REWIND REVIEW: Burlesque

MOVIE
Burlesque

CAST
Cher, Christina Aguilera

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
November 24, 2010

DIRECTOR
Steve Antin

STUDIO
Screen Gems

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 59 minutes





STARS
***










REVIEW:

Burlesque isn't quite the musical you would expect coming from this day in age. This isn't a musical where you feel pretty or you feel so wonderful that you feel like singing in the rain. Instead, it's the typical small town girl with big city dreams story with the setting of a burlesque theater. Think of it as being a modern day set 'Chicago' starring the legendary Cher and the incredibly talented Christina Aguilera. From the trailers, I knew that this would be another Chicago. But the question is if Burlesque is as good or better than 'Chicago.' Well, the answer is both yes and no. The movie is as good as 'Chicago,' but its surely not better than it. Both films are similar, with Christina Aguilera's Alice acting slightly similar to Renée Zellweger's Roxy. Cher's Tess is also similar to Catherine Zeta-Jones' Velma, being one of the film's antagonists turned anti-hero. Both films are very similar to one another, except for the fact that this movie doesn't involve 20s Chicago and the women convicted of murder.

From the trailers, I had a good feeling that this movie would be a knockoff of Chicago. Unfortunately, despite wanting to check this out in theaters, I decided to wait for on demand because of the mixed reviews. So now it's June, I was bored after seeing Cars 2, and I found this in one of Starz's Early Premieres category. Now I am here to discuss what I thought of the latest non animated musical to spill onto the scene. Despite the film having spectacular musical numbers, catchy tunes, and nice work from the two main leads, Burlesque also includes choppy dialogue, a story nobody cares about, and an ending so abrupt I blinked and missed it with no further explanation on what just happened. Burlesque is a good musical, but not a good But for the signing and dancing along, I'd recommend checking this movie out because it is as magical as a real burlesque club.

SYNOPSIS: (Courtesy of Fandango.com)
Ali is a small-town singer who takes her shot at stardom performing at a neo-burlesque nightclub in Los Angeles. Taken under the wing of a friendly featured dancer, Ali quickly realizes that not everyone is quite as nice when she forms a friendship with bartender/aspiring musician Jack and incurs the wrath of the club's cattiest showgirl. After making her leap to the stage with a little help from a sympathetic stage manager and the club's playfully androgynous host, Ali becomes the star attraction at The Burlesque Lounge, and the crowds start packing in. Later, a wealthy businessman makes a bid for the club while trying to charm the talented young performer straight into his arms.

Let me start off by saying that the songs in this movie and the extensively choreographed dance scenes are by far the best things about this movie. The songs aren't as memorable as "I Feel Pretty," "Singin' In The Rain," or "Sit Down You're Rockin' The Boat," but they are catchy as hell. Cher is a brilliant singer and that is clearly shown in the two songs she sings in the movie. Christina Aguilera is also a fantastic singer, being able to have her voice play as a character in the movie. Music plays a big part in this movie, so the songs featured in this movie add another layer to this non-stripping musical. Unfortunately, the acting isn't as good as the singing and choreography.

I've never seen a single Cher movie, so I have no idea how good of an actress she really is. She isn't terrible in this movie, but she plays the typical depressed woman anxious to claim what is hers. She gets angry, acts like a queen, and so on. The performance isn't award worthy at all, but it is good for a musical movie that was never even going to win any awards in the first place. The same thing goes for the movie's other star, newcomer Christina Aguilera. Aguilera can really hold a note, as she and Cher are fantastic singers. Like Cher though, Aguilera isn't a terrific actress. I give her props that this is her first movie, but her acting should be better. Instead, it's something that I could've gotten from an episode of Degrassi.

Come to think of it, the actors, aside from Stanley Tucci come from an adult, musical version of Degrassi, which takes place in a burlesque club. However, Degrassi's acting isn't as good as the acting in this movie. No, it's not great acting. But like I said, the acting is good enough for this type of musical. The best acting in the movie comes from Stanley Tucci. He is great in every movie he does, even if it isn't Academy Award worthy. He is always the best thing in the movies he's in. This movie would've been like every other modern musical if it wasn't Stanley Tucci's gay performance. So to sum up, the acting isn't fantastic, but it's good enough for a typical chick flick musical.

The one thing that was worse than the acting in this movie was the story. The subplot story involves Cher not being able to afford the burlesque club, so she's being pushed to sell the club to this cocky businessman. As hope began to dissolve for Cher, along comes Christina Aguilera to save the day. The plot is pretty unoriginal, and you always know what's going to happen in the end. We've seen this plot in many movies before, so why does Hollywood have to recycle subplots, when we want to see something original for a change. The one thing original about the story is the fact that it ends so abruptly. The final scene of the movie has Christina singing the song "Show Me How You Burlesque." One second after the song ends, credits start rolling. The movie ended faster than I could blink. This was one of the biggest "what the hell" moments that I've ever had watching a movie. There were so many questions I had after watching this movie, but they will never be answered. The one thing a movie wants to avoid is to have a fast ending and a sloppy story. Burlesque unfortunately missed every mark with that.

So Burlesque won't be called a classic, like Hello Dolly and Showboat, but instead it will be put along the lines of Hairspray and High School Musical. The singing and dancing is as usual spectacular, but the story is predictable and sloppy, the acting isn't so great, and the movie ends so abruptly. Yes, the songs are toe tapping, the ladies are sexy, and the dancing is unbelievable, but the movie's story and acting really make the film suffer. I enjoyed these songs so much, I may consider putting them on my iPod. The dancing is as good as the dancing you see in the Step Up movies and on YouTube. But if you saw Chicago, you might as well have seen this movie if Chicago had the storyline of this movie and took place in the modern times instead of the 20s/30s. The story and acting may not be as good as they should be, but the singing, dancing, and scantily clad ladies make up for all of that, and give us a musical that is as good as the more recent musicals that have come out in the last few years. This movie is far from a must see, but if you do see it, it is a fun watch and a musical dream. If you're browsing the movies in Starz by any chance or you don't know what to get at Redbox, then you may want to pick up Burlesque. After all, seeing Cher in a movie once again and Stanley Tucci being Stanley Tucci is always a treat. Treat yourself during a boring night and watch the ladies of today flaunt their stuff in Burlesque.

