A Separation (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            It has been a very long time since a profound foreign-language film has this much recognition and praise. In fact, this movie seems to have gain universal praise, and that's saying something considering that this movie is placed in the Third World cinema category. In the other years, guessing which Foreign film will win is the same as guessing with a blindfold on. This year seemed to have no contest whatsoever. The movie in itself speaks to a universal audience with marital troubles, paternal issues, and even issues involving murder, despite their Islamic culture that the Western culture is not too familiar with.

            The movie starts with a family divorce with the mother wanting to leave the country with her daughter due to the unsuitable living conditions and father wanting to stay in order to help care for his elderly father who suffers from Alzheimer's. The movie then follows up with a pregnant care taker who takes care of the elderly father, only to leave in disaster as we find out that she tied the father to the bed in order for him to not leave the house. There are also allegations of theft and follows a miscarriage.

            The film later focuses on a back and forth argument over whose fault it was for the miscarriage, as well as accusations over the truth. While all of this is happening, we, the audience become witnesses. In order ways, we become the jurors of this movie and simply watch and evaluate the evidence as everyone shouts accusations back and forth. The movie becomes so unbearable that I literally heard people crying in the theater, and yet the movie is about people arguing and holding secrets. There are no obvious clichéd crying moments or moments where we pity the main character.

            I applaud this movie with its bold and daring screenplay that does what screenplay text book states. There is a written principle that's extremely hard to pull off and that is to establish a rising action and make it rise like stair cases. Even though this is what the text book example is and what everyone does, I dare anyone to find a movie this year that follows that logic. To me, this movie starts off with an interesting premise and as the movie goes on, the situation only gets more interesting. So much that a part of me actually wanted to stop watching this movie due to the situation while the other half wanted to see how the movie will end.

            Not every character does the right thing. Not even the children in the movie. Everybody has their flaws that situate itself appropriately in the movie. The father is arrogant and too proud, the mother is persistent with leaving the family, the daughter wants to live and defend her father, despite the danger and threats from the care taker's husband, who really is always in a raging fit. Everybody has their demons swept under the rug and in the end, no one is a bad guy nor are they good guys. They are honest depictions of a situation that makes everyone lose. It is very profound that the film sheds light on these normal people as though they could be applied to any country and the story could still be the same. Maybe instead of swearing on the Qu'ran, the main characters have to swear on the bible, and the end result will still be the same. What I'm saying is that this movie is flexible in its portrayal of people we might consider the new "evil Middle-East" enemy, but deep down, we are also like this family, we share their same ideals, and cultural boundaries have nothing to do with it.

            It was pretty difficult choosing over whether this movie should be the best movie of the year over The Tree of Life but I think this decision is final. I think The Tree of Life would become the new 2001: A Space Odyssey, where it gives a sparse story in order for us to interpret it  on our own. This movie, on the other hand, gives us everything and in the end, we still have to make it up for the disbelief it left us in the end. The Tree of Life was strikingly rich in its visual splendor while A Separation barely had any. In fact, the movie had very little to no music. However, despite not having the up-to-date camera, or the technical splendors that can only come out of the wallet of a major studio, the movie aims at centering the one core goal of any film and striking it perfectly, and that is telling a compelling story. Although it is hands down the best foreign film of this year, I will officially say that this movie is the best movie of the year.

Thoughts about the 2011 Oscar Nominations

            Ever since 2007, I wait for the 5:30 AM announcements for the long awaited list that shows which movies move on to the finals, that is, the Oscar nominations. We get by the Golden Globes, the Critic's Choice Awards, and the BAFTA nominations, which are similar to the Oscar nominations, and finally, I typically ask myself, "why am I wasting my life with the Oscar prediction?" Every year, there is some sort of a surprise with the nominees, and every year, I give a great big shout out moan to the deflation that subjugated my expectations.

            This year is a big year, surprisingly, for the non rated-R movies and surprisingly, the only Best picture nominee that was Rated-R was The Descendants, which really should've been PG-13 for its mild use of language. However, because so, two of the most talked about Rated R movies of this year was snuffed; Drive, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. As of now, there are lynch mob hate replies upon hate over this nomination list, and I am no different for I too am part of this lynch mob over the movie Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. For one, this movie was not praised by the critics, and the box office doesn't show much support. The movie received mixed to negative reviews and has a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 6.2 rating on IMDB. The movie only landed one other nomination for a supporting role that, on other words, robbed from some other great performances.

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
is now the new Jar Jar Binks of the Oscars.

            Why did this movie get nominated? This movie is an all American movie, despite not being anywhere in the American Film Institute Top 10 list. It's a movie that uses 9/11 and revolves around that event to draw out some forced sentimentality, basically, another way to move people into "truthiness" that this movie is superior. However, in Ebert's review in this movie, he states that a catharsis can never be found after 9/11, basically saying a movie revolving around 9/11 cannot be uplifting or inspiring. The other reason why this movie is respected is because of how its "make you feel good" sentimentality rubs off to the voters instead of the different artistic movies. I guess there is that old root of people hating the "different" things, and both Drive and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo fell in this trap. This is why The King's Speech won instead of the thought provoking wakeup call of The Social Network, Black Swan, and Inception, evidently, my three favorite movies of 2010. Drive was an action movie gone artistic and professionally different, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a large mystery surrounding around the theme of rape. Even though these two would hold up much longer, they really have no place in the Oscars and will probably be remembered as something better. Possibly, in the near future, The Tree of Life will become the new 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Drive will gain a cult status after seeing people wearing the scorpion jacket.

            The Supporting Actor nominations felt a strong shockwave with Max Von Sydow being nominated in the movie. Even though Sydow is a great actor in his past work, did he really merit a nomination? To me, this year had two big surprises in the Supporting roles. The first is the fact that Andy Serkis in his outstanding motion capture role as an ape from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, showing that motion capture can be respected and elevated to the art of acting, and Albert Brooks' return to the screen with his surprisingly sadistic role in Drive, despite being a comedian and the voice of Marlin from Finding Nemo. none of these were acknowledged, and instead, we get a nomination from someone who doesn't even speak in the movie. The Oscars still do not believe that motion capture is acting and will never adapt to that change, and I do not know why they snubbed Albert Brooks for making a comeback. The way I see it, you either adapt or die, according to Billy from Moneyball. Maybe they are giving Max Von Sydow the nominations because he's an old actor who'll never give up. Maybe they gave it to him because of compensation. If they really wanted to acknowledge Sydow, then why don't they give him an honorary award? Or why didn't they acknowledge him in other good movies? He was great in movies like The Exorcist and Hannah and her Sisters, and yet the Oscars finally recognize him in some movie that was not really his for the taking.

