rest of the plot is your basic screwball comedy fare. This ment I ended up figuring out what was going to happen before the film showed it.

The first 15-20 minutes of this movie are not very good. it just wasn't as funny as I would have liked. I did have a few chuckles during this but that was it. Then Steve Carrell's character appears and it's like the film did a complete 180. What follows is 90 minutes of sheer hilarity that only a few talented comedic actors can provide. Steve Carrell is one of those actors. The supporting cast was also delightfully funny when they needed to be. Jemaine Clement (the flight of the conchords guy who wears glasses) plays this weird artist who likes to photograph himself doing truly weird and sometimes horrifying things with animals and women, Zach Galifinakis is histarical as an I.R.S. worker who belives he has the power of mind control, and Jeff Dunham is in this movie and he has some good scenes. I really liked how this movie is very much its own thing and is not trying to be a shot-for-shot mimick of the French original besides the fact that they share the same premise.

Overall, Dinner For Schmucks starts off iffey but once Steve Carrell enters the picture it does a complete 180 and turns into one of the funniest, heartwarming, and good films I have seen all summer.

I give Dinner For Schmucks a 9/10.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World stars Michael Cera as the titular character who falls in love with a girl named Ramona Flowers. Unfortunately, he also has to fight her "7 Evil Ex's." This premise sounds very appealing and is well executed here. The fight scenes are well choreographed and very different from each other, every actor and actress is great, (except for the person playing Evil Ex #4. She was terrible.) and the unique old school beat em up video game like style are all what makes this movie so great.

That being said, some people might find the style of this movie to be so surreal and unnatural that they will dismiss it as dumb and stupid. That is not the case here. The style of this movie was the highlight of it for me and I wish those people would actually watch the movie in its entirity before passing judgement.

A few things didn't really work here. like I mentioned before, the actress playing the female evil ex is not very good. Also, some of the one-liners suck really badly. (Like in the fight scene with that aformentioned evil ex.) Those things don't really drive the movie down too much but at least they are over with quickly.

Overall, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a unique action/comedy/romance movie that might appeal to gamers and the general public. While the style of the film is a little unusual, it flows with the story and makes this film one of the most original and unforgettable films I have seen all summer.

I give Scott Pilgrim vs. The World a perfect 10/10.

SALT

I was a bit hesitant about seeing this movie when I saw the trailer. It seemed to me that it was trying to be a Jason Bourne rip-off with Angelina Jolie in the starring role. But I held on to some hope that I would find this movie to be enjoyable. Well, now that I have seen it, I can tell you now that all my hopes and dreams were dashed. This movie is terrible. It's basically a carbon copy of the Bourne movies mixed in with a bit of that Don Cheadle movie Traitor.

The basic plot of Salt is that Angelina Jolie playes he titular character who is identified as a Russian spy. She ends up becoming a fugitive. Basically, what plot is shown in the trailers is the main plot of the film.

Speaking of plot, this is the area i had the most dislike towards and I will tell you why. First of all, the premise is interesting but is ultimatley ruined by really stupid and outlandish exposition. (This movie wants us to believe that John Wilkes Booth was acting on orders from the Soviets when he shot JFK and we all know how stupid this is.) Secondly, there are too many macguffens and characters that end up "not appearing in the movie," (i.e. the russian guy you see in the trailers is only in that one scene. He is then quickly forgotten by the script and is never mentioned again.) Thirdly, the plot itself is just very weak and poorly laid out. The "surprise twist" that appears near the end of the movie I ended up guessing correctly in the first 5 minutes. Other aspects of the production of this movie were also bad. The action and fight scenes were choreographed terribly. It was slow-moving and was edited so badly I felt like the projectionist had accidentaly pressed a frame-by-frame button. As far as acting goes, Jolie comes off as wooden and bland. Salt is someone I didn't care for and that is not something you want people to do if you are a screenwriter. All the good stuff that happens in the movie I already saw in the trailers, the ending just felt like a bad carbon copy of the ending to The Bourne Ultimatum, (A movie I should have just watched again instead of seeing this garbage,) and in that same ending, they put in sequel bait so terrible that I will shut myself away from the world and plan a hit list of people who would pay for greenlighting a sequel to this cinema scrappile. The only positive thing about this movie is Liev Shriber who makes his bland chracter very interesting to watch. It's too bad that the script sucks so much but he did try to do his best with what he was given and I respect him for that.