REVIEW: Cars 2 3D

MOVIE
Cars 2

CAST
Owen Wilson,
Larry The Cable Guy

RATING
G

RELEASE
June 24, 2011

DIRECTOR(S)
John Lassetter,
Brad Lewis

STUDIO(S)
Walt Disney Pictures,
Pixar Animation Studios

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 46 minutes





STARS
***3/4










REVIEW:

Of all of the fabulous Pixar films to be chosen for a sequel, they choose the least popular film on their resume, Cars. I, like every die hard Pixar fan would've rather wanted to have seen an Incredibles 2 or a Finding Nemo 2. But alas, this was a financial choice and I would've rather seen a Cars 2 than another Wall-E. (I hated that movie unlike the 96% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes) So of course I would go see this latest Pixar movie with an open-mind, hoping for Pixar to once again deliver like they did last year with Toy Story 3. First off of the bat just let me say that Cars 2, unlike every other Pixar movie has no PSA like message about our home planet, fancy life montages within the first 10 minutes, or an ending so bittersweet the entire audience was bursting in tears. There is no heart present in Cars 2 at all. Why would a movie having a hillbilly tow truck as the main lead have any kind of heart at all? I don't know, and I'm glad this movie didn't. This movie is just a full spy movie homage with Mater the Tow Truck at the lead. This movie clearly won't satisfy anybody looking for another Up or Toy Story 3. If you go into this movie just ready for anything, you will enjoy Cars 2 no doubt. This may not have the heart every other Pixar movie beholds, but Cars 2 is the one Pixar movie that is full blown action and many bellylaughs throughout. Not only is this movie better than its predecessor, but Cars 2 might be the one animated Disney movie that you don't need any heart to enjoy.

SYNOPSIS: (Courtesy of Zachary Marsh's Mind)
Lightning McQueen and Mater are about to take their friendship to new locations when they travel to the world's first ever World Grand Prix. But things start taking a slight detour for Mater as he gets involved in an international spy espionage. Teaming up with Finn McMissile and Holly Shiftwell, Mater must stop a group of "lemon" cars before they use the race to gain lots of money by corrupting it. Will Mater suceed? Will Lightning win the World Grand Prix? Is the Popemobile Catholic? Find out when you see Cars 2.

This isn't the sequel we expected from Pixar at all. I mean, we expected something high off the heels of the Toy Story sequels. Instrad, we just get a spy movie homage with bumbling Mater at the lead. Who exactly asked for this? Nobody, actually. However, John Lassetter made it, so we know that it has something in it. Lassetter, along with co-director Brad Lewis created a fun spy movie with our kids' favorite Pixar characters. This movie isn't meant for adults at all. I believe that critics are bashing on this movie because they didn't expect Pixar to make a movie with no heart, and all action/comedy. This is the perfect start for kids if you want them to start watching old spy movies, more noteably old James Bond movies. I personally have never seen a single James Bond movie or ever read a single James Bond book. It's not that I have anything against the famous spy, it's just that I never got around to watching or reading a James Bond story. I will one day, but today is not that day. I found this movie to be similar to a Scooby Doo cartoon at parts, particularly the ending. It just added to the goofiness and fun of the movie. For kids who enjoy a fun Scooby Doo cartoon will enjoy this Scooby Doo cartoon with Mater being Scooby Doo.

Speaking of Mater, the voice cast was outstanding. Owen Wilson was Owen Wilson, and Larry The Cable Guy was Larry The "Git-R-Done" Guy. Mater was the main comedic point of the movie. I mean look at his appearance, you know that he's going to be the comedic point of the movie. I liked how they had a tribuite to Doc Hudson, aka Paul Newman in this movie. The segment was brief, but nevertheless a nice tribuite to the late actor. Instead of paul Newman as the mentor of the movie, we get Michael Caine as the head international spy guy, Finn MicMissile. He was clearly the coolest character in the entire movie, mostly because his character was badass. Who would've thought that a talking car could be a badass. We already knew that adrenaline pumped guys driving fast cars could be badass, so this came as a nice surprise to me. He is the James Bond of the Cars world. In fact, Michael Caine's James Bond persona was a nice take off of the character played by Sean Connery and many others. He may soon become one of Pixar's most memerable characters, along the lines of Woody and Buzz. The characters in this movie clearly make the entire movie. The rest of the fantastic ensemble cast include John Turturro as the rival Itallian car Francesco Bernoulli, Jason Issacs as a spy jet named Siddeley, and of course John Ratzenberger in the small role of McQueen's carrying truck Mack. The characters were awesome, but the story was just so so.

Like every 20th Century Fox movie, the plot of this movie is clearly never explained in the trailers. We get the edges of the story in the trailer, but never the full core of the story. The real spy story involves a group of "lemon" cars sabatoging a new type of electrical fuel so cars would have to start buying gasoline over electricity, thus making them the richest cars in the world. The plot is a bit uninspired, pulling a Fox, but it adds to the fun of the movie. Actually, whenever a movie other than a Fox movie pulls a stunt where the plot is never explained in the trailer, I'm just going to call it "a super Foxy move." Aside from the story in this movie, everything else is just pure summer animated awesomness fun.

Cars 2 may not be the best Pixar film in the franchise, or appeal to both audiences and critics, but it was only made to be pure summer fun. The action scenes look incredible, the driving scenes that are shown worldwide look breathtaking, and the characters are likeable enough for you to want to stick around and see what happens next. The characters will keep your eyes glued into your glasses, and will make you laugh until your glasses get foggy. This movie isn't popular with critics because it lacks the heart of Pixar's other masterpieces. However, audiences will love this movie bewcause of it being just a fun summer movie. The kids will love it because of Mater, and adults will love the whole spy homage and the fact that their kids are having a good time watching their toy cars spring to life in 3D. The 3D doesn't add alot, but it looks cool when you're watching the racing sequences, the spy action scenes, and the Lion King/Brave previews. If you're choosing to see a fun family movie that both kids and adults will enjoy, you should probably choose this movie if Kung Fu Panda 2 is nowhere to be found. I'm glad that I enjoyed this movie this week after the annoying penguin movie last week. Unless you want to see Jim Carrey kill himself over a bunch of penguins, go see this action packed 3D spectacle. The Cars are fun, the movie looks cool, and it's just everything you want in a summer movie. Do yourself a favor and give Pixar another chance with their latest sequel, Cars 2.


PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Winnie The Pooh


The Smurfs


Spy Kids:
All The Time In The World


The Lion King 3D


Dolphin Tale


Puss In Boots


Brave

REVIEW: Toy Story Toons: Hawaiian Vacation

SHORT
Toy Story Toons:
Hawaiian Vacation

CAST
Michael Keaton,
Jodi Benson

RATING
G

RELEASE
June 24, 2011 (Along With Cars 2)

DIRECTOR
Gary Rydstrom

STUDIO(S)
Walt Disney Pictures,
Pixar Animation Studios

RUNNING TIME
approx. 6 minutes






STARS
****








REVIEW:

Whoever saw Toy Story 3 last year can clearly point out that the best characters in the movie were Barbie and Ken. Every time they were on screen, I could barely keep my laughter in, because they we just so damn funny! Now it's a year later, and Pixar is all out of original ideas for their world famous animated shorts. So their only option, aside from doing another Mater short, is to create an all new short based off of other movies they made. In this case, they chose Toy Story for their subject, and the idea that the toys want to create a Hawaiian Vacation for Barbie and Ken after they are left home. This is far from being as memerable as Day & Night or For The Birds, but I can assure you that even if you hate Cars 2, you can still rely on this short to provide you with all of the laughs you can need. This short was pure magic in my eyes, because I love revisiting the Toy Story characters and seeing how they've been. This short will make you laugh out loud in your seat throughout. The best part about it is that the entire audience will be laughing out loud along with you. Imagine an entire chorus of 300 people just laughing all around you. If your theater is big enough, that's what you'll be experiencing when you see Cars 2. So even if you don't enjoy Cars 2, you can still fall back on the pure comedy that is in Hawaiian Vacation.

REVIEW: Mr. Popper's Penguins

MOVIE
Mr. Popper's Penguins

CAST
Jim Carrey,
Six Annoying Penguins

RATING
PG

RELEASE
June 17, 2011

DIRECTOR
Mark Waters

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 34 minutes







STARS
*1/2












REVIEW:

Ever since I was a young kid, I always loved Jim Carrey movies. From 'The Mask' to 'Liar Liar,' I could never stop laughing at Mr. Carrey's physical humor. Heck, I even still like some of his more negatively received movies like 'The Cable Guy' and 'Yes Man.' Now it is 2011, a year where family movie are thriving with critics and audiences alike. So what not be better for Mr. Carrey to expose himself to a large family audience than put himself next to a bunch of penguins? That's basically what 'Mr. Popper's Penguins' is: Jim Carrey next to a bunch of penguins. I went in to this movie expecting some belly laughs from the king of physical humor, with some cute penguins to go around. What I got was far much worse. This movie only provides the audience with annoying penguins, non-stop poop and fart jokes, and mushy family bonding moments that just made me squint in my seat. As hard for me as it is to say this, but Mr. Popper's Penguins is the worst family movie that I've seen since Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel.

Tom Popper is a fast talking businessman who is also divorced with two kids who can't stand him. One day he receives a package from his now late father, a traveling explorer who was last seen in Antarctica. In this package there are six mischievous penguins who cause nothing but trouble for popper at first. However a sudden change of heart from his family help convince him to keep the penguins. But soon his career and an evil zookeeper keep pulling the penguins away from Popper. Now Popper must decide what is more important to him in life: family or business.

As much as I love going to see movies, whether they are good or bad, I absolutely wish I went to see something else. I really wanted to see a funny family comedy, but instead I get a non-stop poop, fart, and selfish family marathon that goes on for an exhausting 87 minutes before the credits roll. I believe that this is the first movie in many years where I actually couldn't wait for the credits to start rolling. The main problem I had with this movie was the six penguins that you see on the poster. These are the most annoying movie animals I've seen in a very long time. I had a huge headache when driving home, mostly because of this one penguin, Loudy. For those who have hearing aids and are going to see this movie, do yourself a favor and keep your aids at home, because this penguin will annoy you throughout the movie. There's also another penguin named Captain who apparently has a dream to fly like other birds. I know that this is a kids movie, but what penguin in the world has the urge to fly? It's only the kids movies that add these dumb sub-plots. Then there's a penguin named Nimrod, and you could probably guess why they would have a penguin named Nimrod in this movie. The penguins will bring many awws and bellylaughs to the young children, no doubt. But if you're someone over 11 and enjoys a good kids movie, stay away from this movie at all costs.

A bad family movie is only supported by a bad movie family. Jim Carrey's family in this movie is one of the most selfish families that I've ever seen. Before the penguins, Popper's kids practically hate him. But alas, potentially dangerous penguins come into their lives, and they're instantly in love with their father again. When the penguins are taken away from Popper an hour into the movie, guess what happens again? This just shows that only dangerous, wild animals can charm kids that hate you. Ain't that special? Wait a minute, why is Carla Gugino in this movie at all? Just for the quick buck, I'm guessing. She has no purpose being in this movie, and has no reason to call Jim Carrey 'Popper' throughout the movie. Hell, Jim Carrey's entire family calls him 'Popper' throughout the movie. Whatever happened to calling someone 'dad' or 'Tom' to talk to someone? Like I said, worst movie family I've ever seen.

There is no denying that Jim Carrey is a very funny comedian. His physical timing is absolutely sublime. He is really the only good thing in this movie. If it was anybody else playing Mr. Popper, this movie would have been even worse than it is now. In fact, Carrey's antics in this movie are the only reason why I boosted my rating an extra half star. Mr. Carrey is a master at improvization, which helps drag this movie through its worst moments. In fact, Carrey is the only reason why I didn't walk out of this movie. But like I said, only Carrey could pull this role off, even if he pulls it at a minimal. If there's any reason to be forced to see this movie, it should be because Jim Carrey is a funny person and a talented comedian. This movie may suck, but Jim Carrey is still one of the funniest people alive.

