REVIEW: In Time

MOVIE
In Time

CAST
Justin Timberlake,
Amanda Seyfried

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 28, 2011

DIRECTOR
Andrew Niccol

STUDIO(S)
20th Century Fox,
Regency Enterprises

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 49 minutes






STARS
**1/4











REVIEW:
 
The hit song '4 Minutes' has just been turned into a metaphorical sci-fi flick, and it's called 'In Time.' Justin Timberlake's character Will Salsa (sorry, I meant Salas) lives in a world where time is the world's currency rather than money, so the rich can live forever while the poor try to just get through one day at a time. An original and awesome concept should not have just been an okay movie, but unfortunately it was. The trailers for the film made the movie look like a sleek action thriller with some cool sci-fi elements. However what was really served was a sappy romantic thriller with lots of running and little sci-fi. How could Timberlake, who only a year ago portrayed Sean Parker in 'The Social Network' pick such a poor script? Was it to "work" with Amanda Seyfried? The answer is unknown, but the important thing is that 'In Time' is the biggest disappointment of the fall season so far.


The acting was average for this type of movie. You had your good actors, like Justin Timberlake (in parts) and Cillian Murphy, and you had your wooden actors like Amanda Seyfried, who plays Sylvia, and Vincent Kartheiser, the guy who plays Sylvia's rich daddy. Justin Timberlake is not as terrible as you'd think except in one "emotional" scene where he's apparently trying to sob his eyes out. He's good for what the movie is, so let's leave it at that. Cillian Murphy is good in almost anything he's in, and he may be the best thing this film has to offer. Murphy may become the new William Fichtner, indicating that he almost always steals the show in any movie he's in. I know he did when he played Scarecrow in 'Batman Begins.' The one role that really surprised me was Alex Pettyfer as the leader of a mob squad called the "Minutemen," who at the beginning of the film is trying to get as much time as he can get his wrist (literally) on. Pettyfer is the same guy who was in the average 2011 flicks 'Beastly' and 'I Am Number Four,' as well as the fun but unknown 'Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker.' It turns out that when he's using his native Australian accent rather than a cheap American accent, Pettyfer can really be a good actor. He and Cillian Murphy to me make the film, with Timberlake coming in a distant third or fourth. Now, let's get onto the baddies of the flick.

Amanda Seyfried was good in 'Mamma Mia!,' and I heard she was great (and naked) in 'Chloe,' so I had hopes that she would be good. Unfortunately, what Seyfried executes in this film is the clichéd rich chick who wants to break free of her rich dad's clutches and when she does, she doesn't like it. I honestly think that the reason why Seyfried was cast for the role was to A.) attract men, B.) shoot a gun, and C.) get into a bra and make teen boys feel happy somewhere. Seyfried is a good actress when she puts her mind to it, but she just was bad in this movie. Then there's this actor who I've never heard of named Vincent Kartheiser who is the end all be all Razzie award winning actor of the year. There are planks next to a shed that my neighbor is building, and their acting could not have been as wooden or hollow as Kartheiser's acting. I've never seen him in anything, and his face looks pretty new to Hollywood, but he makes actors in a crappy spoof movie look like decent movie players. He was the worst, and that's that. The film also delivers small roles with Johnny Galecki and Olivia Wilde, who serve absolutely no purpose to the film but are decent actors. Why does Hollywood have to limit the good and 'Big Bang' actors in big budget A-star flicks?

The editing of the film is quite poor throughout. After (SPOILER!) Olivia Wilde dies from her time running out and Timberlake is sobbing his fake cries out, (END SPOILER!) he just goes on into the rich time zone with his new amount of time with no reaction to what happened 10 seconds later. What the hell is with that? You see fellow audience members, this is what happens when Fox releases a movie that's not as big as 'X-Men' or 'Planet of the Apes.' I blame Fox for their crappy movies because almost all of their movies either leaves out the real plot of the film, succeeded in choppy editing, or combining both elements to make a crappy movie. This film only did the second element, but the second element decreased from what could have been a solid sci-fi action flick. Andrew Niccol is a good screenwriter, having written 'The Truman Show' and 'The Terminal.' (I guess a "The" at the beginning of a title makes everything better) However his directing techniques are not as good. This sci-fi thriller turned into a sappy romantic thriller almost instantaneously, and who really wants to see that when what people came to see here was an awesome action movie set in the future. I still give Niccol props for coming up with one of the coolest metaphors to everyday life in recent history. Not many people have the creative mind of Niccol, and that should get some street credit in Hollywood.