            With that said, I feel that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close does not merit any nominations for it's not a typical Oscar movie. It's a political suck up in an organization that's known to be heavily political with its movies and industries. The fact of the matter is, the movie has a target audience, and everyone else will just have to stick with it, like the Star Wars prequel. At least the Oscars kept a tradition where at least one of the Best picture nominations is a terrible movie to me. Some other fails were The Reader, and The Blind Side.

            Another aspect that didn't work was the fact that there were only two nominations for Best Original Song. What the heck happened? I originally believed that the best song was "The Living Proof" from The Help, and even that movie's song isn't nominated. Rio gets a nomination, and yet, they don't appear to be that popular. In fact, the song seems cheaply made for a movie that would appear in the MTV movie award. And so, by default, the obvious winner is The Muppets. But was "Man or a Muppet" their best song? "Life's a Happy song" was a cheery song that became a sort of theme song for the movie, and "Pictures in my Head" was the absolute tear jerking song. Why weren't these songs nominated instead?

            Although the Oscar nominations are somewhat of a farce, it is not without some pleasant surprises. I was surprised with Demian Bichir's nomination from A Better Life and I actually support that nomination, despite him not having no chance of winning, and despite not actually seeing that movie. Though I will admit, I still am a tad bit bitter over Michael Fassbender not getting a Best Actor nomination for Shame. I like the fact that both Margin Call and A Separation are scoring nominations for Best Original Screenplay, and I also like the fact that John Williams is also getting a nomination for his work on The Adventures of Tintin score.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (4 Stars - 4 Stars))

            Imagine a horrible series that got better by ten folds from the previous movie? The third Mission Impossible was a giant leap from its flaccid predecessors, and now, this latest one has made it better. The movie is directed by Brad Bird, an animation director who decided to go to live action, putting himself in danger this time. In fact, he puts himself in a situation that's so dangerous that most live action directors will dare not step near it. Because so, the movie seems to be a lot more dangerous and a lot more fun as a result of the danger. The way I see it, there is the brave soul, such as Brad Bird, who switch from animation to live action, and the live action directors who switch to blue screen stuff, such as George Lucas.

            The movie starts with an explosion at the Kremlin after Ethan's team had just recently infiltrated it. The IMF (Impossible Missions Force) is now taken full responsibility for the explosion in order to prevent nuclear retaliation, all the while, the IMF team are now faced with being man hunted, and finding the real culprit. So much is at risk and this is only just the exposition. The risks are so high, and yet, this movie is going to its fun roots which is basically, stop the bad guy before he takes over the world. I like the fact that the movie had a simpler plot. The bad guy is going to send a nuclear bomb to the US mainland, and the IMF has to stop him from doing so.

            Like the previous movie, Ghost Protocol relies on real danger rather than the dangerous situations that the screenwriter merely makes up. Instead of infiltrating a made up place, with the tripping lasers and the ventilation shafts, this movie used a real building that no sound man, no matter how brave or stupid, would try to attempt such a stunt. At one point, Tom Cruise had to literally scale the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world by a landslide, and the phrase, “never look down,” might have came in handy. In fact, because so, we are always tempted to look down at the nauseating heights, and because so, looking down gave me Vertigo in my seat. The camera simply looks down and all that is heard is the large gust of wind. The pure silence of the scene also added to the nauseating scene and if I can't handle that in the theater, then I don't know how the crew handled it with the IMAX cameras. How is it that any man can do this and not get scarred from it, even with all of the safety harnesses strapped on?

            The movie utilizes its creative limitations and stretches beyond what is normal and what is dangerous in real life. After the crazy dastardly insane stunts on the tower, Ethan then proceeds in a chase scene, in a sand storm. Who does that? The sand storm added to the suspense as we can never see what's up ahead of us. The movie also shows the IMF infiltrating the Kremlin, breaking out of prison, and pulling off a fake negotiation with real nuclear bomb codes.

            Each and every one of the Mission Impossible had a different take. The first one attempted was made like a thriller, obviously boring me with its bland deceptive storyline. The second was also a thriller muddled with pointless action scenes and an ending that had no purpose. The third was a pure full out action movie that had a tremendous amount of internal motivation, a first in the series. The fourth on the other hand was almost adrenaline rushed action in which everything had a sense of thrilling action put forth. Even catching up to a train had a lot of action filled moments that’ll skip a heartbeat. However, there are some personal motivations to add inside. There is a small follow up from the third movie about Ethan's wife and it has to do with the integrity of the IMF team.

            The movie does an excellent job of actually utilizing the whole team and even though Ethan Hawk is still the main character, there is an appropriate amount of screen time with each and every one of the characters. we have Jane,(Paula Patton), Benji (Simon Pegg) as the tech guy, and Brandt (Jeremy Renner) as a chief analyst who has a dark secret. Because this movie is about the disavowed IMF team and because they're out for blood and revenge, the team is more important than just Ethan himself.  

            So why did I like this movie so much? My expectations were somewhat low and this movie was a huge surprise in terms of execution. There are plenty of other good action films to watch; such as James Bond, or Die Hard, but this is the one time where I actually find this movie on par with those two. They've taken a used and worn out series and overcharged it. They made me appreciate the fact that this is the "make you feel awesome" action movie of the year. We've seen everything in terms of action and violence, especially in the Transformers series, but this movie was so much of a breath of fresh air. After the complaints of the series, I've always said, "give us what we want." Brad Bird replied, "I've got something better."

