Limitless (2011)

From a very long time before its release, I knew that I would like Limitless. It stars Bradley Cooper, who I do like very much (despite the fact that I hated his character in Yes Man, but that wasn’t his fault), Abby Cornish (who I have never seen before, but I have heard good things), and Robert DeNiro (he is Robert DeNiro). The plot is very interesting and new, which involves Bradley Cooper playing a failed writer who is about to completely lose everything when his ex-brother-in-law comes and hands him a drug that lets him use 100% of his brain (because apparently we only use 10% but…that’s a complete myth. The entire plot is based around a myth, but I don’t care), and then his character, Eddie Morra, becomes a genius, a financial king, and he finished his book in four days. From one word to a full book in four days. All from one pill. Then Eddie runs into some problems, steaming from the fact that the pill constantly needs to be taken, and if not, the taker (Eddie) would have blackouts, sickness, and possibly die. Also, the pill is on a very limited supply, and other people want it, and WILL kill to get it. Eddie’s also got one more problem. That involves Robert DeNiro’s character, a stock market giant, who starts out helping Eddie and ends up becoming an adversary who basically owns Eddie. And this is all happening while Eddie’s dealing with the pill. Abby Cornish’s character doesn’t really integrate as much into the basic core plot as I would have liked, but she is a good part of the film, playing the girl who dumped Eddie when he looked like he just got resurrected from the dead, and then joining back with him when he looks…functional, to say the least. All of the actors do very good in their respective parts, especially Bradley Cooper. I never thought in a million years that Bradley Cooper would do a better job in a movie than Robert DeNiro (everything great I say about DeNiro is excluding Little Fockers), but he did. The film is scripted very well, and despite the holes and scientific inaccuracies, I thought it was very brilliantly scripted. It is also brilliantly directed, both with the characters and the visual shots that really make your head hurt, from the curved lenses, and the going straight through the city in one shot. It hurts your head. But in all honesty, I’m okay with that. In a movie this good, I’ll take one for the team. So it’ll mess your head up a bit, but it is a really good movie. Go see Limitless.
9/10

Thor (2011)

Let me start my review off by saying that I have never read a Thor comic book. I have read a few small crossovers, but never a comic solely dedicated to the Marvel version of the Norse god. And after seeing this movie, I would want to read some of the comics. Simultaneously because I enjoyed the movie, and also because I want to see a better version of the story. The story of the film is that Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth; based off of the Norse god of thunder) did something wrong (I won’t say what because it is pretty awesome) and he got banished to Earth. He had lost all of his powers, including a hammer that is pretty awesome. And while he searches to find his hammer and his powers, he keeps running into (or better said, having their car run into him…like three times) three scientists, played by Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings, and Stellan Skarsgård. The latter is very skeptic, the former is forgetting every law of science she has EVER learned, and the middle one is a comic relief that really didn’t belong. Also, Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston; also based on Norse mythology) is trying to take over Asgard. The film takes these two storylines (Asgard and scientists) and alternates them constantly. It alternated them so much that is becomes insanely confusing, as the two storylines have insanely different tones. Asgard is a guys’ movie, with special effects and action and fun. The scientists present the girls’ movie. It is a romantic comedy, with some jokes that are funnier than in some of the lesser romantic comedies I have seen. But it is still a romantic comedy that is placed in a superhero movie. And that was never meant to happen. And there is a reason. And not that it is a bad romantic comedy, it’s just that it’s a superhero film, and it is supposed to stay a superhero film. It really irritates me. I am perfectly fine with a romantic subplot, but the two plots co-exist to a point that the romance seems to trump Asgard at times. And now to talk about Asgard. The Asgard plot is very well done, and has a lot of fun action scenes. It is interesting, and a blast. As said before, the movie’s main problem is that the script doesn’t know where it wants to go with the material. The film has as much trouble finding itself as its main character does, which is a lot. But, despite the script having some major flaws, the acting, especially Chris Hemsworth as Thor, is very good. Hemsworth knows the material and delivers it greatly. Portman, Dennings, Skarsgård, Hiddleston Idris Elba as the gatekeeper for an inter-dimensional (?) portal, and even Anthony Hopkins in a smaller role as Thor and Loki’s father Odin, do really good jobs in their respective parts. The direction is also very good. Thor is directed by Kenneth Branagh, who has directed many film adaptations of the plays of William Shakespeare, and he does very good. He brings his expertise into this very Shekespearian world, and it fits. But still, the plot jumps are inexcusable. Thor doesn’t really seem like a film, it seems more like a season of a TV show crumpled together. But still, I’d be a TV show I’d watch.
8/10