Despite having Jim Carrey as a strong player, this movie fails on many levels. This movie shouldn't even be considered a "family movie." This is more like a joyless, stupid little kids movie that only people under the age of 10 would enjoy. I've never been so annoyed by penguins in my life. If you want to see penguins in a movie, do yourself a favor and watch Happy Feet. Even though the penguins can talk in Happy Feet they're still less annoying than these troublemaking animals. As for the family, the Malcolm in the Middle family is less selfish than this family. Well, I may be over exhaggerating with that, but I'd honestly rather be living with Malcolm's familythan Popper's family. Jim Carrey may be funny, but he can't save this disasterous movie. If you take your kids to see a family movie this summer, take them to Kung Fu Panda 2. Kids and adults can both enjoy the animated panda movie rather than the annoying family/penguin movie. Do yourself a favor this summer and do not even dare to visit Mr. Popper's Penguins.



PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Monte Carlo

Zookeeper

Puss In Boots

The Muppets

Alvin & The Chipmunks:
Chipwrecked

REVIEW: Green Lantern 3D

MOVIE
Green Lantern

CAST
Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 17, 2011

DIRECTOR
Martin Campbell

STUDIO(S)
Warner Bros. Pictures,
DC Comics

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 54 minutes



STARS
**









REVIEW:

It's Father's Day weekend and what better way to spend time with your dad then to go see a big budget superhero movie? Warner Bros. and DC have decided to release the much anticipated superhero flick, 'Green Lantern' in all of its 3D glory this weekend. This latest superhero adaptation stars Ryan Reynolds as the sometimes cocky and sarcastic pilot Hal Jordan, who suddenly is granted the responsibility of defending the universe as a Green Lantern. Back in November when Harry Potter 7 came out, a negatively received teaser for Green Lantern came out and there seemed that there was no hope for a good Green Lantern movie. However, our negative thoughts were flushed down the toilet as three fantastic trailers came into the spotlight. So now we have the final product, and the result is pretty mediocre. As much as I wanted to like Green Lantern, in the end there was nothing more than a good lead, killer visual effects, and spectacular 3D. Everything else is just bad in the movie. As much as this movie had going for it, Green Lantern might possibly be the worst superhero movie I've seen since Spider Man 3.

SYNOPSIS (Courtesy of ComicBookMovie.com)
In a universe as vast as it is mysterious, a small but powerful force has existed for centuries. Protectors of peace and justice, they are called the Green Lantern Corps. A brotherhood of warriors sworn to keep intergalactic order, each Green Lantern wears a ring that grants him superpowers. But when a new enemy called Parallax threatens to destroy the balance of power in the Universe, their fate and the fate of Earth lie in the hands of their newest recruit, the first human ever selected: Hal Jordan. Hal is a gifted and cocky test pilot, but the Green Lanterns have little respect for humans, who have never harnessed the infinite powers of the ring before. But Hal is clearly the missing piece to the puzzle, and along with his determination and willpower, he has one thing no member of the Corps has ever had: humanity. With the encouragement of fellow pilot and childhood sweetheart Carol Ferris, if Hal can quickly master his new powers and find the courage to overcome his fears, he may prove to be not only the key to defeating Parallax…he will become the greatest Green Lantern of all.

It seems that Warner Bros. is having a bad year so far with their movies, in terms of quality. So far this year from the studio, we've had movies like Sucker Punch and The Hangover Part II. Both movies were over hyped, but turning out to be poorly thought out movies. Since I never saw those two movies, I can only believe what I read. Many have criticized Sucker Punch for a terrible script and being nothing more than cool special effects. The Hangover Part II was criticized because it was apparently the same movie as the first, just with a different location. I believe that Warner Bros. is purposely making mediocre movies in anticipation of making the final Harry Potter film the best it can be. Without Harry Potter come July 15, WB will have to start making more decent movies. Green Lantern is luckily the last movie in this trend, so let's hope for some good movies in the future.

I've never been a fan of sub-plots in movies ever. Sometimes they work in movies that have quirky characters and a smart plot. However the other 90% of movies that are bad have unnecessary sub-plots. Green Lantern unfortunately is no exception to this curse. I can't even remember exactly how many sub-plots there were in this movie, all I know is that they were all useless in this movie. These plots ranged from Hal Jordan trying to live up to his father to Hector Hammond (the Big Headed dude) be envious of Hal and having a crush on Blake Lively. That's why I had to get a synopsis for this movie from another website. Even on the website I used there were about five paragraphs worth of a summary. When a movie needs that much space for a single summary, you know that there's a story problem with the movie. There was even some supposed sentimental moment in which Hal is talking to his nephew just like his father talked to him as a kid. This moment wasn't needed at all, but I'm guessing that it was put in there for the sake of generating a family audience. In fact, I think that only die hard Green Lantern fans and general family audiences will be able to enjoy this movie. I've never read a single Green Lantern comic, but I expect the story in the comics to be far more superior to the cluttered storylines featured in this movie.

A bad story is only backed up by the cast in its movie. The worst thing about this movie was the somewhat large supporting cast. The supporting cast includes the undeniably sexy Blake Lively, the well known Peter Sarsgaard, and Tim Robbins. Blake Lively is clearly in this movie just for show, just like with Megan Fox in Transformers. Even though I can live with staring at these women for two hours each, there's no denying that they are both bad actresses. Like Natalie Portman in the Star Wars prequels bad. However I can give props to Lively for actually being a better actress than Fox. Believe it or not, Lively was not the worst actor in this movie. That position is a tie with the father and son roles of Peter Sarsgaard and Tim Robbins. They may good actors, but they are used poorly in this movie. Sarsgaard looks like Morgan Spurlock in the terrible makeup job and is laughing in almost every scene he's in with company. Tim Robbins is incredibly unbelievable as the father of Hector. I'm not sure if he just didn't want to be in the movie or if he was purposely acting bad throughout, but the truth is that he was unneeded in this movie and served no purpose being here in the first place.