The Descendants (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

Paradise is deceptive according to the opening of this movie by Alexander Payne, and although he's a great comedy director, there are some down to Earth moments that define this movie more as a drama rather than a dramedy. The movie opens with a jet ski and it ends in peace and tranquility. However, the movie is a huge wakeup call to what defines a comedy. For so long, I've seen some great comedies, and some that are too immature. This particular comedy has a great deal of sympathy for the main character and his situation. For a comedy, this movie is very depressing and serious, much like his last movie, Sideways. For an Alexander Payne movie, there is a real connection felt with not just the main character, but with several.

The movie is about Matt King, a descendant from Hawaiian royalty, and despite the title, "The Descendants," the movie doesn't really dwell in this fantasy like aspect. Instead, Matt is in a situation where his wife was in a boating accident and might never recover. Not only that, he now has to take care of his two daughters, Alexandra, a troublemaker in boarding school, and Scottie, a troublemaker in elementary school. To top that off, Matt realizes that his wife had cheated on someone and the movie goes off on a hunt for this mysterious masked lover. Then, there is Sid's character, who seems to follow the main characters around and is constantly asking for trouble. Why? Because his name is Sid. At one point, he starts laughing at someone because of her dementia. Right off the premise, we see that George Clooney’s character has some responsiblity juggling to do, even though his juggling talent seems rusty, metaphorically that is.

Because so, there are some funny situational moments in the film that only this film can deliver. We see Matt frantically putting on slippers and running over to his friends’ house after finding out his wife cheated on him. For a comedic situational movie, this movie is extremely realistic, from the location, to what the characters would do, to the documentary like footages shown in the beginning. I was shocked that there are homeless people on the island of paradise. For one, Matt does indeed find the lover at one point, but we, as the audience, would expect Matt to beat the living crap out of this guy. Instead, there is hesitation, skepticism, and a lot of sneaking around. I would be doing the same thing.

We’ve been in situations before where we are forced to spread the news. I for one hate those moments where it’s up to me to “pass it on.” Because so, I felt that it was easier to emote towards Matt and what he had to go through as a father, as a friend, and as a husband. There’s also the concept of someone on life support, and although not many people have experienced what it was like to have someone dear to you on life support, but I have. When I saw this movie, I saw my grandpa on the bed, rather than Matt’s wife, and to me, those hospital moments were painful to endure.

The movie does a rich array of scenic views of Hawaii, as well as the pessimistic view of it. I personally went there before on Oahu, Kauai, and the Big Island, and I for one think that the Big Island is overrated. Possibly two-thirds of the island is all desert and rocks. But aside from that, there is one particular moment where we do see some landscape images of Hawaii and in its entire splendor. What’s also interesting is the use of relaxing Hawaiian music that’s really there to create irony; much like the movie Brazil, and how the Brazilian theme is used in the dystrophic backdrop.

I was not much of a huge fan of Sideways, although it was still a good movie. I never got into the movie because I couldn't relate to these characters. One was getting married and was on a sexual fling, while the other one is a failed writer who seems to be in a mid-life crisis. The huge emphasis is through wine, and like Jack's character, I think they all taste the same. With The Descendants, there was more of a personal connection with this movie, and because so, I think this movie trumps Sideways. We’ve seen moments where the parents themselves do not know what to do. We’ve seen moments where even the parents don’t make the right decisions, and it’s important that this movie depicts a real person, despite him descending from royal ties. What's more important is that it's truly a remarkable family movie about a dysfunctional family, done in a realistic way.

I’ve called Alexander Payne as an overrated director, being that I was not a big fan of his last two films and his short from Paris Je’Taime, however, I deeply apologize for that remark and see him as a great director and over all story teller. There was one line that got me admiring the script. “To me, my daughters are like the archipelagos of Hawaii in that they are considered the same family but they are distant apart.” They are all ”There seems to be a huge buzz over Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 but I see more potential through the adapted work of this smaller movie, even though the book was probably extremely insignificant to the Harry Potter books.

The Artist (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            I would never think to say that the best movie of the year 2011 would be coming from a movie that's black and white, and is silent. There were many surprises with the selection of movies this year. With Drive, the director got a clichéd movie idea and made it thoughtfully unique. With The Tree of Life, the movie gave a new breath of meaning despite having a very minimal story. However, this movie had the biggest surprise for me as a moviegoer in that, usually I can only be surprised at something new, while this movie has old and traditional written all over it. There are plenty of great movies that are black and white and/or silent; however, they are only often shown in student films and is recognized as a waste of time to the mainstream world. However, this movie is not mainstream. As described in its title, the movie is artistic.

            The movie has a charm and style of Singin in the Rain, plus they share the same storyline with the introduction of sound in film. There is the wife character who resembles closely to Lina Lamont, and there is also some tap dancing numbers that was once deceased but is now resurrected by this movie. The movie also shares the consequences of Sunset Blvd., in which both movies talk about the downfall of certain stars who never transitioned to the talkies, except George Valentin doesn't fall in the same trap as Norma Desmond; however, he does go broke instead of staying in a strange fantasy. Lastly, the movie also has the basic idea that was shown in All About Eve, in which one normal person becomes a star while the other star goes into downfall. Also, the movie does contain some Vertigo reference through the music, and a dinner scene that was copied from Citizen Kane. In effect, this movie is a tribute and a culmination of the great past works that's forgotten from the normal mainstream audience.

            Like any silent movie, there is no dialogue that can muck the screen up, In fact, there is one scene in which Peppy speaks a statement and corrects herself, thus showing two title cards. If she were actually speaking, there would be no punch line. Also, because the movie is black and white, there is no distraction from the performance for we are no forced to adhere to the characters, something I wish I can do with all movies. Because the movie is a silent movie, there are moments that are literally dead silent. Although awkward it might be, these moments offer us some breathing room for uncertainty as well for us to emote in a theater.

            The movie that responds in the opposite direction in that it's not technologically advance nor does it contain the latest gadgetry of the modern age. Instead, it's simply a silent black and white movie. The director, of whom I can't even pronounce his name, has finally showed us something miraculous by going in reverse, like a Salmon upstream. While everyone is trying to make their movies better looking, Michel Hazanavicius does the opposite by reverting the movie into its core beginnings.