Overall, Salt is a movie that you need to stay away from. The plot is terrible, most of the acting is terrible, (with the exception of Liev Shriber,) and the overall production was terrible. A good premise ended up being ruined by a terrible delivery.

I give Salt a 3/10

THE OTHER GUYS

I had to clear my mind of the travesty I just witnessed on screen so I was hoping that The Other Guys would cleanse the bitterness I had inside. Luckilly, it did its job. I really enjoy the Will Farrell-Adam Mckay films and from what i saw in the trailers, this was going to be just as good as those other movies. It is. This movie was hilarious. I really enjoyed it.

The plot of the film has to do with these two detectives (played by Will Farrell and Mark Whalberg, who is in his second comedic role. The first of which was in The Happening,) who are basically psychologically ostracized by their work peers. They are not respected, they are the butt of most jokes, and they just don't fit in very well at all. When the two best cops in the office (played hilariously by Samuel L. Jackson and The Rock,) get taken "out of the picture," they see their chance to prove themselves and jump onto the next case that comes their way.

Part of why this film was so good was thanks to a well written script and the clear definition of each of the characters. The jokes that ensue just keep coming and each one is funnier than the last. Farrell and Whalberg have great chemistry together and the other actors playing the various zany characters do very well too. The real scene stealer of the movie, in my opinion, was Michael Keaton playing the police cheif who works a second job at a Bed, Bath, and Beyond and frequently quotes lyrics from famous bands. When told about said music reference, he doesn't get the message. The cameo appearences from Sam Jackson and The Rock are so perfect and so them. When they go out, (and boy do they go out in a big way,) I couldn't watch the movie for the next 5 minutes because I was laughing too hard. But back briefly to the jokes, the running gags are very funny and only get funnier each time the gag is used. But here is where I had some complaints. Mostly because of the running gags. There are a few too many and, even though they get funnier, they can get mildly annoying after a while.

Overall, The Other Guys is a great buddy-cop comedy. It's well written, the jokes are funny, and the cast of crazy characters is very likable.

I give The Other Guys an 8/10

The A-Team was the "bees knees" back in the 80's. Most of our relatives (or you) might remeber watching this series as kids and just imagining different scenarios they would get into the next week. I've only caught a few episodes here and there on some channels, but I can see why this show appealed to kids and adults. The show promoted over-the-top cartoonish violence and worked hard to keep it as non-lethal and family-friendly as possible, and I wholeheartedly enjoyed those few episodes I saw. Now, almost 2 decades after the show ended, we get the A-Team movie. A modern day take on the show. Is it any good? Can it capture the spirit of what made the show so endearing? Well... you'll just have to read on and see.

The basic plot of the movie is about The A-Team getting sent to prison for murdering their commanding officer and conducting an "unauthorized" mission in Baghdad. (If you didn't catch the fact that this is a modern day retelling of the show, the movie gives us a subtitle that flat out tells you that this is set in the present day.) Their mission was to retrieve U.S. treasury printing plates from Iraqi insurgants. They do end up retrieving the plates and a billion dollers in counterfiet American currency, but bad things happen and they are thrown into seperate maximum security facilities. (Even though in the opening narrationCorey Burton says that they all escaped from one maximum security facility. Contiunity people!) So they end up breaking out of their respective prisons and hatch a plan to get revenge and get the plates back and clear their names. You know, standard protocal for these types of films.