This would be a great movie to see a director's cut for, because I could tell that Fox cut out important plot points in order to get Timberlake and Seyfried either into the next do or die situation or just running from nothing. A prime example of a 2011 film that would have been good if it wasn't chopped down originally was 'Sucker Punch.' The Zack Snyder movie was edited down to a PG-13 rating in order to get younger audiences into this nerd-tastic movie. Then for the Blu-Ray release Snyder released an R rated extended cut that put pieces of the storyline back together, hence a better movie. 'In Time' had a good movie inside of it, but the makers of the movie just couldn't get that greatness out. It's still amazing how such a cool premise and such a good cast could end up being in a mediocre movie. It's not bad as many things that have come out this year, but it is now on the now huge list of 2011's biggest disappointments. I don't regret spending two hours of my life sitting through this movie, but those two hours of my time could have been used in a better movie. The clocks ticking people, so are you going to see this movie or not?






PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:


Immortals
 The Sitter
 Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
 The Grey
 Contraband
 This Means War

FESTIVAL REVIEW: Anonymous

MOVIE
Anonymous

CAST
Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 28, 2011

DIRECTOR
Roland Emmerich

STUDIO
Columbia Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 9 minutes





STARS
***1/2












REVIEW:


Was he, or was he not? That, is the question asked in Roland Emmerich's (yes, the guy who directed 'Independence Day' and '2012') latest film 'Anonymous.' 'Anonymous' is about a possibly true past where William Shakespeare might not have been the author of his poems and plays. The true author, according to historians and the film itself, might have been Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Unlike today, government officials writing plays and poems was considered a "sin" and "works of the devil" by even higher officials like Queen Elizabeth I and those snooty men persuading Queen Elizabeth to their side. Of everything coming out during Oscar season, this may be the most controversial film to come out because of the context of the story. But believe it or not, 'Anonymous' isn't exactly about the whole "Is Shakespeare a fraud?" story. The film really tells the tale of the scrambled lifetime of de Vere, which is filled with scandal, affairs, and of course, poems. The Shakespeare aspect of the film is more of a subplot rather than the main focus, mostly because the film shifts throughout time and characters at a somewhat confusing rate, which is one of the many reasons why I enjoyed 'Anonymous.' The movie is not for the average moviegoer, unless the average moviegoer can follow what time periods you're in at certain points. 'Anonymous' is a powerful, epic drama that is the perfect thinking film for a group of cinephiles, yet can be slow and confusing at certain points.

The movie opens with a man telling the story of the film on a stage in front of a big audience. We then transition into an event in the past, where we then go even further back in time throughout the movie. When we first visit these points in time, a title card comes up that say "five years earlier" or something like that. After that first moment into the certain points in time, we, the audience, is supposed to recognize characters at certain ages when we jump back to those times throughout the movie. This can be considered confusing by many upon a first viewing. Even people told me after the screening that it felt very confusing at parts. Let me put it to you this way: if you could follow exactly what happened in such recent films like 'Inception' and 'The Tree of Life,' then you may be able to follow along in 'Anonymous.' I personally felt that this added to the movie, because even though it didn't quite pin point what time you’re in at a certain moment, it still shows a troublesome and sickening past that belonged to the Earl of Oxford, which helps you feel for the guy when Shakespeare is getting the credit that the Earl is so deserving of. The emotional aspect might get drained out because of the confusing editing of the film, but nonetheless the emotion will get into some audience goers.

Got to love the British for being so damn talented, right? In fact, the entire cast I believe (including that narrator dude on a modern stage at the beginning of the trailer) is in fact British. Included in the cast is Rhys Ifans (Adrian from 'Little Nicky') , Oscar winner Vanessa Redgrave, and David Thewlis (Professor Lupin from 'Harry Potter'). Everyone in this film is fantastic, Ifans and Redgrave especially deserving of award nominations. It is hard to pick who exactly are the lead actors and actresses, because of the constant flashbacks and cuts to different characters throughout the film. I'd say that this is more of an ensemble cast film revolved around one of the most controversial subject matters in history. Possibly the best and sliest character of the film is in fact Will Shakespeare.

