There is no genre in the medium of film as cliched, as boring, or as insipid as the romantic comedy. In theory, blending the element of love with humor should be a much more interesting, enlightening experience than what modern audiences are generally being offered these days. But charmless, humorless, generally boring scripts are often the force that drags down the genre. The latest romantic comedy to hit theaters, “Valentines Day”, offers a lot in terms of star power, but very little in terms of interesting characters, a decent story, or even entertainment: Believe it or not, “Valentines Day” is really boring.

The film covers about 18 hours on Valentines Day in Los Angeles, in an apparently alternate universe where the romantic holiday actually holds meaning in peoples’ lives. Ashton Kutcher, Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Julia Roberts, Bradley Cooper, Anne Hathaway, Jamie Foxx, Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner are amongst the actors that show up in this film, all of which have small parts that if removed from the film, would make no difference to the plot. There aren’t any interesting plot developments throughout all 120 minutes of the film, which drag on unlike any other film I’ve ever seen. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a blatant attempt to make money.

One aspect of “Valentines Day” that REALLY, really bugged me: The film is really, really repetitive. Sure, there’s different variations of love in the film, but its basically 120 minutes of uninteresting, good-looking people either in love or looking for love. And there aren’t any interesting stories in the entire bunch, aside from a really poignant, sweet bit with Bradley Cooper and Julia Roberts.

The film doesn’t have a story, it has a series of events that almost completely fail at any emotional resonance. I have no other way to equate this: “Valentines Day” sucks.

Nicholas Sparks makes teenage girls cry for a living: Look no further than the films inspired by his books, ‘The Notebook’ and ‘Walk to Remember’ for shameless tearjerkers. The latest film based on one of his novels, ‘Dear John’, pulls some fairly decent performances out of its young lead actors. That said, its a dull, repetitive offering that serves more as a list of things that happen, rather than an interesting, coherent plot.

The male lead, Channing Tatum isn’t a particularly skilled actor, although he has a very devoted fan-base amongst teenage girls. He simply mumbles his lines, in various tones according to what the scene demands. Amanda Seyfried, the female lead, is far better an actress, but her talent is essentially squandered here: What her role demands is as one-note as Tatum’s. Richard Jenkins so good in 2008′s ‘The Visitor’, is wasted here as the idiosyncratic father of John. The film is essentially a cycle of the same two characters meeting and leaving each other for increasingly melodramatic reasons.

John and Savannah meet on a West Virginia beach in 2001, and almost immediately fall in love. However, he’s a Special Forces soldier, and she’s in college, so soon they part ways. They correspond with letters over the years, only being together briefly.

The film has very little of an actual storyline, and never really has any dramatic closure. Honestly, it’s not so much an attempt at film-making as an attempt to manipulate one’s feelings. The film annoyingly eschews realism to make everything somehow positive. Cancer? Made into an inspirational plot point. 9/11? An excuse to keep the characters apart, but Channing Tatum is glad to re-enlist in the army.

‘Dear John’ is a really mediocre attempt to re-capture the magic of past romantic hits like ‘The Notebook’. It’s emotionally manipulative, the dialogue in this film frankly sucks, and although the performances aren’t terrible, there’s really nothing so interesting about them to as to deduce exactly why they are so deeply in love. There’s little reason to emotionally or financially invest in this mess.

Hollywood has had a slight obsession with the apocalypse in recent months, with ‘Zombieland’, ’2012′, ‘Knowing’, and ‘The Road’. Denzel Washington stars in the thriller ‘The Book of Eli’. In it, he portrays Eli, a man who walks across a post-apocalyptic America with only cannibals, thieves, and beggars left. He carries the last surviving copy of the Bible, and has been walking across the country for the last 30 years, trying to find a suitable sanctuary for it. Being the sole protector of it, he is willing to kill anyone who tries to harm him.

The film is surprisingly dull in moments, a series of well-shot action sequences pierced by long conversation about obvious plot points. I found it surprising how overtly spiritual the film was, and it simply got preachy in several scenes. Of course, the great irony of the film is that in one moment there’s a very clear religious undertone the filmmakers are attempting to deliver, and in the next severed limbs flying everywhere.

The cinematography, however, is gorgeous. The film adapts a unique color palette of over-saturated grey and green, and it looks gorgeous. Another up-side in this film is by far the acting: This is hardly a showcase role for Denzel Washington, but he manages to bring a complexity to the role of Eli that is both stylish and somewhat believable, all whilst shooting henchmen in the face. Gary Oldman plays Carnegie, a literary nut aware of Eli’s possession, willing to kill him to retrieve it. Oldman is great here. He’s in less scenes than the trailers would indicate, but with what he’s given he does well.