            However, a great hero is nowhere without his trusty sidekick, and in this movie, the right hand man is not even a man at all, but a simple dog who's extremely talented in himself. Like Charlie Chaplin's The Kid, there is a lovable charm between these two characters, especially when there is a gestured gun involved. In theater, there was a flood of "awe" every time the dog does a trick.

            The strange matter of this movie is that it represents itself in the context of the real world. In the movie, George tries to open his own silent movie that's great looking and artistic. However, the movie gets overshadowed by Peppy's talkie that entertaining but not so great as Peppy herself thought George's movie was brilliant despite having no dialogue. This illusion showed that no matter how great The Artist was, it will be overshadowed by a popular movie that's up to date with its technology. I remember watching Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and how it had great images from the IMAX camera; however, it didn't have the strong resonance as this movie. In fact, this analogy can also be shared with Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans and The Jazz Singer. The Jazz Singer was a very popular movie at its time, but Sunrise withstood the test of time as one of the greatest silent movies of all time. Now this analogy is saying something. Hopefully this movie withholds the test of time for its artistic quality.

            Jean Dujardin appears before the stage with a wonderful sense of charisma and a loving smile that'll touch the same was with Walt Disney. He plays the main character, George Valentin, an actor who labels himself as a artist, and like all artists, he is full of pride. Because the world is ever changing, with the new technical ability to talk in movies, George is falling behind. The movie starts with a movie screening, starring the great George Valentin. Ironically, the movie within the movie starts with George's character being interrogated to talk, summing up the main focus of the plot of the movie.

            The music for once plays wall-to-wall, and there is that lavish try hard orchestra that engulfs 50% of the movie instead of being muddled in noise and talk. With this, there is a tremendous amount of showmanship involved, as well as a great deal of risk taking involved in order to pull off one of the greatest movies of the year.

            Every time I see footages of people watching silent movies, I see them having a good time, laughing, crying, and emoting in extremities. A really good movie in this day and age cannot even come close to that and this movie comes pretty close. However, with most movies, there is a blank silence in the theaters. For once, a movie in the 21st century actually got me emotionally invested as it did with the audience watching a silent movie in the late twenties, and that's saying something.

            I've never clapped in a theater, but this movie made me react differently. With silent movies, there were always applause and I am always curious as to why the reception in silent movies were much better than talkies. Perhaps there is a larger caliber of work and dedication to silent films. Maybe it's because silent movies are more character oriented rather than visually oriented. At the end, there was an applauded clap that came as would a screening of a silent movie. The only thing missing was when the artist came out and took a bow before the audience.

War Horse (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            It's interesting how in most westerns that there is the hero, or the lone ranger who rides with his noble steed, usually heading west towards the setting sun, looking back at his accomplishment. This movie is far different and more interesting in that the star is the horse, bathe in the warm yellow sun as if he himself is the hero of the story.

            In a year where everybody is trying hard to be different, new, and innovative, here is a movie that sticks to the old cores on how a traditional, cheesy yet awe inspiring Academy award movie can get. Typically, there is always a movie that shines through the group of movies and it's usually the big looking movie that's professionally done.

              Steven Spielberg has created a culmination of two of his separate artistic designs; his whimsical charm that's kid friendly and even fantasy like, and the raw gritty realities of the world that requires no directing sugar coating. In this movie, there is a pretty long exposition that establishes the friendship between a horse named Joey and a boy who takes care of him. The exposition might be a tad bit long, but it does a wonderful job of showing that these two characters are inseparable. here, we see the two plowing a ground that's full of rocks and weed, and later, we see the two outracing a car.

               The next part consists of Joey being used in the army, and the narrative does something interesting here in that Joey goes through an episodic journey, going from one master to another, from one nationality to another. Joey belonged to a British captain, to two German deserters, from a French girl, and so forth. The movie works in a strange way where each character changes because of this very horse, much like the movie Forrest Gump. some were inspired by Joey's extraordinary gift of endurance, speed, and perseverance. Others see him simply as a horse, after all, a horse does not follow the concept of nationality.

                 This begs an interesting perspective in a war movie. Usually, there is the war movie cliché in which the main character is forced to go through a draft and shoved into the bitter reality and turmoil of war. In this case, it is an animal that's shoved instead. How would the horse survive as oppose a human? How will it get home to its loved ones, and how will it handle the deaths of those around him? Sure the movie can be a bit clichéd at times, but it follows its cliché in an interesting way. Instead of a comrade dying in the hands of the main character, what if the person was dying in front of the horse?

                  However, more so, we grow to love a horse. We know when it feels happy, sad, remorse, and we feel its pain. At one point, we see it in so much pain in that my mind went outside the fourth wall and wondered if how the Animal Humane society got this scene through. All of this will pay off, my friends, in an ending that got some sniffles in the audience. Because this movie is by Spielberg, there is a long journey ahead in order to reach the long awaited fulfillment that's shown at  the end of the road, and that is something that's worth feeling, especially in a war movie that contains suffering and death.

              Janusz Kaminski, the cinematographer of Steven Spielberg, does a wonderful job of setting a story entirely through its shot. There are those same gritty moments that reminisce Saving Private Ryan, however, the movie also has a beauty side to it that only beautiful sunsets and Western movies can fathom.

            John William's score shines bright with its powerful, yet simplistic symphonic sound. In the past, we've heard him do Jazz; such as from Catch Me If You Can, to Ethnic; such as Munich, and Memoirs of a Geisha, and the stylish action movies, such as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, and The Adventures of Tintin. However, the score is fresher and a lot more moving than his past work. It has the grand sound of the American Nationalism taken from Aaron Copland, sounding similar to Saving Private Ryan.

            The movie is the best looking World War I movie since A Very Long Engagement, with the whole No Man's Land look. There has never been a huge interest with World War I; however, I find it fascinating. The concept of No Man's Land is fascinating in its gritty and muddy  type of warfare, the usual rain and cold feeling of being in the mud soaked trenches, as well as the humanity of how soldiers will run out in the open in front of enemy fire in order to get to point B.  The movie has the great sense of war in it, as well as a powerful character to follow. It's not surprising that this movie, a simple movie about a horse, will be the talk of this year. I was looking for a professional comeback from the strange Spielberg action/adventure movies, and this movie did more than suffice.