Mark Strong is also in this movie playing Sinestro, the supposed arch enemy to the Green Lantern corps. He was only in the movie for about 20 minutes, including a stupid after credits scene that didn't make any sense to the movie at all. I think he was just in the movie to play a role in a possible sequel. The worst thing about Mark Strong in this movie is that he wasn't good as Sinestro at all. He was like an even more emotionless version of Professor X in the X-Men movies. In summary, all of the supporting actors were terrible in this movie. The only saving point in terms of acting is Ryan Reynolds in the lead role. Reynolds was very good playing a cocky pilot turned superhero in this movie. Sure he may not be another Tony Stark, but he was acceptable for what the role required. Like I said before, I never read a single Green Lantern comic, so i have no idea whether he perfected the comic book role. All I know is that Ryan Reynolds got the comedic timing right, as well as be a badass superhero. However, it seemed like he was trying to copy Christopher Reeve in the original Superman movies. That's when it got very corny. other than those moments, Reynolds was a good presence in a mediocre superhero movie.

The 3D and visual effects in this movie were good, but nothing spectacular. Sure seeing the planet Oa in 3D looked really cool, but that took up about 15% of the entire movie. For the rest of the movie we get three fight sequences and a slew of terrible dialogue in every scene in the movie. There was one scene on Oa where Hal projects a machine gun to battle off Sinestro for training that looked really cool in 3D. Actually all of the things Hal projected out of his mind looked incredibly cool in 3D. Well, the Hot Wheels like sequence in one of the big battle scenes was a bit cheesy. but still, the visual effects and 3D were really cool. They aren't any cinematic accomplishments, but they were just cool for the type of movie this is. However this superhero movie should have been much more than cool visual effects/3D and a fun main lead.

Despite having a strong main lead and some cool 3D effects, Green Lantern disappoints with a weak supporting cast, an awful script, and one of the most useless after credits scenes in recent memory. I had so many expectations for this movie because the trailers made this movie look like an epic of epic epicness. Instead, I just got a very corny, very stupid superhero movie that leaves me on the verge of asking for a refund. This isn't as bad as Batman & Robin, but this movie is just as bad as Spider Man 3. Spider Man 3 had many storylines too, as well as a bad script. This movie is the Spider Man 3 of DC movies. If you hated Spider Man 3 for all of the reasons I mentioned, you may hate Green Lantern. I think I hated this movie because I expected an action packed superhero film, like Iron Man and The Dark Knight. If you go in expecting a movie like Iron Man, you will be disappointed. All I know is that I didn't enjoy Green Lantern. People may enjoy this movie for the corniness it is. I am just one of the many who didn't. I will give the movie props for awesome 3D. But nevertheless, Green lantern is so far the most disappointing superhero movie in the last ten years. This movie isn't the most disappointing movie of the year. No no, that position is taken up by Mr. Popper's Penguins...




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Transformers:
Dark Of The Moon

Horrible Bosses

Harry Potter And
The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Cowboys & Aliens

Conan The Barbarian

Moneyball

REVIEW: The Art Of Getting By

MOVIE
The Art Of Getting By

CAST
Freddie Highmore,
Emma Roberts

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 17, 2011

DIRECTOR
Gavin Wiesen

STUDIO
Fox Searchlight Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 23 minutes




STARS
***










REVIEW:

Predictable, short, and unoriginal. These are only a few of the words to describe The Art Of Getting By. The Art Of Getting By premiered at Sundance 2011 under the name 'Homework,' later being picked up by 20th Century Fox's indie company Fox Searchlight Pictures. You would expect from a premiere at Sundance and a distribution deal from the company who brought us 'Slumdog Millionaire,' 'Napoleon Dynamite,' and 'Juno' would be a surefire tour de force, right? Unfortunately, you're wrong. This movie is far from being terrible, like how it seems I'm saying it to be. However, this movie's not terrific either. They get the whole "I have no idea what the hell I want to do in the future" concept right, and the chemistry is good between the two leads. However there are many problems I had, including lack of originality and predictability. Despite the many flaws this movie had, coming especially from an admirer of the Sundance Film Festival and Fox Searchlight Pictures, the chemistry between the two leads, the light humor that comes from the characters, and the realistic life question "What am I supposed to do with my life?," make me like 'The Art of Getting By' just enough for me to recommend it.

The story goes like this: lonely senior boy meets eccentric senior girl, and girl helps boy see better side of life. Nothing new or original, but satisfying enough for what the movie was. Just to get it over with, allow me to explain my problems with the movie. The first one is a combination of the running time and the pacing of the movie. How can you make a teen dramedy only 83 minutes and just keep jumping through time every 10 minutes? I don't know what the director was thinking, but all I know is that I got lost a bit at one point in the movie. One minute you're at a party on New Year's Eve, the next minute you're at a dinner on Valentines Day without any explanation on where we are in time. The movie shows the course of about six months in 83 minutes. However I must say that this movie didn't feel as short as Beastly, which squeezed an entire year into a short 86 minutes. That movie also jumped around the timeline in a matter of minutes, much more than this movie did. The short running time and quick pacing of the movie only took away from my experience.

Wouldn't we all like to see something original, rather than it being based off of already existing source material? The romantic aspect of this movie is the same one we've been watching on the big screen for nearly two decades. In every love story, there will always be the loving phase, then the break-up phase, and the let's get back together phase. That's the basic formula in every 21st century romantic dramedy. Then there's always that terrible "running through the airport" scene at the end that is so overdone. Luckily, this movie doesn't exactly have that airport sequence. But we can all agree that romantic movies lack any kind of originality whatsoever. When can we get a romantic dramedy as good as the ones in the 90s, like Sleepless in Seattle or Almost Famous? Luckily, this movie does have a bit of originality put into it. The only original and refreshing thing in this movie is Freddie Highmore's character, George.

Freddie Highmore is a natural as George. He plays a character who is socially awkward and doesn't give a crap on what may be in store for his future. The character barely shows any emotion, which is why I love the character. He's not afraid to be his own person, and it never seems that he's asking for any kind of friendship. In my opinion, he is a combination of the male protagonists from both Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and Napoleon Dynamite. I believe that this character can relate to the two male leads in each movie because they are both outside of the usual teen boundary, not swearing all of the time and are not in any cliques at school. They just do their own things, and most of the time they can accept that. I liked Emma Roberts, the niece of Julia Roberts, in this movie. She plays a typical teenage girl, where you don't quite know exactly know what they're thinking at that particular moment. For being in a middle school filled with girls like Emma Roberts in this movie, you understand what their deal is. The movie also had a strong supporting cast, including Rita Wilson and Blair Underwood, who are quite good in this movie. They may have to work with an uninspired script, but for what it's worth they acted very well. The casting was probably the best thing the movie had to offer.