Mila Kunis as Carnegie’s daughter, Solara, is actually fairly good. Kunis, aside from a role in ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’, hasn’t really been in any big-screen movies, and proves herself to be a fairly capable actress here. The film is essentially about the power of religion to do both good and evil. That said, the random and brutal violence in the film just completely outweighs the message.

‘The Book of Eli’ isn’t a bad movie: The acting is really good, it’s gorgeously shot, and its attempts at social commentary don’t completely fail. That said, it’s a fairly repetitive film, with the violence too scarce to satisfy its intended action audience yet too brutal to satisfy its intended Christian audience.

Before ‘Leap Year’, Amy Adams had never been in a bad film. Sure, the parts ‘Julie and Julia’ starring her sucked, but the half with Meryl Streep was exceptional enough to lift it up. Sure ‘Underdog’ was an epic fest of crap, but she technically only voiced a character, and didn’t fully appear in it. But ergo; all good things (and in this case, streaks) must end. ‘Leap Year’ is the first movie of the new decade, and I hope it’s not a good indication of the films to come this year. It’s charmless, humorless, and inept in every possible way. It has no shame in stealing entire scenes from other films (The Proposal, PS I Love You, etc.) It has no shame in depicting Irish folk as either thieves or drunks, and has no shame in painting women as uptight shrews that eschew logic and emotion simply because they are “on a schedule”.

Adams plays Anna, an uptight business-woman-that-worships-her-Blackberry-type-cliche who always needs things according to “plan”. When her surgeon-bland-schmuck-boyfriend goes to Dublin, Anna follows him to propose to him. See, there’s a tradition in Ireland, that allows a woman to propose to a man, so long as it falls on “Leap Day”, February 29. Her flight to Dublin is grounded in Wales, so she hires an easy-going Irish inn-keeper, Declan, to drive her to Dublin. Along the way, he realizes (as is customary for romantic comedies) that she likes the man that’s her polar-opposite – the charming Irish dude!

The film borders on sexism – having an uptight, unlikable, boring woman as a protagonist. The movie doesn’t have characters, but archetypes: The laid-back man, the upper-class woman, the arrogant jerk that the upper-class woman must be romantically involved with. No aspect of the film approaches originality; it somehow manages to make the lively Irish countryside seem dull. I’ve already said this, but allow me to stress it: If there’s an Irishman in the film, he’s a drunk or a thief.

Amy Adams, I ask you: why? Why bother showing your face in a film so insipid? Money, probably. The first film of 2010, and also the worst.

Director Peter Jackson has, in the past several years, basically conquered Hollywood. He’s made some of the highest-grossing films of all time, including an 11-hour fantasy epic. His last 4 films have won a combined total of 20 Academy Awards and over $3 billion. Yet somehow, Peter cannot direct a cohesive story on a family torn apart by tragedy. Not to say that his latest film, ‘The Lovely Bones’, isn’t excellent in several areas, and incredibly moving in some scenes. It just seems like a film divided in two, one half of which is a gritty drama about forgiveness and the other half a spaced-out, candy-colored metaphorical fantasy.

On paper, that sounds like an odd mix, but in context of the plot, it somewhat makes sense. The year is 1973. The Salmon family live a quiet albeit happy life in Pennsylvania, but when young Susie Salmon is murdered and dismembered, that perfect existence is shattered. The film then splits into two narratives: The family trying to find the murderer to justice and ultimately cope with their loss; and Susie watching her family’s plight from a version of heaven known as ‘In Between’.

Oscar-nominated ‘Atonement’ actress Saorise Ronan plays Susie, the protagonist of the film, and she does it beautifully. Her character goes through an incredibly tragic chain of events, oddly the first of which is her death. She’s perfect in this role; displaying the emotional range necessary for such a large part. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as Susie’s grieving parents are merely decent, without any big major emotional scenes, they mostly serve to keep the film emotionally grounded.

There is, however, one actor in this film that isn’t just great, he’s somewhat masterful. Stanley Tucci as Susie’s murderer, George Harvey. On the surface, calm, polite and mannered, but at his core, savage and instinctive, Tucci is perfect in this part. In fact, he’s often the saving grace of the film because it’s really, really messy at times.

Its random alternating between the two narratives makes for an often messy, odd experience. The editing is oddly-paced, rapid in some scenes, then slow and delicate in others. The problem with the film is ultimately that there’s too much stuffed in here. There’s so many sub-plots and nuances here that it’s hard to keep track; the film changes tone and pace seemingly every 10 minutes: Suburban drama; teen romance; fantasy; dark crime film. There’s so much material fighting for attention here; the film just feels messy. Some parts are moving and brilliant, others fall flat on their (metaphorical) face.