Midnight in Paris (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Woody Allen is most famous for his Romantic Comedies. And what better place to talk about romance than in the city of romance itself, Paris. It's a movie about how great it was in the past and the impact it has on a writer who's on a romantic tight rope. The beginning consists of a montage of Paris shots that look as if they would appear on postcards. Woody Allen does this similar tactic with Manhattan, where he shows a montage of New York. This is crucial to the movie as it later becomes a character of its own. After all, Gil Pender, played by Owen Wilson, practically falls in love with Paris.

            In this movie, Gil and his fiancée, Inez, played by Rachael McAdams, are on a trip to Paris with Inez's parents, while working on a novel. Gil loves the city so much that he practically wants to live there while Inez wants to live in Malibu. They meet a pedantic tour guide who seems to sound like a "Pseudo-Intellectual." Although Gil seems to enjoy Paris with its art and culture, he doesn't feel happy when around Inez and the tour guide.

            What's strange about this movie is that it's a time traveling movie, and yet, it works like Groundhog Day, where there is no explanation to the fantasy elements. The character ultimately goes along for the ride and doesn't care at all on whether it's real or not. The way it works is that every midnight, a Peugeot pulls up and picks Gil up. There he gets transported to the 20's, the best time to ever be in Paris.

            The movie does a brilliant job of placing famous actors and actresses into people who were even more famous. Because Gil is transported to the 20's, he meets numerous people that most of us would all gone to love, or at least recognize. There is Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot, Gertrude Stein, Toulouse-Lautrec, and many more. What's interesting about them is that they are seen in their normal outgoing casual way, not like an over the top caricature of the represented person. Occasionally, there are some slip-ups that result in some inside jokes regarding the person. Ernest Hemingway speaks as though he is reading his own book, Dali acts in a surreal way by talking about Rhinoceros, and Zelda seems off the wall strange. However, Woody Allen uses these characters to his advantages and does a great job of pulling off some jokes with them. In one scene, Gil talks about a movie idea to Bunuel, causing him to say, "I don't get it," even though that seems to be the point of Surrealism.

            In my own opinion, this movie reminded me of a short film segment from Paris, Je'Taime by Wes Craven. In it, a man meets the ghost of Oscar Wilde, where he gives the man some pointers about love. To me, there is this feeling that only happens when meeting dead famous people, especially in this short segment. There is this feeling of being star struck but in a more intellectual way. I felt the same way while watching this movie. It's fun to watch people from the present interacting with famous people from the past, especially when they're star struck by Ernest Hemingway.

            Because Woody Allen is not in this movie, Owen Wilson takes his place as the Woody Allen character. Heck, he even dresses up like Woody Allen. In this movie, Gil Pender essentially plays the role of a writer who has troubles with his life. He self-reflects that his own movies are wonderful but forgettable, and he even says that he's a hack screenwriter who never really tried writing a novel. However, for the sake of argument, there are some interesting contradictions. One, Woody Allen is described as pessimistic, while in the movie, Gil seems to feel optimistic all the time, with the landscape, and meeting the various people from the 20's.

            The main theme of the movie is about the idea of living in the past and coming to terms with the present. Gil's book is about a Nostalgia shop, which essentially is what the whole movie is about. In a way, it's about a man (Woody Allen) who wants to live in the past, who writes about a man (Gil) who wants to live in the past, who also writes about a man (The Novel's protagonist) who wants to live in the past. Anyways, the movie remarks on how bad the present is, like terrorism, global warming, the bad economy, and Tea Party references. Gil sees Paris in the 20's as the best time to ever be in Paris. Most of the great authors were alive and writing books during those times, like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and T.S. Elliot, there were new interpretations of art being born in Paris, such as Cubism and Surrealism. There is a term called "The Roaring Twenties" where nothing really bad happened during that decade. Even though the theme of the movie is that they leave the past and learn to accept the present, the past is always a great tempting subject to get lost in. The way the movie shows the past makes us want to live in it. I've always wanted to sit next to Dali, Bunuel, and Man Ray, and simply talk about Surrealism.

            Through this movie, we can see that Woody Allen is in love with Paris. After watching this movie, I've come to love Paris. I'll even like the rain in Paris. The trailer said that Paris in the morning is beautiful, Paris in the afternoon is charming, Paris in the evening is enchanting, and Paris at midnight is magical. I cannot agree more with all of these statements.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            After what was known as a dead franchise due to unappetizing sequels after sequels after a bad remake, surprisingly, this was a Planet of the Apes movie that was done really well. Before seeing this movie, I thought that it was going to be predictable, being that the movie is a prequel to Planet of the Apes. We all know the twist in the original movie and the prequel is based on that twists. It all comes down to the question, "How exactly did the apes conquer the world?"

            Will, played by James Franco, is a scientist who’s trying to find the cure for Alzheimer’s disease. However, after one of the chimpanzee test subject goes berserk and shot down, the experiment gets shut down and Will has to take care of one of the baby chimps after all of them were euthanized. After a couple of years, the baby chimp grows up into becoming Caesar, the chimpanzee and while Will’s dad is growing weak from Alzheimer’s, Caesar is getting smarter and smarter. However, after some altercation with the neighbors, Caesar is sent to a primate facility where he learns about the truth of what they do to animals.

            The greatest aspect of the movie was Andy Serkis in his performance as Caesar the chimpanzee. James Franco did a pretty good job as his role in the movie; however, the star of the show was Caesar. He portrays real emotions through the use of visual effects. The special effects were used in the right direction, not as bright lights and fireworks, but as a way to enhance the storytelling and using the medium to make us relate to something that doesn’t talk. We know which ape is which and we understand certain ones. Caesar becomes a tragic hero who later accepts his place as a liberated animal. The greatest moments in the movie are not the action scene, but the subtle moments where we see Caesar’s emotions.

            Because the monkeys would eventually take over the world, Evolution plays a big role in this movie. Like any nature related movie, no matter how much civilization will make an attempt to triumph over nature, nature will ultimately win through civilization’s own hubris. In this case, there is an attempt to use monkeys as test subjects for the cure of Alzheimer’s disease. However, the cure boosts the monkey’s intelligence and has negative effects on humans.