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

In my opinion, the Beatles are one of the greatest bands to ever write a song, if not the greatest. And in this film, they show their true colors. Watching it over forty years after its release, A Hard Day’s Night seems to have made its impression on cinema and television. The film is filmed in the exact same style as my favorite television series Arrested Development, and I know that the creators used this film as inspiration. And while Arrested Development is hilarious and funny, this film is too. It incorporates everything the Beatles are for-music, having fun, and just pure awesomeness. In short, the film is a great time, even greater than great. The plot concerns Ringo Starr getting an idea from Paul’s Grandfather that he should see the world, so he does. And he decides to see the world two hours before a show. Hilarity ensues. The sight gags are spectacular, and I just loved this film. The soundtrack for the film is also great, one of my personal favorites of The Beatles’ albums. It was rated 388 on Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. So that should tell you something. But for the film, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Roger Ebert gave the film a four stars (out of four) rating, and he is nothing but right. It will captivate Beatles’ fans and those who are not. The 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes should prove that. Either way, as a Beatles fan or not, see this movie. You will love it.
9.5/10

Weird Science (1985)

After tackling the teen romantic comedy, and laying out the guidelines for teen dramas everywhere, John Hughes decided to tackle the sci-fi comedy. Yes, after Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club, and before Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, John Hughes (one of my favorite directors) created Weird Science, a movie about nerds who create a girl. This twisted Frankenstein must have seemed like a great idea on paper, and if anybody could have pulled it off, it would be Hughes. Out of his main five directed film, Weird Science is the least critically loved. That’s because it’s not for a lot of people. The Breakfast Club is for teenagers. Ferris Bueller is for people who want to live life to the fullest. And Weird Science? Well, it’s for dorks. And being one of them, I did enjoy this film. It has some very funny moments, and slaps a smile on your face. Weird Science is a very good film. I liked it a lot. But it’s more popcorn than perfect.
7.5/10

Wayne's World (1992)

Let me start my review off by saying that I have only seen one of the Wayne’s World sketches from Saturday Night Live, so I cannot speak of this film as a fan of the sketches. Multiple friends recommended it to me, so I decided to watch it. And let me say that I was very surprised by the results. After seeing the film, I could have sworn that it was a 80s film, as it has that screwball charm that I love. And if it was an 80s film, I could have added it to the list of why the 80s are great (best decade I never lived in). In the film, Mike Myers and Dana Carvey play tag-team Wayne and Garth, who hold a weekly cable access show. It is possibly the worst TV show I have ever seen, and this intentional failure is hilarious. The entire movie is hilarious, and while there are no moments in the film where I actually laughed, I was smiling the entire time. As I said before, the film has a sense of screwball charm that was so brilliant. It was very reminiscent of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, a 80s movie which I loved very much. Wayne and Garth are losers. Wayne and Garth are strange. Wayne and Garth are heroes and visionaries…and very fun.
8.5/10

Minority Report (2002)