I liked quite a few things about this movie. First off, the sub par story ended up feeling very engaging because of the characters, especially from the A-Team themselves. Their traits are well intact from the transition from show to modern day film. Hannibal still has his cigars and classic one-liners, Face is still a really good con man, B.A. is still afraid of flying, (which is explained in the movie. I don't know if it was also explained in the show.) and Murdock is still as crazy as he was in the show. Also, another character that was really engaging was the antagonist of the picture simply named Lynch played by Patrick Wilson. This guy clearly had a good time making this movie. He plays this character so snarky and so smug that I couldn't help but find this guy to be EPICALLY AWESOME in every scene he's in. (But nothing can compare to the ridculously hilarious Max from The Losers.) Secondly, the action sequences (and there are a lot of them) are actually well put together. The filmmakers really respected the over the top cartoonish violence that the show offered and it shows here because the last thing I liked about this movie was the fact that the improbability factor went threw the roof. But unfortunatly, this is also something I did not like about the movie.

There are times when you can get away with the impossible in movies like this. I can think of one scene in The Bourne Ultimatum where Jason Bourne drives a car, in reverse, off of the roof of a 3-storey parking garage with nothing but a seatbelt to absorb the jarring impact waiting for him below. So he drives full speed off the roof, crashes into two parked cars below, and just gets up and walks away without a scratch on him. This kind of impossibility I can accept but in the A-Team movie, there are so many impossible things happening that I can't help but think that this whole movie takes place in some alternate universe where everyone is EXTREME all the time and doing impossible things like what is found here on a daily basis. It's crazy. (Flying a tank???!?) But having to make this impossibility real is what CGI is all about. It's to make these scenarios as real looking as possible. Sadly, this is my second observation on the negative side of this film. The CGI found here is very obvious and fake-looking. The third point against this movie is that the plot can sometimes get a little confusing. I'm referring to the plates here. They change hands so many times that you'll have to make a checklist of people who possess the case with the plates inside.

Overall, I actually found this movie to be quite enjoyable. It's not as good as the show, but it does come close to recreating its spirit. The acting is actually quite good especially from the A-Team guys themselves. Rampage Jackson managed to pull off his own take on B.A. Even though the plot is paper-thin and the CGI is not that spectacular, the characters are engaging enough that it feels like your 2 hours did not go to waste.

I give The A-Team a 7/10

(On a sidenote: There is an obvious production goof in the movie that my cousin and I spotted right away. Pay attention to the scene between Pike and B.A. in the bank parking garage and you'll see it right after that scene ends in a shot that follows Pike as he blasts his way through the bank's ground floor.)

Christopher Nolan is starting to become one of my favorite directors. He made a totally surreal ingenious film in Memento, rebuilt a beloved media franchise from a punchline to a tour de force with Batman Begins, and gave us one of the most well-told, visually epic films of the last decade with The Dark Knight. Now comes his latest effort Inception. Is it better than The Dark Knight? Can it raise the bar that film set so high regarding filmmaking? Not really. It's not as excellent as The Dark Knight was but it was still an amazing experience. Trying to describe this film would be impossible because Nolan has crafted a wonderfully intellengent story that really requires you to think and, most of all, pay attention. Yeah, you gotta pay attention to what's going on in this movie becuase if you don't you will be lost and confused for the rest of the movie.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays a guy named Dom Cobb. Cobb is an "extractor." He can go into people's dreams and steal secrets from them. He and his crew attempt to steal some information from a powerful businessman named Saito but they end up failing. Saito soon reveals that that was just a test to see if he can use them for a job he is planning. We find out that Cobb is a fugitive who cannot get back to his kids in the States because he has been charged with murdering his wife. Saito tells him that he can get those charges dropped if he does this job. The job is to perform an "inception." (Go into a person's mind through his or her dreams and plant an idea there.) The target is the son of a rival businessman who is played by Cillian Murphy. This makes the film seem like a simple heist film with a sci-fi twist but it's not just a heist film, it's a film that has many layers to it just like how, in order to complete this job, Cobb and his crew have to enter multiple "dream layers" just to plant this idea in Murphy's head.