The movie depicts Shakespeare as being a womanizer, a drunk, and a bit of an ass. The guy who played him, Rafe Spell, gives off a bit of a Heath Ledger persona, which I found to be an added bonus to the character. Plus, Spell actually looks a bit like Ledger if you put two pictures of them together. Of course, there are those obnoxious Brits who say that plays and poems are "works of the devil" and such. The snooty characters in those shoes, while menacing, are a bit annoying and act like "creepers" for most of the movie. This is not a joke, mainly because there is this one guy, who happens to be the son of David Thewlis' ass of a character, is just coming into the room looking like he has a Hunch, Ba-dum chi, trying to look like a combination of a Hunchback and Crispin Glover in 'Alice in Wonderland.' Other than the creepers being good yet annoying, the cast is quite excellent.

Director Roland Emmerich made the wisest decision of his career with 'Anonymous.' He has gone from making visually astounding but incredibly stupid disaster films to a real work of art. Sure this film may not do as well financially, especially due to its artsy yet epic feel, but it is a good time nevertheless. The performances are excellent, the script (written by John Orloff) is well written/smart, and Emmerich's wide scope fits well into what could have been a boring drama about the Shakespeare conspiracy. There was only one other conspiracy movie to come out this year, and that was Robert Redford's 'The Conspirator,' and that was about whether Mary Surrat was guilty or not about participating in the Lincoln assassination. Out of those two, this is clearly the better one, and more seductive one.

Just like Queen Elizabeth with the Earl of Oxford, this movie will lure you in and take everything you have, while you get a sense of pleasure about it. 'Anonymous' may be hard to find this fall, but it's something that you won't regret seeing after leaving the auditorium. This is the perfect movie to see with your friends and discuss your views on Shakespeare after leaving. I believe the only other film to do that this year was 'The Help,' and that was to see what people thought of the film in terms of the book. Mr. Emmerich, I salute you, because despite not having many films outside of disaster flicks to have on your resume, 'Anonymous' is your masterpiece, and it should be seen by anyone looking to learn something and get confused unless you have a focused mind and can keep track of what time period you're in at a certain moment.

REVIEW: The Three Musketeers 3D

MOVIE
The Three Musketeers

CAST
Logan Lerman, Milla Jovovich

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 21, 2011

DIRECTOR
Paul W.S. Anderson

STUDIO
Summit Entertainment

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 51 minutes






STARS
**1/2











REVIEW:

Rum, swearing, swords, and chicks. The latest adaptation of the classic 'Three Musketeers' story has all of that, plus a huge pile of corniness plopped on like stuffing at a school luncheon. I personally wasn't looking entirely forward to seeing 'The Three Musketeers,' mainly because I didn't think it looked very interesting. Plus from the trailers you saw shades of wooden acting, tons of CGI, useless 3D, pointless romances, etc. However when the credits started rolling, I metaphorically stared at myself and realized that all the things in the trailer that ticked me off were actually all of the reasons why I enjoyed the movie. Sure it may be the stupidest thing to come out all year, but I just sat back and had a fun time. I doubt that many adults will flock to the theater and see this, because I know right now that 60-80% of regular adults will not like this film. For example, my dad hated 'The Green Hornet' (ironically also with Christolph Waltz who plays a bad guy in this movie) when he took a few friends of mine, myself, and my family to see it. I enjoyed that film for its utter stupidity, and that's exactly why I liked this movie. Young boys will love it, and a select group of audience members will enjoy it. The movie is supposed to be subpar, so why not just go in and just enjoy yourself. Sure it maybe the dumbest two hours you spend in a theater this year, but all you have to do is sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. It's nothing near perfection, but 'The Three Musketeers' is a stupid, pointless, yet fun time at the movies, as long as 2D is your only option.