“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” –creepy drug dealer. That line, in a whole, describes Minority Report. Well, that and “RUN!”, said by a different character. Minority Report is one of the most unique films I have ever seen. With a plot based around a system that can see murders before they happen, the only word that can be used to describe it is unique. The visual style is insane and intense. I legitimately believe that this film should have at least been nominated for the Academy Award for Art Direction, as it is unlike anything I have ever seen before. As with most films directed by the great Steven Spielberg, Minority Report is a very wholesome film. Not that it is good for the whole family, anyone under ten will not have any idea what is going on. It is wholesome in the sense that it has great action sequences, great characters, great writing and great directing. The writing and plot of this film is its strongest and most valuable element, as with a good percentage of movies. The writing is done beautifully, and takes a story (which I have never read) and transforms and expands it into something beautiful. The directing is done by the great Steven Spielberg, who is amazing as always. A director doesn’t get named Best Director Of All Time by Empire Magazine for nothing. Also, completing the puzzle is Tom Cruise and Collin Farrel, among others, who pull of magnificent performances in their roles. If the movie was just five minutes shorter, it would have been perfect. Despite the fact that it is over two hours long, the film never gets stale, and never gets boring. But those last five minutes are just terrible. Not that any singular aspect of it is terrible, not that it’s a terrible ending in general, just that it’s a terrible ending for this movie. The film is dark, demented, and controlled. The ending completely throws all of that away for this cheap happy ending. If Spielberg ever had one flaw, it would be that he believes that everyone should get a happy ending. And this may sound pessimistic, but not everyone does.
9/10

School of Rock (2003)

Remember way back when, where Jack Black was a respectable actor? This was then. School of Rock, which is arguably his most popular starring vehicke, is a very fun movie. Is it a very funny movie? No, not necessarily. It was a lot of fun to watch. Jack Black has the performance of his career, before everything came down on him and he was thrown off the map (Year One). The plot of School of Rock concerned Dewey Finn (Jack Black), who was just kicked out of his band and needs to pay his rent, or else his roommate Ned (Mike White) will kick him out. Ned is a substitute teacher, and one day, when he is out and Dewey is in, a call comes in for Ned, as a job comes in for him at a prestigious prep school in need of a substitute immediately. So, doing the good, responsible thing, Dewey pretends to be Ned so he can get some money. Then, he decided to take the children he is working with and form a band in order to win the Battle of the Bands and the $50,000 prize. This ‘foolproof’ plan is in danger thanks to the principal of the school who is as uptight as the school she runs, Roz, played by Joan Cusack. Cusack plays the role very well, a perfect contrast to Jack Black’s slacker personality. The kids Dewey teaches are also a large part of the film, and they give off some great performances, especially Miranda Cosgrove pre-iCarly. All in all, the film comes together and works as a very enjoyable film for the family (NOTE: the rating of the film is PG-13, but it is very unnecessary. The film should have been rated PG. There are a few minor references and some bad words, but nothing too major, and nothing any child around nine probably hasn’t already heard at school or from the TV). Is School of Rock perfect? No. Does it deserve all of the praise it has been given? No. (what world do we live in where School of Rock is higher rated than Anchorman?) But is it fun? Yeah. It is.
7.5/10

Scary Movie 3 (2003)

I do like parody movies, and especially when they spoof something I care about. I am a big fan of horror films, so I was running in head-first to Scary Movie 3. I have seen the latter installment to the franchise, Scary Movie 4(real original titles, guys) a long time ago, and while I do think that Scary Movie 4 is superior to Scary Movie 3, Scary Movie 3 still has a lot to offer. If nothing else, the film is admirable. The attention to detail from the original films is insane. The main plot of the film parodies The Ring, Signs, and 8 Mile. The film takes those plots and somehow makes them all into one coherent plot. I couldn’t have done it. Now, I haven’t seen Signs (on my to-do list) or 8 Mile (not a huge fan of Eminem), but I have seen The Ring, and Scary Movie 3 parodies it perfectly. Every aspect of The Ring is perfectly lampooned. Seeing Samara get knocked into a well due to Leslie Neilsen opening a door that hit her just made me laugh. (I did have a spoiler, but I know you wouldn’t watch this for the plot) The film stars Anna Farris (as well as the other films) as Cindy Campell, a normal girl. Also there is Leslie Neilsen as the president of the United States (R.I.P.) in a small role and a cameo by Simon Cowell where he gets shot by a bunch of gangsters when he bags on them. Well, if I don’t have you already getting ready to rent this film, you’re not going to get anything out of seeing this film. It is a mindless parody, and has a lot of dumb jokes, but just because they’re dumb, doesn’t mean they’re not funny. But the film is much better watched with friends. Because when they laugh, you’ll laugh. The film is no Airplane, but it is quite funny.
7.5/10