The film has much more depth and explination to it like the concept of creating the dream worlds, the role of the subconscious within a dream, and how time is affected while in a dream. There is a huge subplot involving Cobb and his wife and how he can't bring himself to let her go. Leo is sorta channeling his Shutter Island character a bit except for the fact that in this movie, **SPOLER WARNING TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN SHUTTER ISLAND YET* he knows he is sane while in Shutter Island we find out he's one of the insane people. **END SPOILERS* Another concept that plays a big part in this film is what the characters call a totem. It's basically an object that lets the people know whether the world they are in is a dream world or the real world. Cobb's totem plays a big role here as we find out something surprising about it that will probably have you questioning whether we are awake in the real world or in a dream world. There is no one way to interpret this film because Nolan deliberatly made this to be open to interpretation. This is mainly due to the nature of the ending of the film. (which I will not reveal here.)

Inception will probably be hailed by some to be a visionary work of art that defies the boundaries of filmmaking just like The Matrix did 11 years ago. While I feel like it is a work of art, I don't find it to be all that visionary. It felt smaller in scope compared to The Dark Knight. But this film is an experience that everyone should feel. The story has probably one of the best original concepts since The Matrix, the acting is pitch-perfect, the effects are astounding, and the score is probably one of the best I have heard since The Dark Knight. Inception is no popcorn flick. It requires you to turn your brain on, think about what is happening on screen, and pay attention. This film is a gem amidst the summer movie market that will be plauged by "dumb" films like Salt, Scott Pilgrim, (actually, this one looks kinda good) and The Expendables. (That's not to say theser films will be dumb, I'mn sure they will be great films. But I mean that these films will probably require little to no thinking involved and will be pure escapism.) Inception is a smart, engaging, and thoughtful film that people need to see to believe.

I give Inception a 9/10.

(I should have had this up a week ago but I was caught up in school work and other things. But here it is finally.)

Well, it's summer movie season yet again and what better way to kick things off then with the sequel to a critically-acclaimed superhero movie. But does it suffer from the dreaded sequel-ites? Well, yes and no. I found it not to be as good as the first one but that was only by a very slim margin. Iron Man 2 picks up 6 months after Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) announces that he is Iron Man. In that time we discover that he has developed a drinking problem due to the element used in his mini arc reactor. The irony here is that the element that is keeping Tony alive is slowly killing him. So Tony has become this party-hard playboy who doesn't want to tell anyone that he is dying and just makes himself look like a drunk idiot to the mass media. The rest of Tony's story is that he wants to create a new better element that will keep him alive and to deal with his drinking problem. The villain story is that the US military wants the Iron Man suit to be weaponized but Tony refuses to give it to them. They turn to Tony's business rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) to weaponize the suit should they acquire it. Meanwhile, a Russian named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) has spent the 6 month time frame developing his own Iron Man type suit to take revenge on Tony for something Tony's father did to his father. He ends up teaming with Hammer just to get a shot at totally annihilating Tony's legacy.

If you are someone who just likes straight action with little story sprinkled throughout (much like the first movie,) you will not enjoy this movie. It takes the opposite approach in giving us a well crafted story with a few action scenes that end up being really well deserved. I personally would take an action movie that has a great story over one that has just straight action anyday. (The Bourne Ultimatum managed to combine straight action with a good story. It's one of my favorite action movies.) Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony better in this film. He's more sarcastic and emotional in this one. Sam Jackson also appears again as Nick Fury, with more screen time, and he does a great job in the role. The whole cast was great in this movie. Visually, I think it's on par with the first movie. Nothing really new. I also like how they managed to set up the upcoming Captain America and Thor movies by having their signature weapons present. (Yes, there is a post credits scene.)

Overall, this movie only suffers a light case of sequel-ites. The story is good, the action is well choreographed and shot, the jokes are funnier, (the screenplay was written by the guy who wrote the Tropic Thunder screenplay,) and Robert Downey Jr. does a better job of playing Tony Stark this time around. If you go to this movie expecting 2 hours of punching, kicking, and stuff blowing up, you are going to be dissappointed.

I give Iron Man 2 a 9/10.

I had no clue that this comic had even existed. Apparently the cast also had no clue as well. But now that I have seen the movie adaption I think I might check it out. The Losers is about a US Special Forces team that gets betrayed by the guy they are doing a job for. Becoming fugitives they vow to take revenge and kill the guy who framed them.