So the movie was uninspired, incredibly predictable, and sometimes a bit mediocre. However, the movie is saved by the casting, a sweet chemistry between the two leads, and the universal question that every teen has to ask: What the hell am I doing for my future? This is the story about a kid who doesn't know what he's going to do, so all he can do is slack around and do absolutely nothing. Although it's not good at all, kids in the real world are like Freddie Highmore, George in this movie. This movie shows what can happen if you let yourself go and find someone to call a friend, possibly something more than that. If you like someone as George likes Sally, Emma Roberts in this movie, go for her before someone else does. Unfortunately George suffers this fate about halfway into this movie, but this is a romance so we all know what's going to happen in the end. Even so, we all can't help but get a big chuckle about even the slightest erection joke in your average movie. It worked in Austin Powers, and it also works well here.

So is this movie a must see? No. Is this the movie that I would choose on a weekend to see with all of my friends? No. However, is it a good 83 minutes well spent? Yes. This isn't something to rush out to go see, but it's a nice movie for what it is. I doubt that you will crown this as the greatest movie of 2011, but it's just a sweet, sometimes sad and real movie with some quirky moments and a nice romance between the two leads. If there's nothing else out in theaters or on DVD and you just want to watch something, then out of the many choices, I would definitely choose to watch this one again. What are you going to do for your future? Are you going to slack off for the rest of your life, or are you just going to live?

REVIEW: Super 8: The IMAX Experience

MOVIE
Super 8

CAST
Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 10, 2010

DIRECTOR
J.J. Abrams

STUDIO(S)
Paramount Pictures,
Amblin Entertainment,
Bad Robot Productions

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 52 minutes





STARS
****












REVIEW:

From the mind of director J.J. Abrams, the supervision and hope of Steven Spielberg, and the sense of originality that we haven't seen in many moons comes Super 8. Super 8 takes regular nerdy kids, puts them in a late 1970s setting, and have them witness a massive train explosion while making a amateur zombie film using a Super 8 camera, hence the title. Even from the early teaser shown with Iron Man 2 a little over 13 months ago, I had a strong feeling that this movie would be fantastic. The trailer that showed actual footage just made the movie my most anticipated film of 2011. Now after seeing the final feature, I'm am excited and happy to tell you all that Super 8 succeeded my expectations as it had thrills, chills, laughs, and heart. This may be pushing it a little, due to us only being through mearly half of 2011, but I believe that Super 8 is not only the best film of the summer, but the best movie of 2011, period. Sure, we have harry Potter, Transformers, and Tintin coming out during the rest of the year, but I believe that Super 8 will still go down as the single best movie of 2011 by far.

In 1979, Steven Spielberg had already come out with Close Encounters and Jaws, with only Indiana Jones and E.T. being a few years away. Super 8 revolves around the story of six kids trying to make a low budget super 8 zombie film in the summer of '79. On one night while they're shooting the movie at the local train station, they soon become the only witnesses of a massive train crash that destroys almost everything around it. The kids then soon find that someone or something has escaped from the train wreck, soon roaming around their quiet little town. Pretty soon the U.S. government comes to town to investigate the crash, while at the same thing keeping something bigger under wraps. Pretty soon one of the kids' fathers, the town deputy gets more and more suspicious of why the government is roaming the town.

Imagine if Stand By Me, E.T., Close Encounters, and The Goonies had a baby together, and had J.J. Abrams nurse it for its first few years. That's basically the layout of Super 8. If you're going into Super 8 expecting a full fledged sci-fi thriller, you may be disappointed. The real story and emotion from the movie comes from the six kids making the super 8 movie. That's right, a summer blockbuster with more heart than action. The kids in this movie, despite most of them being newcomers to this type of movie play their parts to perfection, and feel so real when watching them. The kids, to me were the best part of the entire movie. I'm going to give you a challenge right now prior to seeing Super 8: try to find yourself amongst the six kids in the movie.

I could relate to each kid, and feel their excitement, pain, and fear experienced throughout the movie. These kids are going to have a great future in movies because of Super 8. The best thing about the kid characters in this movie is the chemistry between Joel Courtney, who plays Joe (the main character) and Elle Fanning, who plays Alice (his love crush). With experience from the point of view of Joe, I think that they're chemistry was pitch perfect, showing a slowly bonding friendship that soon becomes a young relationship. The devotion that Joe has to Alice is very beautiful to see on screen, because he acts like how every adolescent boy reacts to seeing his crush. For those who currently have secret crushes, whether you're 12 or 35 can relate to Joe and Alice in this movie. That's why this movie is so great. Even if you're an adult watching this movie, you still feel your inner childhood being immersed into this sci-fi spectacle. For the biggest heart in a sci-fi movie since E.T., Super 8 is allthemore worth the theater experience.

J.J. Abrams' inspiration for Super 8 comes from Steven Spielberg's early movies, and that is clearly shown throughout the movie. This movie takes elements of such Spielberg productions such as Close Encounters and The Goonies and brings those themes into the modern age. For young ones who haven't seen a more mature Spielberg movie like Jaws or Close Encounters, this could be a good start for them. Kids would be able to understand the older movies better, as well as not get bored during Close Encounters, which happens to be a slow movie at some parts. However, this movie is not a kids movie at all. I'd say let those over the age of 10 see this movie, therefore they won't be as traumatized. This movie will make everyone in the theater jump a lot, which adds to the fun for most moviegoers. Kids may get scared by the monster in this movie, better yet the numerous attacks by the monster. But at least these scares aren't as intense as they would be in The Goonies, Cloverfield, or Poltergeist. For kids over 10 who are just getting an intrest into horror movies, then Super 8 may be a good start for kids seeing thrillers on the big screen. However for those kids who are experiencing a thriller/horror film for the first time, don't pay the extra money for The IMAX Experience.