The Incredibles (2004)

While this definitely isn’t the best film PIXAR ever made (Wall-E, Up, or a Toy Story movie), this is one of my favorites. This film is one of the most fun PIXAR films, and it is a blast all-around to watch. It’s just one of those films that make you smile when you see it. The story is that there is a family of superheroes that have to be in hiding, but then they come out to defeat the kid who Mr. Incredible wronged so many years ago. And this moral story is one that I didn’t mind, as it is more of a moral covered in action and comedy, rather than having morals in film crammed down my throat (Rango). And I am more than okay with that. The animation, even though it was done in 2004, is still pretty good, and the voice work is phenomenal. The story and writing is spot-on, and seeing this film a few years after its release, when I have become a film critic, I realize that this is one of those films that perfectly pulls off fun for anyone ages 6-106. In the end, it is a film for kids, for young adults, and for adults alike. The first PIXAR film that actually appeals to every age demographic. I’m not saying that it’s the best, it is not. But is it fun? One of the funnest.
9.5/10

Red Eye (2005)

I loved this film. I really did. I loved a lot of things about this film. And while this sounds like I am going to follow up with my complaints about the film, I’m not going to. I love this film, I love Wes Craven, and I love the cast in this film. Rachel McAdams pulls off a great performance in this film as the scared heroin, unwillingly thrust into this position of having to work with a terrorist (Cillian Murphy) to murder a very powerful business person (whatever he does, I missed and didn’t bother to look it up on the internet). The result of this is insanely fast-paced, dashed with some very sick humor here and there (the best kind), and a huge amount of fun. Murphy plays the role so well, I believed that he really was a murderous freak. And if I ever go to Hollywood, I really hope that he’s just an amazing actor. Rachel McAdams also gives off an astounding performance that looks like she has a gun to her head right behind the camera, unknown to us viewers. Didn’t they do that for Poltergeist? Anyway, whether or not Wes Craven had a gun, he did an amazing job directing these amazing actors for this amazing film. Everything falls into place! And I had a heck of a time watching it.
9/10

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) isn’t ready to die. Harold Crick is the main character of a book. The book is written by an author (Emma Thompson) who always kills her main characters. And Harold is the main character of that book. So, Harold is going to die. He finds this out by a voice in his head (the author) who says so. So Harold is scared, because Harold is a real person. He is very by the book, and relies on his wristwatch to help him through the day. Harold is an IRS agent who just fell in love with a girl (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and now really doesn’t want to die. So he tries to stop it. This premise is a very good one, and is remarkable at the very least. And this premise could have been thrown away into a pile of trash if it wasn’t handled right, but director Marc Foster brings a sense of energy to the film, and makes it a very enjoyable experience to watch. It clearly shows that he loves this film. However, I sadly can’t say the same thing for the screenwriter, Zach Helm, who I felt only wrote it for his paycheck. If this is true, I wouldn’t be totally surprised, as the characters feel cardboard more than once, and the jokes fall flat more often than hit the mark. That being said, this is more than a standard Ferrell comedy, this is a comedy-drama that has Will Ferrell in his role that we all will remember, a lot like Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Will Ferrell lands this role perfectly, and I believe he should have been nominated for an Oscar for his outstanding performance. However, on the other end of the spectrum, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ferrell’s counterpart, gives a performance even more cardboard than the character written out for her. I did not like her at all in this film. But in the end, it all evens out, into an enjoyable experience that is fun, if far from perfect.
8.5/10

Juno (2007)