There is a really good cast in this movie and they all do a very good job in acting out a standard revenge laced action film story. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian from Watchmen) leads the group whose members include future Captain America Chris Evans, Idris Elba, and a not-CGI'd Zoe Saldana. The guy who plays the villian Max does a great job in portraying a self-confident smug baddy who seemed to me to act kind of like Michael Scott. (Spouting off random jokes and impressions.) The whole film just feels absurd and I think what makes it so good is that the crew was aware of its absurdity and exploited it to the fullest degree. Near the end of the movie there's one scene where I was humming the "Cool Guys Don't Look At Explosions" song purely because the explosion was so generic of the action genre.

Overall, it's a basic action film with a basic revenge plot but it turns out to be a fun ride full of over the top action sequences and funny moments and lines. And the character of Max is hystarical at times. My only complaint is that they could have made the film a little longer. (It's around 90 minutes long. It could at least have been 15 or 20 minutes longer.)

I give The Losers a 9/10.

Mr. Avatar man Sam Worthington stars as Perseus in this remake of the 1981 film of the same title. In both versions it tells part of the Greek myth of Perseus. (The part where he has to face the Kraken.) I would say stick with the 1981 film. This doesn't mean that this version is bad, it does have it's moments. I quite enjoyed the fight scenes here and the visual effects are quite well done.

On to gripes I had while watching this movie. This is not an accurate telling of the Perseus myth and after I watched this film I went on Wikipedia and found just how amny things were either missing or just changed around to fit Hollywood's needs. I can give the writers a bit of slack for making the main action take place over the course of a few weeks and not years in the actual myth. But I can't believe they put Perseus and Io together at the end. (Instead of Perseus and Andromeda in the real myth) It just doesn't feel right. Another problem I had with the film is the fact that I watched this in 3-D. Hastily converted 3-D. It didn't look great at all. If you absolutly must see this film, save some money and watch it in regular 2-D.

Overall, The actors were great, the visual effects were well done, the story was hit-and-miss, the writers Hollywood-ized the Perseus myth, and the hastily converted 3-D is terrible.

I give Clash of the Titans a 6/10.

TRANSFORMERS 2

What a way to kick this blog off. I went and saw the new Transformers movie over the weekend and here are some of my thoughts on it.

First off, when the movie first started I thought that I had walked into the unheard of 10,000 B.C. sequal but when the Transfomers appeared I knew that I had walked into the right movie. (That and the fact that the theatre was at almost full capacity.) Second, the story is mostly confusing but it is an improvement over the first movie. While the first Transformers movie was just about the Autobots and the Decepticons beating the living crap out of each other just so that they can gain possession of a Cybertronian cube, this movie involves ancient Transformers, a very important key and a machine that would basically destroy the world. But the highlight for me, as was with the first movie, is CG Transformers beating the living **** out of each other. The Autobots and Decepticons are easier to identify and the way that director Michael Bay shot the action sequences for this movie is easier to follow.

There is one part of the movie where the main group has to go to Petra in order to find a key. Once they stumbled upon Petra I was amazed that it looked like it did in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I turned to my buddy and started humming the Indiana Jones theme. He told me to shut up.

Overall, it's a good movie. The action sequences are as great as they were in the first movie and the stupid humor is still present. It's CG porn at it's finest. Go see it. If you miss it in the theatres then get it on DVD or Blu-Ray whenever it comes out. (Or illegally download it off the Internet if you are really, really desperate to save money.)

I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen an 8/10

TERMINATOR SALVATION AND PUBLIC ENEMIES

Or as I like to call this post, The Christian Bale Edition.

