MosHr

"Parental Guidance" is meant to be a comedy on the generational gap in parenting techniques but Billy Crystal completely steals the movie with his smooth and silky talking. Billy Crystal, acknowledging that he is the attraction of the senior crowd, embodies the fuddled grandpa trying to understand the softness of the suburban life but at the same time vying for his youth. As clichéd as "use your words" has become of modern parenting, Billy Crystal is the one who uses his words expertly and elevates the movie from being another generic family movie.

In regards to the modern methods of parenting techniques, there are two opposites of parenting presented: first, the red haired Russian shrieking "practice, practice, practice" method; and second, the soft version of baseball where no-one given out method intended so that there is no ugly competition and just good clean fun. The first type is deemed to produce uptight children and the second type deemed to produce stuttering, diffident children or children with imaginary friends. So, it is up to the grandparents to come in to the picture and sort this out. The solution of course, you might have guessed, fun in its various forms; feel good but not a real answer or revelation.

Without Billy Crystal, this movie would probably end up like every other movie in the same mold; the shrieking screaming kids running around in a McMansion with busy stressed out parents with one hand managing the kids and with the other hand managing their jobs; the parents desperately in need a change to solve their problems. Throughout the movie, Billy Crystal is relaxed and smooth talking and first provides the calmness to the dizzying hyperactivity of the family and then sparkle with his comedy to take us through the predictable second half.

Overall, it's a generic family movie but elevated by Billy Crystal. However, it's still a movie bogged down by its uninspired family dynamics.

"Jack Reacher" is all about the introduction of Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher; he is presented here as a superman who can out-wit, out-fight, out-run and out-shoot anyone and everyone. While Tom Cruise does a decent job with Reacher, the main problem with the movie is that the overly elaborate plot setup at the beginning can only offer a minuscule payoff at the end. The plot splutters and whittles out to nothing in the end making the whole movie feel anti-climactic and pointless.

The trailers for the movie are misleading. My first impression from the teaser was a Punisher sort of movie. My second impression, from the roars of the muscle car in the trailer, was one that of one of those Nic Cage action movies. It is neither. It's a stuffy cop/crime show movie at first and then a punch out, shoot out and car chase kind of action movie next (though its humble budget only allows for moderately wrecking of three cars with none exploding). Think "Alex Cross" kind of movie.

Jack Reacher is presented here as a sort of GI batman who is great at detective work, combat work and not bad at quick talking either; always there with a heavy punch or a witty comeback. The entire movie, plot and the characters just serve as the canvas to show off Jack Reacher's virtues. As Reacher says, "he has nothing to lose or gain", and so the Reacher we meet at the beginning of the movie is the same Reacher at the end of the movie and so the whole movie feels like one long introduction to the amazing Mr. Reacher. In fact, Reacher is vastly over-developed; things like being off the grid and unable to be contacted, or being an ex-military investigator where his every suspect was a trained killer, are superfluous to the movie plot at hand and just there for the sake of making Reacher look more awesome.

There is a passable low-budget detective action movie underneath all this. This detective story has the feel of an 80s action cop movie mixed in with the style of modern TV crime and legal drama but without any of the Mission Impossible style high budget action sequences. It's a pity the plot can't fully rise up to challenge Jack Reacher which might have made for a good movie. Although, there is engrossing half an hour in the middle of the movie when Reacher is searching for his assailants and the girl Sandy that shows a glimpse of what the movie could have been if the plot had been better.

Overall, "Jack Reacher" doesn't feel like a big action movie; the plot is small and riddled with logic holes and the story is driven by actions because it's the only way for the plot to move forward. But, the charisma of the stars pull this into something watchable. The cynic in me feels like this is a low-budget, low-risk test to see if "Jack Reacher" can be made to a Mission Impossible like franchise rather than a real movie that stands on its own two feet.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" takes us back to middle earth and this trip back is even better than what I remember of it. The scenes and locations are more detailed and nuanced, the characters presented with more depth and subtlety and the action more frenetic and grander. The movie is an amazing technical as well artistic achievement in all aspects and absolutely a must see movie.

"The Hobbit" book is a simpler and shorter story than "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Being stretched out into three movies was expected to make it less epic and more mundane of a movie but that is absolutely not the case. Through sheer skill and artistry of movie storytelling, the plot feels absolutely epic and grand. While perhaps there is less at stake on middle earth than in "Lord of the Rings", there are more dimensions to the characters: doubt, guilt, frailty and a little extra space for humor and wit, which all paints a more colorful story.