I got the chance to see this movie during a sneak preview in IMAX. While most movies aren't exactly qualified to become a part of the IMAX experience, I believe that Super 8 is a definate must see in IMAX. It's not because of the picture resolution or immersion that something like The Dark Knight had, but it's because of sound. I've never jumped so much in a movie before and lived to tell the tale, but Super 8 is that breaking point. Seeing Super 8 in IMAX not only immerses you into the story, but it also makes you feel a part of the train wreck and the cahos that comes after it. The sound loves to be jammed into your ears, so i say let it. Although the usual IMAX ticket varies from $15-$20 a person, I believe that you may not have as much of a fun time jumping in an average movie theater as you would in IMAX. So if you have the money for a single ticket, I say go see Super 8 in IMAX and let the soundwaves do the rest.

With the biggest heart to come in ages, a teriffic homage to Hollywood's biggest director in history, and some of the most likeable kids to come since The Goonies, Super 8 is the must see movie of the summer. Everyone can relate to the characters in this movie, because we were all in a similar situation like these kids are in before. We all had first crushes, and obbsessions over many things. All J.J. did was add a sci-fi element into the movie to draw more of an intrest to the modern audience. I distinctly remember the movie Flipped, which also dealed with first crushes and obsessive best friends. I love these kinds of coming of age movies because I can relate to them so well. I've had many crushes in my late elementary school/early middle school days, and I do have a couple of cocky, self absorbed friends who I don't care for most of the time. The movies released these days about coming of age play these types of modern age settings perfectly, yet also adding a bit of excitement to the characters involved.

Adults, you have all been in the types of situations that these kids have been in at that type of age. Well, you never fought off the U.S. government to find a runaway monster, but I think you know what I mean. Kids will be kids, and that is clearly shown in Super 8. It works as a sci-fi thriller and has a coming of age story. For those who don't get that aspect of this movie, then stop expecting too much out of movies with kids as the main protagonists. As a kid, I believe that Super 8 is the best film of 2011. It brings out your inner childhood and helps you revisit some of the best times you had as a kid. There is a brief part in this movie where the five main boys are sitting around singing 'My Sharona,' and that's when I knew that this was a very realistic movie. It shows kids just doing what kids do for fun: goof off and sing great songs. That's why Super 8 is the absolute must see movie of 2011. I cannot wait to see this movie again and again and revisit these likeable characters. Plus, I need to get me one of those Super 8 cameras, if you know what I mean.




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Cowboys & Aliens
(Non-IMAX)

Transformers:
Dark Of The Moon

Puss In Boots

Real Steel

Cars 2

Harry Potter
And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

REVIEW: X-Men: First Class

MOVIE
X-Men: First Class

CAST
James McAvoy,
Michael Fassbender

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 3, 2011

DIRECTOR
Matthew Vaughn

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 12 minutes






STARS
***3/4












REVIEW:

I never saw the critically acclaimed films Kick-Ass or Layer Cake. but those movies, directed by the X-Men series' latest director Matthew Vaughn were both very well recieved by audiences and critics alike. That was one of the many perks that X-Men: First Class had before it was released. However, the rushed shooting dates and average trailers made this movie seem less enjoyable than it was eventually going to be. Yes, I am very happy to report that X-Men: First Class is quite an excellent movie. It has the concept that the first two X-Men movies, the charm of any Marvel movie, and the bad-ass-ness of any superhero movie in existance. This movie is the perfect prequel to the X-Men franchise, and in my opinion may be the best X-Men movie of them all. I liked Thor a month ago, yet I noticed many of its flaws while watching. Now it's a month later, and I absolutely loved X-Men: First Class.

Before we called him Professer X, he was known as Charles Xavier, a gifted indivitual who can read minds. Before we called him Magneto, he was known as Erik Lehnsherr, a survivor of the Holocaust who can control all kinds of metal items and isdesperately seeking revenge on the man who killed his mother during WWII. As World War III is quickly being formed, Charles and Erik recruit a group of extraordinary kids with special powers, other known as "mutants." The man responsible for creating another war is Sebastian Shaw, a mutant who also happens to be the murderer of Erik's mother. While the mutants are being recruited, Erik is secretly planning to take revenge on Shaw for killing his mother. It is the events in this movie that supposedly set off the chain of events to occur in X-Men and X2. (let's just forget that 'The Last Stand' and 'Wolverine' ever happened, okay?)

A little over two years ago, another fantastic origin story came onto the spotlight. That movie's name was Star Trek, and I would be surprised to find people who didn't like it at all. The reason why I mention Star Trek is because this movie is the Star Trek of 2011. For people who love to revisit younger versions of characters whom they grew up with, this is an absolutely excellent movie. This may be the best superhero movie I've seen since the original Iron Man. Thats right, I'm cpnsidering this movie far more superior to The Dark Knight. I like this more than The Dark Knight for a few reasons: the first reason is that I believe that The Dark Knight was a bit overrrated, due to the fantastic preformance of the late Heath Ledger. The second reason is that I'm not as much a DC fan as I am a Marvel. The third and final reason is that DC always is too realistic for superhero films. Marvel films are just made to be unrealiastic superhero films. They're fun, witty, and sometimes over the top, yet most of the time they are purely excellent. Take Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, The Punisher, and the two other X-Men films out of the mix and you can consider all Marvel movies to be excellent.

I like how all of the recent Marvel movies these days have superb acting. Ever since Iron Man came out, the main lead actors have always been award worthy. The most notable mention must be Robert Downey Jr. as the title role in both Iron Man and Iron Man 2. Fox superhero movies have never had teriffic acting, with 2009's X-Men origins: Wolverine and 2005's Fantastic Four being prime examples. Finally, we have a Fox superhero film with fantastic acting. There is no singular main character, there are only two main co-stars. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are fantastic in this movie. They are funny, interesting, and most importantly, they are incredible badasses! James McAvoy shows a side of Professor X that we've never seen before. He doesn't seem so emotionless as he does in the first two X-Men movies, despite still being such a brainiac. In this movie, you see Charles being a college student: drinking and hitting on women. He sort of reminds me of a smarter Tony Stark in the 60s. Michael Fassbender actually may be the show-stealer of the movie. Even though I mentioned that these two stars are fantastic co-stars, there's something about Mr. Fassbender's performance as Erik/Magneto that steals the whole movie. You actually gain feelings for this troubled character, despite the destiny he has coming for him. He is now possibly the coolest supervillan of all time. All of the acting in this movie was great, but it was the two leads who were undeniably fantastic.