First up, Terminator. I thought that overall the film was good. It's not the best of the series but it's a good addition to it. I really liked the visual ****of the film. It really made me feel like I was in some sort of post apocalyptic future. Most of the film is shot in outdoor locations that are designed to be as dreary and dull as possible. Lots of dull browns and greys. Christian Bale did a good job playing John Conner but i really hated the fact that he had to use his Batman accent throughout the entire film. I really didn't see the point in having to put the character of Kate in this film. She barely does anything. I sure hope they develop that character more in the next film. The most interesting character in the film is this guy named Marcus Wright, a death row inmate who agrees to donate his body to Cyberdyne's research after he dies. He then wakes up in 2018 and then spends the rest of the film trying to find out what happened and later on, what Cyberdyne did to him. A young Kyle Reese also appears in this film. He got some cool moments but generally was kind of under used. The Visual effects are spectacular. There are ****c Terminators, big freakin' huge Terminators, Terminators that are smart, Terminators that are dumb, just about every single Terminator you can think of. (With the exception of the T-1000 but I hear that in the next film they might delve into the circumstances that led to it's creation.)

Overall, a really good action film though not the best in the series.

I give Terminator: Salvation an 8/10

Next up, Public Enemies. This film is based on the true story of a guy named John Dillinger who, in 1933, robbed banks and was untouchable by the F.B.I. for 18 months. Of course, as with any good historical piece there are lots of inaccuracies regarding the actual events portrayed in the film counterparts, but I'm not going to list them. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. Johnny Depp had the standout performance as Dillinger himself. Christian Bale also performed his role as the F.B.I. agent assigned to get Dillinger well but I didn't like his almost Southern Texas accent. Michael Mann sure knows how to shoot a film. All of the scenes were shot really well. One scene I really liked was when Dillinger walks right into the Chicago PD building and goes up to the room where the investigation into him was taking place. Dillinger actually walks right into the room and starts looking around at all of the evidence that they could find on him, and the guys in the room have no idea who he is. It's like Mann was inspired by the "Superman-puts-on-glasses-and-everyone-is-oblivious" effect but it paid off well. The production design is also really well done. They managed to replicate the 1930's exactly.

Overall, it's an ejoyable film that should be up for some Academy Awards.

I give Public Enemies a 9/10

Just as a sidenote: Terminator Salvation is billed as both a prequel and a sequel probably due to the Kyle Reese character. I like to think of this film as a sequel due to the fact that it's set in the year 2018. 15 years after Terminator 3. And Arnold himself has a cameo in this film and it's kick-ass.

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE AND ICE AGE 3

Another double movie review from me so i'll save the better for last and talk about Ice Age 3 first.

I'm surprised that 20th Century Fox is still churning out films for this series even after the title of the last one was The Meltdown. But hey, it's for kids and kids don't care about any sort of plotline and contiunity whatsoever. All they want to see is Sid being his usual idiotic, annoying self and Scrat. Not surprisingly, I thought that the movie was O.K. The animation is great and everyone voices their respective characters well. The only stupid characters that we could have done without are these two possums or something resembling a possum. (I really paid no attention to them) Geez, the Twins from Transformers 2 were funnier than these guys. Best character in the film was Scrat hands down. Him and his seemingly neverending quest to bury his beloved nut are the best and funniest sequences in the film. Even introducing a Scrat-alina ( a female Scrat) into the mix was a great touch. I found the story to be lackluster. It's all stuff you have seen before but done better. Most of the humor is unfunny (the kids will laugh till they cry) but I was surprised that they included some adult humor that was actually quite funny.

Overall, leave this film to the kiddies.

I give Ice Age 3 a 5/10. (Just because Scrat kicks ass.)

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

I love the Harry Potter series. I enjoyed every book and have enjoyed every film based on those books. But I am not a HP fanatic. I simply appreciate this series for what it is. Anyway, after waiting an additional 8 months (this film was originally supposed to come out in November 200 it's finally here. The film version based on the penultimate book in the Harry Potter series. Simply put, it's awesome. It's an improvement over the last film for sure. It deals with more mature and darker themes but so have all the Potter's that have come before it. Everyone returns to reprise their roles and they really performed them well. The standouts from this film for me were Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon and Tom Felton. Newcomer Jim Broadbent as Slughorn really brings the character to life. As with the other Potter films, this adaption is really faithful to it's source material. All of the important events in the book are represented almost word for word in the film. This film is not big on special effects but relies heavily on character development and story. This film is a great addition to the series and is a worthy setup for what is sure to be the epic two part conclusion.