            Caesar seemed to be in the wild, in the Redwood forest. He sees a dog chained up and questions the idea of pets. The way the chimps adapt to their surroundings is through their intelligence. When Caesar was in the animal shelter, he uses his wits to steal a pocket knife as a tool and later a taser, showing the evolutionary step of acquiring tools.

            The movie has some snippets of references from the original movie. The Icarus space shuttle takes off, and there is a newspaper that states that the space shuttle is lost in space. Later on in the climax, the chimps use spears and at one point, ride horses during their raid on San Francisco, showing the certain things the chimps will do in the original movie. There is a moment that exactly mirrors the scene where Charlton Heston gets captured and says the famous line, “Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape.” In the movie, the Tom Felton character tries to subdue Caesar and when Caesar grabs his arm, Tom Felton says the famous line. Also, the movie also has a soundtrack that mirrors the music from the original movie by emphasizing on percussion.

            The movie has a wonderful sense of utilizing its cinematography and visual effects to its full potential. Although the ending was a bit farfetched, the Golden Gate Bridge scene was executed pretty well, especially having the scene foggy for suspenseful reasons. There is a huge tracking shot that follows Caesar from the kitchen, all the way up the stairs and into the attic in one shot. There is a scene of Caesar climbing a Redwood tree and reaching the top to gaze at the San Francisco cityscape. In terms of visuals, I prefer the chimpanzees this way rather than making them too human like. The subtle look on their face and their reactions to certain things make the chimps realistic. The chimps in this movie remind me of the performance done in 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the monkeys are all played by human pantomime in monkey suits. The realism of their performance from both movies made the animals more likeable and we get to understand them as if they’re human. The visual attempt to blend with the story is so astonishing that we start to root for the chimps. We start to feel emotions when one of them dies.

            We root for the apes to win because the apes are humanized, while some of the humans are incompetent. We have the businessman who doesn't care for the welfare of human beings, but only money. There is an evil monkey caretaker, played by Draco Malfoy in his American form, who’s cruel and abusive to the monkeys. In fact, he is so evil that he seems to do every animal abuse trick known to monkey, like spraying them with a firemen hose.

            Overall, the first movie showed audiences a ground breaking way of using makeup to better enhance the characters by giving the apes human like physical qualities. Rise of the Planet of the Apes does this exact idea; however, instead of giving the apes human physical qualities, they are humanized through the motion capture performances of actors like Andy Serkis. If Planet of the Apes got honorable mentions for their use of makeup, then Rise of the Planet of the Apes should get special nods in their use of visual effects.

Final Destination 5 (2 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            No one ever cheats death and that's all there really is to it. I should end this review here and move on to something that's not predictable. However, I will admit that there are some pro's in this movie that tries its best to outweigh the bad elements. The beginning title was interesting, the bridge scene was done really well, there are two endings that worked really well, there is a somewhat better way of establishing the characters and relating to them, the mysterious coroner returns, and there is a great concept of choosing to kill or be killed.

            I'm not even going to describe the synopsis because it's the same with all of the other movies. However, I will say that in the premonition in the beginning, Molly, one of the main survivors, actually survives the premonition. Another idea to point out is the mysterious statement that the coroner says to the main characters. He says that if you kill a person, then you'll gain that person's remaining years. This theory works when one of the victims pushes someone in the way and has him killed instead. Afterwards, the person next on the list dies, proving that the previous survivor has so far cheated death.

            The acting was average. There is a Tom Cruise looking guy who was pretty good in the movie, especially in the end when he knows that he's next on the list and acts paranoid and sadistic. To offset the average remark, I have to wonder, why is the bad acting womanizer guy in this movie? Some of the acting was horrendous and extremely as cringing as the unnatural dialogue that plagues the movie's script.

            Was that really necessary to have those certain grossed out moment? This is the equivalent of watching a bad raunchy comedy. To me, there are two different types of gory scenes. One is when the gory scene works so much that it will shock and traumatize the audience. The other would be the icky and gross moments that will get the audience saying, "Oh, that's nasty." I would prefer the first type more, all because it's more effective in a good horror movie; however, they chose with gross route instead. There are moments when the victim dies and all of a sudden, there is one more gory jump surprise before we cut away. Really, is this necessary in the movie?

            Here is an interesting question to pose on the victims. You just had a near death experience. Doesn't it make you edgy to make you do incredibly dangerous tasks, like working in a construction site, Lasik eye surgery, or being a gymnast? Again, because this is a teen slasher movie, the teens are written in a way that makes them do stupid things that'll get them killed. Not to mention, establishments in this movie will probably be sued. These people didn't die because death was after them. The actions that the doctors, or the massager, or the construction worker were just either incompetent or stupid. And of course, they always say, "I'll be right back" and come back to see their patient inside out or something. Who's the real person to blame here?

            The beginning disaster was surprisingly nice and shot really well. Because the disaster is over a collapsing bridge, the height is nauseating and vertigo like. The fall itself is good enough for being scary. The ending was well played with the Tom Cruise guy and the two main characters. Because the Tom Cruise guy is next, he must kill someone or be killed. Because Molly was never meant to die on the bridge, the Tom Cruise guy plans on killing her. This leads to moments where fates will be changed and unpredictability will unfold. Even though I won't say what the real ending is about, well just remember the phrase, "death doesn't like to be cheated."

            Although I'm not a big fan of 3D, the medium was used effectively, and yes, body parts do fly at us. The beginning of the movie consists of objects flying towards us and glass breaking in our faces. There are times where the deaths just went too far, in terms of gore and 3D combined. There are times when the movie over indulges like the fourth movie. However, like the other movies, the deaths are predictable, especially the first couple of them. The trailer is full of deceptions as well as being spoiler ridden. I was really hooked into the trailer and how it looked a lot darker and better than the fourth one. However, after watching the movie, I've seen just about everything I've seen in the trailer. In the trailer, the deaths were shown without the person actually dying, and the mysterious theory of kill or be killed is told in the trailer.