Jason Reitman’s new film, ‘Up in the Air’, is hard to categorize. Romantic, intelligent, hilarious, heartbreaking. I think that it’s above all, relevant. The film stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham, a man who travels the country frequently, firing people whose bosses don’t have the guts to say it to their face. He also is very, very close to his goal of obtaining 10 million frequent flyer miles. The screenplay from Sheldon Turner & Reitman is pitch-perfect: Easily moving from cynical to tragic to uplifting, without ever once seeming phony, this is the one to beat for the Best Screenplay Oscar.

Vera Farmiga plays a woman named Alex who shares Bingham’s jet-setting lifestyle. The two ultimately fall for each other, and Farmiga & Clooney’s fantastic chemistry together makes this sub-plot work.

Anna Kendrick plays Natalie, a protege at Bingham’s company, who intends to put a halt to his jet-setting lifestyle, and to begin firing people via tele-conference as opposed to meeting them in person. This development startles Bingham, who takes Natalie onto the road to demonstrate the superiority of his methods.

George Clooney gives his finest performance here, and ‘Twilight’ actress Anna Kendrick has proven herself to be amongst Hollywood’s finest young talents with this film. Directed by Jason Reitman, ‘Up in the Air’ is a film that will likely be remembered for decades to come. It paints a perfect portrait of this chaotic time for our nation, but weaves a fascinating story into it as well. And the ending? Perfect.

‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ has such personality, such boldness, such heart, that it’s somewhat impossible not to love it. Directed by Wes Anderson, who’s done ‘Rushmore’ and ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’, ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ was made with stop-motion, a pain-staking process of making a clay environment and moving it slightly for each frame of film.

Based on Roald Dahl’s childrens book, it’s the story of two con foxes, Mr. & Mrs. Fox, voiced by George Clooney and Meryl Streep. After a near-death experience, they decide to settle down and raise a family. Years later, they’re living underground with an awkward, angry son named Ash (voiced perfectly by Jason Schwartzman). They live near a farm run by three sadistic farmers, Boggis, Bunce & Bean. Mr. Fox decides to plan one final con: To rob the farmers of their produce.

I can’t praise the writing for this film enough. Wes Anderson has always been a master of witty, offbeat dialogue, and he is in top shape here. The visual style is gorgeous. Not one second of the film looks authentic, but every second captures your imagination. The faux world is so incredibly detailed, so ruggedly beautiful. George Clooney and Meryl Streep make great voice actors, lending personality and charm to their respective characters.

‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is really entertaining, extremely well-written, hilarious, and best of all, gorgeous to look at. An animated masterpiece.

‘Invictus’ is the newest film from director Clint Eastwood. In the past 6 years Eastwood has given us not only his finest performances as an actor (Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby) but also directed some of the decades’ best films (Letters From Iwo Jima, Mystic River). ‘Invictus’ is somewhat unique in that it has a very well-known subject, Nelson Mandela, but it’s not a traditional rise-and-fall biopic of Mandela, like other filmmakers would make. Instead, ‘Invictus’ focuses on one of his greatest achievements, uniting the racially-divided nation of South Africa through the game of rugby.

The year is 1995. South Africa is sharply divided into whites and blacks, following the apartheid debacle. Nelson Mandela is released from prison and is elected the President of South Africa. Mandela intends to unite the country, using a nationally-adored activity: rugby. Mandela teams up with the South African rugby captain, Francois Pienaar, to try and win the World Cup and inspire a nation.

Morgan Freeman is fantastic as Mandela. He is warm and charming when the scene calls for it, vulnerable in some, but always commands the screen, and thrilling to watch. Having seen little footage of Mandela himself, I can’t really judge how well Freeman emulates his mannerisms, but Freeman speaks a flawless South African accent here. Matt Damon plays rugby captain Francois Pienaar, and despite all the praise he has received for this role Damon doesn’t really have anything to do. He plays a vital role in the plot, for sure, but the role demands very little of him. He has two modes: “Inspired by Mandela” mode, and “Playing rugby” mode.

The film itself has excellent production values. Cinematography is expertly framed, the script is tight and witty, and the musical score is minimalist, yet unmistakably beautiful. There’s a scene where Pienaar visits Mandela’s jail cell (which is actually used in the film) that is fantastic. The final rugby match itself is tight and tense, although most people probably know the outcome.