SYNOPSIS: (Courtesy of Fandango.com)
D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) leaves his home in rural France to fulfill his ambition of becoming one of the king's elite guardsmen, the Musketeers. In Paris he meets Athos (Matthew MacFadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) -- three of the king's finest swordsmen, who have been laid low by Milady De Winter's (Milla Jovovich) betrayal. D'Artagnan rallies his new friends to foil Cardinal Richelieu's (Christoph Waltz) plot to overthrow the monarchy and crown himself king of France

I honestly think that director Paul W.S. Anderson of the 'Resident Evil' franchise really wanted to make this movie as crappy as possible. One of the ways that the movie tries to be bad is the way the script is written. I've never read the original 'Three Musketeers' stories before or saw any of the movies, (other than a Mickey Mouse version several years back) so I had no previous experience with the famous tale. However I can say that they made this movie way to modern for fans of the original tale. The only time you ever believe you’re in the olden times is during the exterior shots and this one scene at the beginning of the film involving the young Musketeer D'Artagnan training with his father. Other than that, the film never feels like an old tale reinvented. It's more like a high tech, potty mouthed, modern version of 'The Three Musketeers.' You have flying ships for crying out loud, plus words like s**t and a** used frequently by The Musketeers and the people around them. I highly doubt that the generation with "Where are thou, Romeo?" used modern day language. It's not just the modern language and the obscene sci fi/modern elements that make this movie stupid, it's also because of the predictable plot points that even an infant could figure out. I just spent an entire paragraph writing about the script, but that's not even the worst thing about the movie: the acting is.

The "all-star" cast of this movie includes Logan Lerman of the 'Percy Jackson' movie, Academy Award winning actor (Nazi in 'Inglorious Bastards') Christolph Waltz, and Orlando Bloom of 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and 'Lord of the Rings.' Of all of the actors in this film, my favorite ones were Orlando Bloom and Christolph Waltz. Sure they were villains, but to me they were the most interesting characters of the film, though it isn't exactly saying much. They were still pretty bad overall, but they had more substance than the other actors did. Logan Lerman is supposed to be the character we look up to and love, which apparently the audience at my screening did. It still doesn't change the fact that his acting was as wooden as a log cabin. Don't worry Lerman fans; he's not the worst part of this movie. Unfortunately gentleman, Milla Jovovich is the worst thing in this movie.

The only time I've ever seen her in a movie was the 2001 comedy 'Zoolander,' and she could really kick ass in that film. Come to today, over a decade later, and she's stuck in movies directed by her husband, Paul W.S. Anderson, which to me is very unfortunate. This character wasn't even relevant to the story, she just seemed to be there for killing people in slow-mo fashion, making out with bearded men, and saying the dumbest catchphrase lines the world has ever heard. The actress is talented, I can say, but she really needs to stop doing 'Resident Evil' movies and get on with a more interesting career. The rest of the cast, including the title characters, are pretty bad, but they can be funny at the right times and kick some ass during the battle sequences.

So is 'The Three Musketeers' a great movie? No. Is it a bad movie? Yes and no. What I mean by that is, this movie has the potential of being the next 'Plan 9 from Outer Space,' meaning it's so bad you just go along for the ride and enjoy yourselves. I went in believing that this movie was going to suck beyond belief. I even was planning on calling the film "a tour-de-fart" if I hated the film so much. Unfortunately I can't use that creative line on this film, because this movie didn't suck. I mean, it did, but I enjoyed the awful factors of the film. The acting is wooden, the script is awful and predictable, and the 3D is cool but useless. I will however give the film credit for keeping the audience focused and in a fun mood with its creative plan in the end and the cool action scenes. Kids will enjoy it, but parents will be a mixed bag. I give you parents two options: either take your kids to an early morning 2D matinee show, or just rent the Charlie Sheen version and watch it at home. I had fun with this movie, and that's where I'm going to leave it. 'The Three Musketeers' is all cheese, yet very fun overall.

