‘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

Tobey Maguire is known to most people as Spider-Man in the eponynomous trilogy, but in ‘Brothers’ he gives a fantastic performance, one worthy of an Oscar nomination. He plays a U.S. marine, Sam Camill, who is deployed into Afghanistan, leaving behind his wife Grace, daughters, and ex-con brother, Tommy. Sam’s helicopter crashes and is presumed dead by his family. Trying to move on, Tommy cares for the children and Grace. But then Sam returns, unexpectedly. The family is happy, reunited. But Sam has seen and done things that both haunt him and the audience, and it takes a toll on his mental health, personality, and family.

Tobey Maguire is fantastic, exhibiting range that he’s never shown as an factor. In the middle of the film, he is captured by the Taliban, and watching his transformation from all-American family man to paranoid, profane psycho is heart-breaking. One minute he’s cuddling and joking with his daughters, the next he’s smashing dishes with a crowbar. Maguire is, simply put, terrifying in this role. Natalie Portman as his suffering wife is great as well. Jake Gyllenhall’s part doesn’t really require much range as an actor, but he turns in a strong performance. It’s fairly impressive how they casted three big-name actors, yet all three are convincing as a Mid-western family.

A problem with the film is that it presents no clear purpose. It displays quite clearly that war can rip apart families even without someone being killed, but it never brings anything new to the table in terms of ideas. The filmmakers tried (and succeeded) to bring an interesting story and narrative to the screeen, but in a film like this there tends to be some sort of point and/or moral. Maybe that’s for the best, seeing as most war films can get bogged down by these.

Overall, ‘Brothers’ is an excellent film. All three lead performances are excellent, particularly Tobey Maguire, and the script is both well-paced and written. The fact that it somewhat lacks a purpose is counter-balanced by its fascinating look at a man’s inability to reciprocate any emotion. A-

So it's....three people in the woods. And over 25 million people have gone to see it.

The popularity of the ‘Twilight’ franchise isn’t particularly surprising. After all, week after week new action movies pile into movie theaters, and ‘Twilight’ just so happens to be an old-fashioned romance with good-looking characters (Edward and Bella for those of you that don’t know). It features every girl’s dream man. Simply put, it fulfills peoples’ desires for an old-fashioned romance.

The plot behind this franchise: Edward is a 109-year-old vampire, who happens to look like a 17-year old teenager. Bella is, in fact, 17. The two meet and fall in love. This is basically all that happened in the first film, “Twilight”. In this one, “New Moon”, Edward has to leave Bella forever, putting her into a deep depression. However, her friend Jacob comforts her while Edward is away, and she realizes that Jacob is a werewolf. Does Bella have any friends that are, you know, human? (It’s annoying how casual she is about keeping foreign company.)

The ‘Twilight’ series is, in my opinion, a phase that will be forgotten about in a matter of years. The source material, the insanely popular books are completely overwritten. Some direct quotes from them include, “Look after my heart, I’ve left it with you.” and “I dream of being with you forever.” But the film tends to eschew all the bad dialogue, but they are pointless: Because the films never display why exactly Edward and Bella are so deeply in love, (and the plot depends on their bond), the films lose their purpose. Rather than tell a story, the movies are basically re-enactments of parts of the book, strung together to form a “plot”.

Of course, fans of the book will thoroughly enjoy the film. It stays true to the source material, has the same good-looking actors, and sets itself up perfectly for the next installment, Eclipse. (due out next June) It has everything the fans demand of it. But take away the screaming fans, take away the popular books, take away the teams Edward & Jacob, take away all the hype that surrounds this movie, and what do we have? A film with mediocre acting, a terrible script, and no personality.

Observe the cool poster. Skip the terrible film.

I walked out of ’2012′ confused, bored, and practically numbed to the mindless destruction. Some end-of-the-world movies blow up a skyscraper and can call itself an epic. ’2012′ transforms Yellowstone into a volcano, demolishes Los Angeles within 10 minutes and crushes the Vatican, all in the first half of the film. ’2012′ is three hours long, and for each hour has a distinct agenda: The first hour “explains” the science behind the end of the world, the second is, well, the end of the world, and the third hour a (failed) attempt to become a movie with a “message”. Needless to say, the film tries to be intelligent by presenting some (admittedly) interesting moral dillemas, and yet it wants to be dumb enough for a 7-year old to understand it.

John Cusack stars as Jackson Curtis, a failed novelist who is camping with his family. Due to a massive solar flare, the end of the world is impending and Jackson will do whatever it takes to survive. A sub-plot involves the White House, and its efforts to preserve humanity. (I know the film was made in America, but you’d think a country other than us might bother preserving their species)

I am of two minds of the destruction on display in ’2012′. On one hand, it is easily some of the best special effects ever made. Honestly, I have never seen such realistic, well-done visual effects. (Well, the scenario is ridiculous but the effects look real) How can you not admire the talent that went into making it?