Overall, a film that sets up the finale in a really good way.

I give Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince a 9/10.

THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS

At first I thought that this film was going to be about what the title said, men who stare at goats. After watching a trailer I saw that that was only a part of the zaniness that would ensue.

The film follows the story of a reporter played by Ewan McGregor (sporting a decent American accent) who wants to prove to his soon-to-be ex-wife that he can be a man of adventure. He sets off to Iraq to follow a story developing there and runs into Lynn Cassidy (played by George Clooney) who does some really weird things. Through flashbacks we learn that Lynn was recruited into a special branch of the US Army called the New Earth Army. The soldiers put there were trained to fight using only their minds. McGregor follows Lynn out into the Iraqi desert because Lynn claims that he is on a "mission" given to him through a vision of his former New Earth Army commander. (Played by Jeff Bridges.) While on this mission Lynn and the reporter get into one precarious situation after another.

Despite what most critics are saying about this film, I enjoyed it. I enjoyed all the comedic moments and the dramatic moments. I think that the casting for this film is perfect. George Clooney shines as Lynn Cassidy and Ewan McGregor isn't half bad. Jeff Bridges does a stellar job as the founder of the New Earth Army and Kevin Spacey is deliciously evil as the guy who ends up breaking the New Earth Army apart.

Overall, I would say that this is one of the best movies that I have seen all year. While not being perfect I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to watch something different while still being grounded in reality.

I give The Men Who Stare At Goats a 9/10.

SHERLOCK HOLMES

Robert Downey Jr. is the man. This guy can turn any role into sheer genius. And this film is no exception.

I assume everyone knows who Sherlock Holmes and Watson are already so I'm going to go straight to the goods. Their latest mystery involves a plot to take over the world. It's not a very original premise but it redeems itself through how this plot is slowly taking form and being executed. Of course Holmes and Watson must save not only London, but the world.

I found this to be a good movie. Of course I was originally going to see Avatar but it was sold out for the entire rest of the day. This was a great alternative choice. I quite enjoyed how they made Holmes and Watson completely different for this film and gave them some fighting moves that would make you not want to mess with them if you saw them in a dark alley. I think this incarnation of Holmes is the one that comes close to what Arthur Conan Doyle's vision for the character was. Jude Law made a great Watson and Rachael McAdams is great as Holmes' love intrest/master criminal Irene Adler. The villian, Lord Blackwood, is great and leaves a very big presence behind even after he has exited a scene. Downey Jr. is brilliant as Holmes, who he portrays as the ****c inquisitive dectective we all know and love as well as his weird side. (such as experimenting formulas on Watson's dog, playing a violin to a bunch of moths, and hanging himself. Don't ask why just watch the movie.)

Overall, Sherlock Holmes is a great reboot to a franchise that has not really been in the spotlight for some time and I can forsee this being the next big franchise for Robert Downey Jr. The overall story is great and the ending leaves things open ended and makes you crave for a sequel (which I think is going to come out sometime in 2011.) The acting is brilliant and the overall atmosphere is very eerie.

I give Sherlock Holmes a 9/10

AVATAR

This is probably the first film I have seen that has left me absolutley speechless so this is going to be one short review.

Basically if you have not seen this movie, I say do anything you can to see it before it leaves the theatres. The visuals are jaw-dropping and make up for the sub-par story. This film is best experienced in 3-D.

Overall, a spetacular achievement in visual filmmaking. The visuals in 3-D are the reason that this film has made over $1.5 billion worldwide. (EDIT: NOW OVER $2 BILLION.)

I give Avatar a frickin' 10/10.

I have not been able to log on for the past year and a half and just now I relized that I messed up my e-mail adress as I was signing in. I guess I failed there.

And also check out my other profile under the username meaninoflife42. (I set it up because I thought Gamespot was being gay in not letting me log in but that was clearly not the case.) I have my reviews and thoughts of films I have seen in my "absence."