REVIEW: The Big Year

MOVIE
The Big Year

CAST
Jack Black, Steve Martin,
Owen Wilson

RATING
PG

RELEASE
October 14, 2011

DIRECTOR
David Frankel

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 40 minutes





STARS
**









REVIEW:

Jack Black, Steve Martin, and Owen Wilson, also known as three of Hollywood’s funniest actors, are in a movie about bird watching, which also happens to come from the director of 'Marley & Me.' From that alone, I was instantly sold. However the trailer for the film came out a mere five weeks ago, and it was one of the worst trailers that I've seen all year, sitting right next to the 'Dream House' trailer. What you may think is a movie about three guys trying to pull off a "bucket list" type deal is actually about three guys trying to see the most birds in one year for the sake of competition. A dumb premise, but we just have to live with it, right? Well unfortunately I couldn't. It may have a nice cast and an interesting plot about birds, but I just couldn't get myself into liking 'The Big Year.' What could have been a hilarious and heartwarming comedy was a rushed, boring, and kind of lame movie with the type of sweetness that's being forced onto you. The same thing was done back in June with 'Mr. Popper's Penguins,' and we all know how that turned out. A bit of irony from Fox, who released both 'Popper' and 'Big Year,' because it seems that the only time a movie released by Fox is actually good is when the studio lets the director edit the movie and trailers rather than doing it themselves. Watch the trailer for this movie if you don't believe me. The film is edited poorly, jumping through many months at some points just for the sake of getting this movie under two hours. Almost everything in this movie was flawed with touch, which made what could have been a fun time a huge disappointment. Overall, 'The Big Year' is a big disappointment for me.


The cast is fine for what they are, but I wished that there characters could have been more slapstick and comedic than mellow and sweet. Owen Wilson plays the exact same character he played in last year's 'How Do You Know.' In case you haven't seen that movie, here's exactly what the two characters are: a self-centered, narcissistic person with an ugly obsession. Wilson is a guy who will stop at nothing to keep his worldwide birding record intact, even if that means missing a few days needed with his wife. This character to me was very annoying, with his every move so predictable that there was no surprise with him at all. Jack Black and Steve Martin play two guys who soon become friends throughout the year. While these guys had a nice chemistry together, the only comedy that they could rely on most of the time was them getting hit by something, falling over in the aftermath. We also get one or two fat jokes that make you just say "ugh" while in your seat. The cast is fine, but they could have been developed so much more. The same thing goes for the supporting cast members, including Rashida Jones and Jim "Sheldon Cooper" Parsons. These characters were undeveloped and served very little purpose for the film itself, plus having about 5-20 minutes of screen time at an average. I was disappointed that Parsons didn't have a very big part, because he is hilarious on 'The Big Bang Theory.' He is just one of those characters that serves no purpose to the film itself and is just, well, there. Quite a disappointed 'Big Bang' fan here.

Have you ever put too much sugar into your cup of tea, making it so sweet you'll want to throw it away almost immediately? That is exactly what 'The Big Year;' a comedy that's too sweet for my appetite. Sure it may have some average acting from its three main leads and some sweet moments between them, but the comedy of the film is scattered throughout the movie so far that I was wondering when something funny would happen. David Frankel directed 2008's surprise hit 'Marley & Me,' and that was the perfect example of a sweet dramady, so it is sad when Frankel can jump from 'Marley' to a bird watching movie. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but I couldn't get myself around all of the missing comedy and predictable plot points. I imagine that there will be many people who will buy into the sweetness of the film, but I was just not sucking the sugary plot up. If you have the undying urge to see this movie, then I'd suggest a rental at best. There is no purpose of paying $10 a ticket to see this movie, where you can see it for a dollar in about 5-6 months. I wish 'The Big Year' was one of the year's best films, but unfortunately it isn't. 'The Big Year' disappoints in many ways, which is very sad because of its awesome cast. I would have rather sat in a field watching birds for three hours then seeing this movie again. I'm sorry Hollywood, but 'The Big Year' is not very good.








PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Johnny English Reborn


Jack and Jill


Happy Feet Two


We Bought A Zoo


The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel


This Means War

REVIEW: Footloose (2011 Remake)

MOVIE

Footloose

CAST
Kenny Wormald, Julianne Hough

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 14, 2011

DIRECTOR
Craig Brewer

STUDIO(S)
Paramount Pictures,
MTV Films

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 53 minutes






STARS
****









REVIEW:

Remakes are a very tough grab in Hollywood, but they are very easy to sell to the general audiences.  Whether they are campy 80s remakes or remakes of bad but fun movies, it's almost as if Hollywood is trying to give the kids from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and soon 90s kids a sense of deja vu.  Let's face it, remakes will never go away, but sometimes there is that one, that special one that turns out to be something quite exceptional.  Ladies and gentlemen, that is the case with 'Footloose,' the remake of the 1980s Kevin Bacon classic.  What could have been just another dumb remake for teens was a well made, somewhat intense movie with incredible dancing and some solid acting from lead actors Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough, toe tapping remakes of classic 'Footloose' songs, and high energy dance moves that could be considered better than any featured in the 'Step Up' movies. 