            Because of studio pressure in showing the coolest of the cool death scenes, the movie, yet again, turns into a sappy teen slasher movie. I will say though that this movie was better than the third and the fourth movie for being smarter with its premise by giving the survivors a chance to live. The 3D was used as a gimmick, but it was used in a way that sort of worked. However, being that it's a scary movie that involves 3D, hopefully the movie will scare people away from using 3D glasses.

Contagion (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            This was a huge surprise for me when the first couple of minutes showed up in this movie. I never had much thought about this movie when it was first announced in the trailer. I thought Matt Damon's character was a little off, and the dialogue was clunky. I saw Outbreak, and I thought this movie would have the same premise. I was considerably wrong.

            There was something special with this movie by just the way it started. It starts with a black screen and a bunch of sound effects that we, the audience, hear in our daily lives. Whenever we move from point A to point B, there is always someone coughing and/or sneezing. Someone in the movie mentions that we touch our face about two to three thousand times a day. In the beginning, we see montage of how the virus is spreading across the globe, from Hong Kong, to London, from Japan, to Minneapolis. With each passing day, there is an emphasis on the text that reads "Day 2" or "Day 137," showing the progression of the virus and how it starts to escalate into a pandemic. At the end of the movie, we get to see "Day 1," where the curtains pull back and we, the audience get to see what the people in the movie don't get to see, reminding me of "Citizen Kane."

            This movie looks and feels like an apocalyptic movie, but sad fact of the matter is, it's one of the few apocalyptic movies that can actually happen. The Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918 killed 1% of the world's population, and because our mode of communication has vastly increased, what would happened if the CDC didn't know what they're up against? Everything in this movie felt real. We see the situation of the people in the CDC and how they're trying to find the genesis of the virus, as well as studying its nature. All the while, we have them trying to maintain and establish order when everyone knows about the virus. Even if a vaccine was discovered, problems would still arise with producing it for the masses, as well as distributing it without creating a riot. There is the conflict over who gets it first.

            Meanwhile, we have the strict point of view from Mitch, played by Matt Damon, who witnesses the virus firsthand as well as how civilization is tearing itself apart. Beth, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, shows that she's sick and probably got it during her business trip in Hong Kong. All of a sudden, the doctors announced her dead without knowing what happened. It turns out that she was the first to get sick by a virus that would soon spread all around the world. Mitch's daughter comes and stays with him, causing Mitch to be overly protective. Mitch appears to be immune to the virus; however, he doesn't know whether the daughter is immune or not, therefore not taking any chances.

            It's always a scary thought to know how a virus can be airborne, as well as through bodily contact. It's a scary fact when you hear the news that the nurses and the doctors don't even know what to do. It's a scary thought on how a virus can destroy civilization, even with all of our technological advantages at our disposal. There is a haunting image of an empty airport terminal, showing how the virus has impacted people's lives mentally. You can argue that this movie is emphasized on a CDC's worst case scenario, but this movie is certainly not about Swine Flu. I scoffed at the media's interpretation on the H1N1 virus and how it was blown out of proportion. This movie, on the other hand, is no laughing matter.

            Steven Soderberg has his misses and hits; however, this movie is very similar with his Academy Award winning film Traffic, where we see different stories on how the drug war is affecting three different non-related lives. In effect, this movie's narrative is told the same way with different protagonists and how their lives are affected by a pandemic through the business side, as well as the personal side. I was a bit skeptical about the casting choices for most of these actors and how they would serve as Oscar bait only; however, Soderberg seems to know how to direct these A-listed actors into making a great movie where story comes first. Soderberg knows how to make a pandemic thriller without the shock and awe. There is no blood or gore on screen, or anything horrific that people will dare each other to view online. It's a wonderfully made thriller that focuses on the "what if's" from a grand worldly scale, to a small family. However, because the story is set in a grand scale and all of the main characters are all over the world, it would help if we can have a better satisfying ending with all of the characters. Mitch's ending was done perfectly, Dr. Ellis' was a bit ambiguous.

            The movie is based off of fear realistically. Every time someone touches a door knob, a credit card, food, poker chips, rails, shopping carts, anything, the camera will linger on it, emphasizing and evoking a germ-a-phobic sense of paranoia. While I was in the theater, someone was coughing, and I bet there were a couple of heads turning. I have a sense that hand sanitizers will be used and sold after this movie.

Warrior (3 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Boxing movies are the greatest sports sub genre of all time. Nothing matches the raw and gritty performances of two characters pounding each other into submission. However, therein lies a problem where boxing movies tend to repeat its formulas over and over again. I will give exceptions to these movies, as long as it has a touching story and if it focuses more on the character and his internal crisis. So much that it voids those certain clichés.

            Warrior has a unique premise and it's character driven in a way where all of this leads to a big ending that I will not reveal. It's a well done boxing movie; however, I must still point out that it's still a boxing movie, with all of its Rocky moments and the whole character arc. There are moments where the two characters are struggling, whether it's about the past, or it's about making ends meet. There is a training montage that's arguably done pretty well, and there is a climactic battle in the end where the arc goes full circle.

            Tommy was a former marine from Iraq who saved a tank full of soldiers and is considered a war hero. He also has a haunting past during the war and decides to redeem himself by training with his dad, Paddy, played by the wonderful Nick Nolte. Paddy was a former trainer who became a drunk and a horrible father figure. Tommy plays aggressively and simply walks away from his opponents when he wins the match. Because of his fast wins, Tommy wins the crowd and the marines.

            Brendan was a former MMA wrestler and is now a family man, as well as a Physics teacher. He chooses to remain independent from his dad because of his past life as a drinker, and lives a separate life away from his blood family. Because he can barely live off of ends meet, Brendan decides to train for boxing, and because he's a former wrestler, he typically takes his time in the ring and wrestle the opponents until they tap out. Because Brendan was a high school teacher, his students, and even the principal who fired him roots for him.

            The movie cuts back and forth to establish these two separate characters who don't even meet up until we get to the near end of the movie. They both seemed to be in opposites of each other and actually hate each other. Their fight together was more of a personal brawl rather than a clean match for a title. This was a real boxing movie about family ties and the importance of where you come from. Basically, it has the same idea with The Fighter but excels in its concept more.