Now, it’s been a while since I saw Jason Reitman’s Best Picture nominee Juno, so this review will probably be very brief and hazy. The film, written by Diablo Cody (winning her the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay) and directed by Thank You For Smoking’s Jason Reitman (which earned him an Oscar nod for Best Director) and starring Ellen Page (Best Actress nominee for her performance as Juno MacGuff) and Michael Cera (sorry, Mickey) as two best friends who get bored one day and…yada yada yada, Juno’s knocked up. Whereas the other film in 2007 with this premise, Knocked Up is a comedy, Juno is just barely a comedy, and so much more a drama film. And that being said, it is one of the best films I have ever seen in my entire life. Michael Cera is playing the exact same role that he always plays (and I’m happy with it. He’s good!), and does a great job as that, but as long as he sticks to this dork-innocent-lovable-hero type, he’s not going to win any Oscars. On the contrary, Ellen Page plays what to date is her best role yet, and probably for a very long time, if not ever. Page takes the film to great heights, and probably deserved that Oscar. No. Not probably. She deserved that Oscar. The supporting cast is great too, ranging from Jason Bateman to Jennifer Garner to J.K. Simmons, and they’re all great. Currently, this is my favorite film of 2007. And I’ll let you know when that changes (it won’t!).
9.5/10

Knowing (2009)

The only thing I needed to be knowing was how great the first 1.5 hours were and how bad the last 30 minutes were. So then I could turn it off. And I probably would have turned it off, had I not had to write a review of this film. Let me be more specific. You can’t turn it off, because the awful ending is weaved into the good parts of this film. And don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good moments in this film. The plot of the film is that after 50 years, Nicolas Cage finds a piece of paper that has the dates of every major disaster in the world (granted, he figured this out while he was drinking), and then he loses his mind. He goes crazy trying to stop all of these disasters, supposedly ending in the apocalypse within a month (convenient, ain’t it?). Then he meets other people, and there’s his son, but they’re just plot devices. I like Nicolas Cage. I know he is a great actor. But he is more serious than anyone I’ve ever seen. If he treated it like a B-thriller, it would have been so much better. Alex Proyas (Dark City and I, Robot) directs this film with a sense of seriousness that-dare I say it-rivals Cage’s. The film feels over-the-top gritty, to the point that it becomes annoying. But dang, he knows how to pull off a great action sequence! The best moment in the film is the 2-to-5-minute-long shot of a plane crash and Nicolas Cage trying to help the survivors. This shot is continuous, and it shows that Proyas knows exactly what he’s doing. The shot is one of the best I’ve seen in a very long time, and it makes me sad that it would be wasted on this movie. Also, the train crash is nothing short of spectacular. Now for the ending. I hated the ending of Minority Report because it threw away the tone of the film. The ending of Knowing doesn’t throw away the tone, it just throws away the previous hour and a half. I’m personally not one for religious films (I am a Christian, but I do believe that everything has its place and should stick to it), but if anything is done well, I’ll buy. And this wasn’t. It was sloppy, and made me really ticked off. I hated this movie more than Little Fockers. And while I’ll give this a more positive review, it’s because I knew Little Fockers didn’t have potential. And the sad thing is, this movie had so much potential and threw it into the wind. Personally, I don’t believe that there are just disasters by God in this movie. I think that the piece of paper Nicolas Cage found was saying when someone was about to watch the ending of the film on a plane, or train, or something like that. The man in charge felt very bad for that person, so they decided to crash it. It is what I would have done.
5/10

The Invention of Lying (2009)