And then again, there’s the senseless-ness with which the destruction is displayed. In one scene, the main characters charter a plane to fly out of a (sinking) Los Angeles. When they’re flying away, two large skyscrapers collide into each other and their plane ducks under the collision. Have the people who made this movie lost their minds? The main characters show seemingly no remorse that basically everyone they’ve ever known is dead. Showing millions of men, women, and children dying just for a “cool explosion” is stupid, immature, and goes above and beyond tasteless.

Not to mention the fact that ’2012′ is ridiculously boring. Okay, Woody Harrelson being pummelled by a large volcanic eruption looks incredible once. But the explosions lose their “cool” factor after the first three. And there’s way more than three in this film. You feel numbed to all the death in the movie, but when you leave you just realize how tasteless it all was.

’2012′ is about as over-the-top and corny as you can get. It is essentially one big contradication: It exploits the death of billions for the sake of a cool action sequence, and yet tries to present a message of “hope”, and most laughably, it tries to present a message.

Of course, people will see this film. The director, Roland Emmerich (director of ‘Independence Day’ and ‘Day After Tomorrow’) cannot make a good movie, but he makes big, stupid, crowd-pleasing ones.
’2012′ is stupid, pointless, poorly acted, and yet masterfully executed in terms of production and visual effects. A contender for the worst of the year.

Vince Vaughn, Jon Favreau, and Jason Bateman star in ‘Couples Retreat’, a film that “teaches us” that if your marriage is headed for trouble, go to a beautiful resort and argue alot. Then you’ll magically realize, as if you were in a movie, that you love each other! ‘Couples Retreat’ obviously doesn’t have much of a plot (or point) to it, often times in the movie it feels like entire scenes were constructed and put in the movie just for one joke. Example: As a part of one of the “exercises”, the couples must strip to their underwear and stare at each other. But one guy doesn’t have underwear! Oh, how funny yet subtle!

The set-up for the film is that 4 couples, all of them close friends (except for one 20-year old woman), each with their own assorted problems, all go together to a beautiful resort, to bond. What they don’t realize is that they must attend therapy as couples, and the therapy entails some weird stuff. (i.e., swim with sharks)

It’s annoying just how uncreative the film is. Don’t know how to make an audience laugh? Bring in a guy with a funny accent and a Speedo, that’ll make us all laugh! Running out of ideas? Have a Guitar Hero duel! (product placement at its very worst) Occasionally in the film there are scenes of the couples doing yoga with an instructor, which is supposed to make us laugh. Wow, a man is showing another man how to do yoga, how awkward and socially unacceptable! The film reduces a man in a Speedo to a constant punchline. I’m pretty shocked this got a PG-13, there’s some very R-rated jokes here.

There is a bit to enjoy in “Couples Retreat”. Vince Vaughn & Jon Favreau have good chemistry together, something they’ve demonstrated in “Swingers” and even the terrible “Four Christmases”. The dialogue with Vince Vaughn’s children is hilarious, and a running joke with a toilet is crude and stupid, but hilarious. ‘Couples Retreat’ is directed by Peter Billingsley, young Ralphie from the classic “A Christmas Story”. It kind of sucks to say that this movie lacks personality, given the talent at hand.

Basically, although there’s some funny bits in “Couples Retreat”, it’s mostly stupid and uninspired. D

Zombie movies rock.

Starting a review with an immature statement like that may just be because of my young age, or because of how much fun ‘Zombieland’ is. Consider how many memorable moments they pack into 75 minutes. ‘Zombieland’ is a lot of fun, just think of it as a buddy comedy with two guys that couldn’t be more different, but the catch is that they’re dodging flesh-eating, organ-vomiting zombies. That’s basically all that ‘Zombieland’ is, although they eventually team up with a woman and her young sister and make way to Los Angeles.

Before I say anything else, I must tell you that ‘Zombieland’ has one of the best cameos ever. EVER. It’s not so much the celebrity that makes it funny (although he is hilarious), but the circumstances of it and what happens to him. Before your friend ruins it for you, you have to see it for yourself.

Woody Harrelson, as a 40-something, shotgun-toting redneck and Jesse Eisenberg as a neurotic teenager form an unlikely pair, that team up in a world over-run by – you guessed it, zombies. Eisenberg, as the film progresses, presents us rules by which to survive – i.e., Check the back seat of a car, don’t be a hero, etc. However, it’s not scary at all – somewhat surprising given the title. It focuses on action, and has a pretty awesome ending where the characters use rides in a theme park as weapons.

‘Zombieland’ is a memorable comedy packed with action, over-the-top gore, and an awesome cameo. It’s not life-changing, but is stupid entertainment at it’s finest. B+