In case you have no idea what the story of 'Footloose' is, it's very simple: A few years prior to when the movie begins, five teens from a small Midwestern town of Bomont were killed in a car crash coming home from a dance.  Because of this, public dancing is a violation of the law there.  Ren McCormick (Wormald), a Boston boy who's recently lost both parents moves to Bomont to live with his aunt and uncle.  His introduction to Bomont?  Getting issued a ticket for driving with the radio blasting rock & roll.  Shocked and angered, McCormick goes on a mission to abolish this unnecessary law and mobilize the kids in town to stand up for what they believe in.

I have only seen half of the original 'Footloose,' so I can't exactly make the shot for shot comparison.  However from what I've seen and been told by many close to me, this movie is almost exactly like the original.  The only main difference between the two is the time that each take place in, which means different dancing moves and different songs, or the same song but set to the modern vibe.  The tone of this film is sexy, funny, and rough, which is exactly what it needs to be.  The drama of the film comes from the teens in Bomont who want to rebel in any way possible, even if that means getting in trouble with their parents or even with the law.  I like how the parents of Bomont are so mournful that they can't let go of the tragedy that was.  Sure they go a bit extreme on it in terms of the law, but it fit perfectly into this teen flick.  The movie is so wonderful because not only does it provide fun entertainment for the teen factor, but it also teaches the viewers that it's okay to hold onto tragedies, but you have to let go of them soon. 

The casting in this movie could not have been more pitch perfect. Newcomer Kenny Wormald is fantastic as Ren. His portrayal of the lonely bad boy who has a thing for the preacher's daughter was flawless. No, it's nothing Award-worthy, aside from an MTV movie award, but his role is great, and I can't wait to see how far Wormald goes in Hollywood. Another great performance comes from Julianne Hough, of  "Dancing With The Stars" fame. She has all the characteristics of turning a teen guy on. She has the pop, the flare, the mood, and especially the sexy heat. It's sad when people automatically dismiss hot young actresses as bad ones, because this girl can seriously act! Hough is fantastic playing what I like to call "the town tart." She is skanky, fierce, and just downright scared out of her mind.  Plus, as an added bonus, her hot pants couldn't get any shorter. See America, there's something for everyone in this movie.

There are two big adult names in supporting roles: Dennis Quaid, who is great as the town preacher, and Andie McDowell as his wife.  In this film, Quaid's acting has stepped up to the top, giving a very intense, emotional performance, and it may possibly be his best performance on film.  I doubt nominations will be up his alley, but Quaid owns this role, and he has never been better.  As for McDowell, it was nice to see her in a movie again.  She plays the peacemaker  between her husband and daughter, and does so in a very subtle but moving way, so it adds a sense of heart to the dying love between her somewhat crazy husband and tramp of a daughter.  The only other film I have seen her in is the classic Bill Murray comedy 'Groundhog Day,' which is a very moving comedy.  She's not terrible, and she's not excellent, but this is the kind of movie that she most definitely needed.  A supporting cast as fantastic as the main leads?  How can you pass that up?

"Footloose" is that rare remake that can stand alone as its own movie.  Sure there are the expected clichés put in throughout, and the dialogue can sometimes be very cheesy.  However that's expected from the remake of one of the cheesiest 80s movie ever made.  The leads were fantastic, the story was cool yet predictable, and the dancing will make you jealous as hell!  If there is anything coming out in October that I can ensure you is a well deserved "must see film," then get you ass' to the movie theater on October 14 and get ready cut loose.  So far this year, I have not seen a single movie twice in theaters.  I may possibly break that rule with 'Footloose.'  Don't worry, I'll see the entire original film and write a review about it.  But for now, enjoy the sleek and fun teen movie with humor, heart, and drama to appeal to many.  Let's Dance!