“Your baby is so ugly, it looks like a little rat.” Now is that the kind of thing we’d hear in our world? I think not. After seeing Ghost Town, which also featured Gervais, which I did enjoy, I was excited to see this. And while I didn’t like this as much as I did Ghost Town, I laughed out loud quite a few times, where as I never did in Ghost Town. That might be because where Ghost Town is a comedy-drama, The Invention of Lying is a comedy. It is commonly labeled as a romantic comedy, but I never saw it as that. This movie didn’t place the emphasis on the romantic subplot in the film, but it is there. And thankfully for all of the dudes watching the film, most of the time in the film is dedicated to the jokes, which can fall flat sometimes. The rest of the time is dedicated to some very hilarious jokes, beautifully written by Ricky Gervais. The plot is that Gervais plays a man who can tell a lie, in a world where everyone only tells the truth. The plot is clever, but knowing Gervais, I just thought that he could have come up with something better. I also thought that this could have been done better, with some awful romance elements that I thought wasn’t necessary at all. Also, there were some moments that will spike a lot of controversy, as people usually get to be upset when an atheist makes up a fake ‘Man In The Sky’ and then holds up rules on pizza boxes, in a scene very reminiscent of The Ten Commandments. Yeah. But, it still was fun, and a good daytime film.
7.5/10

Diary of a WImpy Kid (2010)

Being a fan of the books, I actually did have relatively high hopes for this film. And they were met. Some parts were better, some parts were worse. So in the end, it all ended up about even. The bad news for the film is that the screenwriter, while pulling off some very impressive jokes from time to time, has some pretty awful dialogue. This can mainly be seen in the monologue in the film, delivered by the main character (Zachary Gordon, who pulls off a stellar performance) Greg Heffley, who any fans of the book will immediately recognize as unlikable, manipulative, and self-centered. The film pulls this off perfectly. The film has been bashed since its release for having a very unlikable main character, but that is the point of the film! Now, this film, battered down by the bland script and Thor Freudenthal’s bland direction, would have been a complete flop without the cast. As mentioned before, Zachary Gordon does an excellent job as the unlikable jerk at the center of the film. Also, Robert Capron, who plays Greg’s best friend Rowley, also does a very great job. All of the other small roles are filled in perfectly, but I have to say that the best job done in this film is by Chloe Grace Mortez. This being her first kids film, and playing the character that wasn’t even in the books, Mortez pulls it off great. She is coming to be a very prominent child actor, and she always hands in a stellar performance. All of that being said, the film balances out around even. There’s nothing special, but there’s nothing awful. I’d say go see it, but if you’re not a fan of the books, don’t rush.
8/10

Megamind (2010)

Where do I begin with Megamind? Should I speak about the good moments in it, or complain about the many faults of it? I’ll give the good news first. The film tells the story of a supervillian, Megamind (Will Ferrel) who defeats world-renowned superhero Metro Man (Brad Pitt), and he gets very bored, so he created a new opponent, Tighten (Jonah Hill) who becomes a psychopath and terrorizes the city. The film has some very funny moments, most of which involve Megamind’s sidekick Minion (David Cross, Tobias from Arrested Development). The soundtrack is also very good, and I believe that when I say that, it’s not a very good sign. Going to the faults, while there are many funny parts to the film (a couple very funny AD references), there just aren’t enough. The film doesn’t deliver what it should, and being in the shadow of one of the best years in animation (Toy Story 3, How to Train Your Dragon) and their being a better animated supervillian film already out this year (Despicable Me), this film will forever stay in a shadow that is too big to escape from. While the film is freer, and is more of a fun movie than the previous 3 animated films, it isn’t going to be watched happily all the time by families in 10 years, or 2 for that matter.
6/10

127 Hours (2010)

This being my first Danny Boyle film seen, I had high expectations for it. When you hear the name of Danny Boyle, you think of 28 Days Later, Trainspotting, and Slumdog Millionaire, all of which have been critically acclaimed. This film has also been as acclaimed as the rest, being nominated for a lot of Oscars (this review was written before the 83rd Academy Awards) and, while not deserving most of them, is the #2 pick for me. The one award that this film deserves 100 percent is Film Editing, as the editing in this film is most likely the best film editing I’ve seen in a film in the entire world. And I have seen a lot of films, but I still have a lot to go. That opinion might change in the future, but not now. Now, the one thing that this film is resting on is James Franco, who gives the performance of his career. If there was any other person in that role, they wouldn’t be able to do it. Aron Ralston’s sick sense of humor and will to live is captured perfectly in this performance, and is the second best performance of the year in my opinion, just behind Jesse Eisenberg’s Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. With all of these factors combined, I must say that 127 Hours is one of the best films that I have seen in a while, definitely the best film that I’ve seen in November 2010, the month that showcased Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Tangled. So it must be pretty good. And it is.
9.5/10