            I will point out that there is a threatening boxer in the movie named Koba, from Russia. Because we already know about the premise of the brothers fighting each other, through logic, we know that Koba is going to lose. Therefore, I really see no point in blowing up his characters in a situation when the real situation was about the two brothers.

            The movie introduces us the world of mixed martial arts. It's basically boxing, kicking, and wrestling fusion. Because of this, there are more opportunities to do things other than punching. There are moments where the fighters can be in serious damage because of its brutal nature. Cinematography wise, it's a bit shaky and it works during certain moments, and there are some where a fluid camera move would've sufficed. I love the fact that some of the shots were behind the fence where we see the fence out of focus, showing the fight through the audience's perspectives.

            This movie's ending was perhaps the most gripping ending since Rocky where it all comes down to the last battle to end all battles. The two brothers, whom we've come to love and respect, are now fighting each other. Only one of them is going to win, and this notion of who's going to win got me at the edge of my seat. It's an ending that's different where victory and getting the title doesn't mean anything. In the first Rocky, Rocky loses the first battle, but we still end up feeling satisfied. When Adrian runs up to Rocky and exclaims how proud she is, that's the genuine winning moment. In this movie, when one of the brothers win while the other loses, there is no winning moment, there is a moment that shows how the brothers leave their past behind and how they start their relations anew.

            I see this as a battle between a Democratic vs. another Democratic. Or a Republican vs. another Republican. If I see this as a Democratic vs. a Republican, then I would obviously root for only one of them. In this movie, I want both of them to win. The two journeys of these characters and the arc that we've seen for more than two hours all lead up to the ending that is both sad and satisfying.

            This movie was decent in execution. It accomplishes a bold move by having two main characters rather than one underdog. Because of this, I feel that the movie should be changed to Warriors rather than a singular Warrior, because I don't want to choose between which of the two is the warrior implied. I want to say both of them are.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (1 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            At last, we've finally come to the hopeful conclusion to a dying franchise that people flock to in order to say that it was bad but it had some great visuals. Right when the Paramount logo came up, I knew that I was stuck for a very long time, and I mean a very long time that Michael Bay can afford to agonize us with. On the bright side, it seems like the Transformers franchise will finally end, but then again, there are ways in bringing back villains and meaningless plots.

            The movie starts pretty strong with the launch of Apollo 11 where there is a secret mission to the moon in which the astronauts go and investigate the wreckage of a ship. It turns out that one of the Primes is still alive and Optimus Prime revives him.

            The title itself is a joke for it sounds silly. It's sad to say that the proper title was already taken from the Pink Floyd album, “Dark Side of the Moon,” which they even reference in the movie; however, if you took "Transformers" off of the title and took away the advertisements, then no one will ever watch this movie.

            First off, Sam Witwicky is a very uninteresting character and his recession sub-plot has no say in the movie. In fact, he complains that he doesn't have a job, despite saving the world twice and getting an award from Obama. At one point he gets turned down because the workers are Republicans. As always, Sam is accompanied with his annoying screen hogging parents who find new ways in provoking my patience. Honestly, why are they still in the movie if all they are going to do is annoy Sam and disappear?

            Because the lead girl was fired, by contract, there has to be a love interest in the movie. Why? So that they can use the low angle shots to keep the audience hooked on the boring talking parts. I would stress the point that Carly Spencer's role was absolutely useless. All she did was become eye candy and a damsel in distress for reasons I don't even care about. Honestly, there is no depth in her character and it seems ludicrous that Sam would get a new girlfriend of whom we don't care about, except maybe for the fact that she British. Another insulting idea about it was the fact that she was a model with no acting experience. I have nothing against models, but the fact that she was casted because she was a model is stupid and it shows that acting is not necessarily required in these movies anymore.

            The slow motion scenes are becoming too indulgent. No one exclaims about the wow factors for there are no significant ones. After a while, it becomes so repetitively cumbersome and annoying. There is a scene where Bumblebee tackles a pillar and it's set to slow motion. There was one scene that people in the theater laughed at where Carly is standing perfectly still in a green screen like moment where explosions and fighting robots occupy the background, and yet she's standing perfectly still, all set to slow motion.

            This whole movie is set to Michael Bay’s arrogance. The action scenes are more about moments of gloating rather than substance. In fact, the money spending spree goes too far where Megatron blows up the Lincoln Memorial just so he can sit on the seat. There is the ending that takes place in Chicago. Because it’s filled with a whole lot of buildings, cars, and people.

            It was too long. The Chicago scene, although dazzling and interesting it was, the scene went too long where all they had to do was to blow up a small piece of a building. They could've done that in ten minutes, if not then at least fifteen minutes. Instead, they drag it on with pointless after pointless moments of mind numbing actions. I was impressed with the scene where Shockwave crushes and destroys a building for some of the scenes didn't involve computers.

            The characters in the movie are uninspiring and most are treated as filler. John Malkovich’s character was an interesting character that disappears out of nowhere. Ken Jeong was in there because he was Ken Jeong. Lastly, the most untouchable and respected character is reduced to ridicule in this movie. What I mean was that Optimus Prime's actions were not justified. He appears as the wise sage who narrates the story. With that being said, Optimus Prime actually makes the wrong decisions and reduces himself into doing things that only villains will only resort to. He whines and complains in this movie, and he does some cold blooded moves on certain people, even when one was trying to settle a truce. After doing so, he tries to justify his actions with a narration that encompasses the theme.

            I, at least liked the story a little more than the second movie. There was a tad bit more substance, even though they over thought themselves again like in the second movie. Why not just using a simple plot like in the first movie where both the Autobots and the Decepticons want to find a simple but powerful item like the Allspark?

            I’m officially through with insulting movies such as these. I’m through with these types of movies that spend their money for moments like blowing up the Lincoln Memorial. I also hate the fact that people do not know when to end their trek to these showings. They know they’re going to hate it and they expect nothing more from Michael Bay. Well, at least it wasn’t as bad as the second movie. At least I didn’t have the urge to leave the theater this time.