Despite my desire to give this a perfect four star rating, there's only one reason why I cannot. Despite being a prequel, this movie had no relations to X-Men: The Last Stand or X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This may be entering spoiler territory, so those who haven't seen this x-men or the previous two should stop reading this paragraph NOW. At the end of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you see the young mutants escaping the science facility encounter Professor X. X can walk, yet he has no head of hair on him. At the end of this movie, Charles loses his ability to walk, yet still has his head of hair present. At the beginning of X-Men: The Last Stand, we find Charles and Erik meeting a young Jean Grey, who plays a significant part in the original trilogy. In this movie, she is not present anywhere in this movie, thus erasing her story in X-Men 3 from that storyline. I felt that Matthew Vaughn, the film's director should have revisited the original four movies and try to incorporate those stories into this one. After all, the mediocre third and fourth X-Men movies are still a part of the series. Still, this was just one wrong doing in this movie, and it never affects the way you enjoy the movie at all.

So with the charm of Iron Man, the special effects and awesome action of the first two X-Men movies, and the single best use of the "F" word in cinema history, X-Men: First Class is with no doubt one of the best movies of 2011. The movie makes you learn about the past of some of the most iconic superheroes in recent history, as well as give you explanations on how characters become the way they are. The cameos in this movie help give the audience some great laughs and small hints of characters that will be in the first two X-Men movies. There are four superhero movies coming out this summer. If Marvel plays their cards right, they may have one hell of a good summer. However, Green Lantern sure looks amazing. I believe that this movie may havde a strong shot as the best superhero movie of the summer. I'm saying this because I thought that Thor was just an o.k. movie. Thor might've just been o.k., but X-Men: First Class was a spectacular movie. Even if you're not an X-Men fan, you will still enjoy this movie because of the historical content this movie has. The summer is getting better and better by the week, and we're barley through June yet. I officially declare X-Men: First Class as one of the best movies of the entire year.





PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Green Lantern


Mr. Popper's Penguins


The Change-Up


Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes


Real Steel


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

REVIEW: POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

MOVIE
POM Wonderful Presents:
The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

CAST
Morgan Spurlock

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
April 22, 2011

DIRECTOR
Morgan Spurlock

STUDIO
Sony Pictures Classics

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 27 minutes




STARS
****








REVIEW:

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is exactly what it is. That may not sound like much, but just allow me to explain. This film, from Morgan Spurlock, the director of the acclaimed Super Size Me is attempting to make a movie about advertising, while selling sponsorship funds to various companies for advertising bits in this movie. Companies like Sheetz, MovieTickets.com, and POM Wonderful all paid to be in this movie. That's how this entire movie was funded, and that's how this movie was made. This film is about the making of the film that's being presented on screen. This sin't the usual type of movie I would pay to see, but I'm glad I did. Even though it took me a half hour and my grandfather's company to get to see this movie, it all paid off in the end. The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is pure excellency. I couldn't stop laughing at some of the gags that Mr. Spurlock showed on screen. I laughed, I learned, and I loved this movie.

This movie isn't just a documentary, it's also a fantastic comedy. I laughed in this movie as much as I do in any Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler comedy. Mr. Spurlock is a gifted director, and a gifted comedian, making us laugh with the in-movie commercials and commercial ideas he gives companies like Sheetz and POM Wonderful. The audience in my movie, which might have been around 15-20 people, was also laughing very hard at the in jokes presented. I couldn't stop laughing at some moments, because Spurlock really knows how to entertain his audience. I believe that this is a movie for regular movie goers who enjoy comedies. Just go into this movie and think of it as a comedy with true facts.

It's amazing to think that we are persuaded by companies to buy their products without even knowing it. In an experiment that Morgan did in the movie, he was put in a "Clockwork Orange" stage where he was presented with three types of scenes: horror, comedy, and sex. In the end, Morgan had the strong urge to have a bottle of Coke. This was fascinating to me because humans buy many things everyday, most of the time because they are persuaded to without even realizing it. We as humans watch too many movies and television shows, so we get ideas of buying or seeing things implanted into our brains without even taking notice of it. Why do you think that when you see a Marvel movie like Iron Man or Thor, you see so many product placements for Burger King and Dr. Pepper? Because those companies pay to be featured in the movie, with the assumption that people will be influenced to buy their products. Unfortunately, this has worked for a long time, and won't be stopping any time soon. This movie, like Super Size Me is a gift to America. This is teaching America about what is going on behind the doors of businesses. We are being brainwashed by corperate businesses, and this movie is just the arrow pointing this out.

Whoever is over the age of 12 and hasn't seen Super Size Me should be out at the local video store as we speak. I had to watch Super Size Me for a 6th grade health class, and I loved it, despite seeing a very graphic surgery and orange vomit. (Ewww) The best part about my experience of that movie was that my entire class was really into it. They were absorbed into this realistically funny story, like they should've been. Now this movie comes along, and nobody has even heard of it. This is disappointing to me as a critic because I'm supposed to guide people to great movies and keep them away from the crappy ones. I want everyone who loved Super Size Me, and just documentaries in general to see this movie. This is possibly one of the best things playing out there right now, yet I don't exactly know how many theatres are left showing this movie in the country. It's not just the fact that this movie has been in theaters for more than a month, but the movie was just never popular among the movie-going crowd. The movie was only at the closest indie movie theater for two weeks before it was pulled. That's why I had to go all the way to Philadelphia (a half hour drive) to see this movie. And while it was worth it, I still wish that more people got to experience this movie. I hope it does better on DVD, at least.

Whoever is near a theater playing this movie should really go out and see this movie. This is THE documentary to see this year. I'd guess that this movie is out of most theaters by now, so I'd suggest seeing this movie when it comes out on DVD. I think that this movie will obtain a strong cult following, kind of like comedies like Bill & Ted and The Big Lebowski. Spurlock won't obtain the status that Jeff Bridges got when he played "The Dude," but he will obtain status as one of the best documentary film directors in recent history. I can't wait to see what he thinks of next. And believe me, I will be one of the first people in line to catch that movie. Who knows, maybe it will be about what makes people get interested in a particular movie. We may have to wait a couple of years to see that movie. So for now, do yourself a favor and check out POM Wonderful Presents: The greatest Movie Ever Sold.



PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

The Trip

Beginners

Midnight in Paris

L'amour Fou

Buck