TRON: Legacy (2010)

In 1982, Disney entered in the world of computer generated imagery with the groundbreaking film TRON. The film, while not being too financially successful, the film gained a great cult following over the years. While the effects are outdated today, the film is an exciting romp that captures half of the generation of the 80s (you can see a poster for the film in NBC’s Chuck). I haven’t seen the film for a while, I tried to find the videotape, but I couldn’t locate it in time for the release of Legacy. The new film is at the top of its game for the generation that it’s in, just as the original film was in the early 80s. The films are almost 30 years apart, and they show it. The effects in Legacy (the best part sadly) are outstanding. The 3-D is good 3-D, something we really haven’t seen in Hollywood this often these days (Alice in Wonderland, anyone?). For the film, Jeff “The Dude” Bridges returns as Kevin Flynn, the guy that’s trapped inside of the computer, and as C.L.U., Flynn’s hacker program turned rouge. Garret Hedlund joins the cast as Kevin’s son Sam, who is sucked into the computer and must help his dad get out. In the end, the film is very effects-heavy. It knows that the plot isn’t too great, and that the acting can sometimes be a little stale. However, the film makes up for itself, pretty much being this year’s Avatar. Yeah. They’re both boasting thin-as-paper plots, mediocre acting, and the best-quality 3-D in the business. So while it’s more of eye candy than brain, for a nice mental escape for two hours, I would recommend TRON: Legacy.
7.5/10

The Green Hornet (2011)

The first big film of the 2011 year (no, Season of the Witch doesn’t count), written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (Superbad) has a lot resting on its shoulders. The story of The Green Hornet began with a radio serial (1938-1952) that aired over three different decades in a Family Guy-ish cancellation schedule. The franchise later became a comic book (1940-present) and then a television series (1966-1977; which gave Bruce Lee his breakout role as Kato) and film serial and has become one of the oldest and most looked-over superheroes in a long time. The Green Hornet (2011 film) stars the creative force behind the film, Seth Rogen as Britt Reid, a slacker who inherits a newspaper company when his dad dies. He then teams up with Kato (Jay Chou, who does an amazing job) to take out bad guys using a very unique approach-pretend to be bad guys, but to actually be good guys. The end result has a lot of violence and fun. The film drew parallels to me with The A-Team, a film that was released in 2010 that was just a lot of pointless explosions and nervous humor. Well, I loved The A-Team, and I loved this film. Now, the 3-D is post-conversion, so I didn’t even bother. So just grab some popcorn, relax, turn your brain off, and enjoy The Green Hornet.
8/10

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (2011)

I enjoyed the first Diary of a Wimpy Kid film. I actually did. I liked this one more. I also liked this one more than the book, which was a bit lackluster in my opinion. This film brings back all of the characters from the first film (minus Chloe Grace Moretz, who in my opinion was the best part of the first film), and including Holly Hills (Peyton List), the object of Greg’s (Zachary Gordon) affection here. In most films, I hate the romantic subplots, but in here, as a 7th grader, I enjoyed it. The main plot of the film is that Greg has to bond with his older brother Rodrick (Devon Bostick), which has its ups and its down, just like any relationship with anyone. The plot is simple, and while it differs a lot more from the novel than the first film did, I think it pulled it off better. Because, in the books, the character of Greg is so unlikable that you want to grind his head into a pulp. And in the books, it worked. But in the film, it did not. So thankfully, they changed that and made Greg a normal human being with feelings. And Zachary Gordon plays this character so much better. The entire cast is better here than they were in the first. The dialogue is funnier, the direction is so much better, this film now being helmed by Astro Boy director David Bowers. The film is just better, all over. It’s funnier, more likable, and better executed. In the end, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules is hilariously funny, admirably charming, and painfully accurate.
8.5/10