‘Invictus’ is a very well-made film, sporting a fantastic performance from Freeman, great cinematography and a great script. The problem with the film lies in that it plays it safe far too often: It consistently portrays the characters as saints, Matt Damon is way under-used, and at its core it’s basically a traditional Cinderella-story sports movie. Not particularly memorable; however very entertaining.

‘Avatar’ is, according to some reports, the most expensive film ever made. Records say the film cost $350 million, and every penny shows on screen. This may be the first film that creates a fictional, but living, breathing, new world that you entirely believe in. Not one moment of the film looks fake.

This is director James Cameron’s first film since 1997’s ‘Titanic’, so expectations are huge. Ignore the somewhat clichéd advertisements for ‘Avatar’: This isn’t just some other action blockbuster; ‘Avatar’ is truly different from any other film you’ve ever seen. It was filmed using motion capture technology, which is basically where you act on a blank stage while computers track your movement and record it. However, the triumph of ‘Avatar’ lies not in the revolutionary way they told the story, but in the fact that the way they told the story never distracts you from the story.

The film is set in 2154 on a nearby planet called Pandora. Earth’s natural resources are being depleted and Pandora has a massive deposit of a special mineral that will solve the crisis. However, a tribe of tall, blue beings called Na’vi is living on top of the deposit. Our military wants the Na’vi off their settlement. To accomplish this, they develop ‘avatars’, where humans control a genetically-engineered Na’vi with their thoughts. (Rather confusing, I know) A paralyzed ex-Marine named Jake Sully takes control of an avatar, and ventures out into the Pandora jungles. Along the way, he falls in love with a Na’vi named Naytiri.

I won’t lie to you – ‘Avatar’ is a flawed film. The general premise is recycled from other films. Dialogue in this film is a very mixed bag: One moment, it may be complex and interesting, other times it’s brief and blunt. The thinly-veiled attempts to provide parallels between Pandora’s crisis and our current energy crisis are somewhat pathetic, and solely drag down the film. However, I thought the story was well-told overall, blending an old-fashioned (and interesting) romance with futuristic science fiction. Sam Worthington as Jake somehow makes the dialogue believable, and believe me there’s a lot of un-plausible lines. Zoe Saldana as the Na’vi woman is excellent, showing just how much emotion motion-capture technology can display.

The film easily has the greatest special effects ever made. It takes skill to create an explosion, but to create an entire fictional world goes above and beyond traditional effects films. The fictional creatures are imaginative, and surprisingly the computer-created Na’vi look stunning, even in close-up camera shots. ‘Avatar’ is stunning any way you see it, but if you see it in 3-D, it’s an incredible experience. The 3-D adds a depth to the film that you can’t get with a traditional screening.

‘Avatar’ is alot of fun. It has some problems with the script and some of the intended undertones, but you’ll be too entertained, too enthralled, and too awe-struck to really care. Easily one of 2009′s best.

‘The Blind Side’ is one of the most conventional, bland sports film ever made. And in a genre as cliched as sports movies, that’s something of an achievement. (Mind you, not a good one) There is absolutely no scene in this film that has not, in some form, been made before. There is no emotion or expression from the characters in this film that have not, in some form, been shown before. It’s based on the true story of Michael Oher, who in 2 years went from homeless, illiterate teenager to college football star. (Oher now plays for the Baltimore Ravens) Oher’s improvement
was greatly aided by a Southern family named the Tuohys, who gave him a room, food, and education.

Although ‘The Blind Side’ is essentially a true (albiet embellished) story, you learn almost nothing about the characters that are in this film. There’s a conservative, Christian woman, LeAnn Tuohy (played by Bullock) who learns nothing, who teaches nothing throughout the whole film. We’re supposed to root for her, basically because she’s Sandra Bullock in a wig. There’s a 17-year old teenager who essentially doesn’t speak the whole film. We’re supposed to root for him, basically because he’s challenged both in his home life and academically. There’s no denying that the story of Michael Oher is inspiring, but the film never really has a scene that demonstrates just what a miracle it was that Oher turned his life around.

Bullock has recieved critical acclaim and a Golden Globe nomination for this role, but in no way deserves it. She’s not exactly bad in the role, but all she does in the film is cheer for Oher and deliver the occassional metaphor relating football to life. Sandra Bullock’s son in this film, S.J., is really annoying. His role is fairly large, too, and the child actor’s delivery of the dialogue never once feels real.

‘The Blind Side’ is definitely a film people will enjoy. It’s certainly an interesting story, one that probably would have been better had the film given the characters more depth, had the dialogue not been so bad, and if the film simply wasn’t so similiar to so many that came before it. D