At every turn, middle earth brims with overflowing wonder, magic and excitement. The technical wizardry and artistry to create the breath-taking visuals and actions are indescribably amazing and everything is given an extra little more than last time around for us to soak in the intricate details and designs. The dwarf city inside the mountain with its blustering industriousness and craftsmanship, the serene Rivendale, the rickety goblin kingdom all are presented with so much more substance and detail that even though they resemble previous "Lord of the Rings" set-pieces, they feel completely new and refreshing. The technical prowess and skills of the visual effects department have gotten so much better and that indescribable feeling of awe I felt we had when I first experienced "Lord of the Rings" set pieces like Moria and Gondor is still evoked watching these new set pieces. Plus, they have also vastly improved their handling of differences in heights of the characters and the interactions feel more natural and fluid. Everything feels like it has multiple layers and depth: from Bilbo's house and pantry to the dwarf and goblin kingdoms to all the skirmishes and battles. Middle earth as is presented here is as close to the perfect fantasy backdrop as it gets.

The new cast seamlessly blend into the middle earth world. Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and Richard Armitage as Thorin make the characters their own. Freeman's initial bumbling English demeanor and then the growth to an adventurer is skillfully done. Armitage wonderfully projects royalty and authority while still being constrained of being a dwarf. Ian McKellen's return as the wizard Gandalf is a more playful and comedic return while Andy Serkis's Gollum is more vicious and expressive than I remember him to be (this possibly is also due to some animation improvements in Gollum as well). The rest of the dwarf company are too many to keep track of individually but as a group they provide for the expected dwarfian physical humor but also the gravity when needed of a people who have lost their home. This generation of middle earthians are all around as wonderful a group to get to know as the generation from the "Lord of the Rings" movies.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is simply amazing and is one the best movies ever made. With great storytelling, amazing visuals and very skillful acting, the movie grips you in a multiple of levels and never lets go. It is a movie to be seen as soon as humanly possible.

"Not Fade Away" is one of those movies that leaves you with a bad taste after you watch the movie; it's like watching a movie by the resident cool kid in town, straddling the prettiest girl in one hand and on the other hand, going on about how he overcame his meager upbringing, dysfunctional family, disloyal friends to become who he is. The story might be genuine and the tribulations might be authentic but it's just the way it is told that makes it so unlikeable.

The movie does not have an ending (just an absurd tacked on one), creates handfuls of subplots that it never bothers to resolve and indulges heavily in the writer/director's own world of self-references and pointless pettiness. After furiously producing subplots like it's a pilot of a TV show it just ends, giving that unresolved what-ever-happened-to feeling that as a moviegoer I hate. The young Italian-American protagonist who is probably the writer/director himself doesn't have a real story to tell or a point to make. The story just meanders on and on, the key tension points leading absolutely nowhere. Rather than create a compelling story, the movie demands some sort of adulation for what it presents and ultimately insults the viewer assuming the viewer should feel privileged to hear the story rather than earning its merits.

"Not Fade Away" is advertised as a movie about a band trying to make it big; however this movie is more of a bizarre bake of 60s set pieces. There is the vintage music equipment show - the Rickenbachers, the Gretchs, the vintage Fenders and others; the vintage car show and then the 60s records - primarily an obsession with the Rolling Stones that are displayed in their big, shiny and loud glory. While the audience who were teenagers in the 60s might appreciate the shiny items of desire, the rest will find these shiny objects do not fill up a movie or compensate for a story. It's like a glossy vintage advertising brochure - pretty girls, rebellious rock stars and shiny things but not a story to tell.

The other major problem in the movie is the absolute opacity of its sub-characters. The father, the mother, the girlfriend, the band mates, the girlfriend's sister, the families are completely and utterly opaque. They keep doing bizarre things without showing or being to infer why they are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's some sort of a 60s thing, a band thing, an Italian-American thing or a 60s band thing but I wouldn't know. The movie doesn't bother to really explain or resolve anything and it just bubbles up here and there and then it's gone. The movie is just a sequence of these strung together and it just makes all the characters unlikeable and tiring.

I like rock and roll movies but in this movie rock music neither serves as a backdrop for a personal story nor tells a story about the rock and roll greatness. The 60s backdrop overpowers the movie and the story feels like it's about a bunch of teenagers so in love with themselves that they feel they are the privileged ones. One scene comes to mind; an aunt comments, "I hear rock and roll keeps you young" to which our protagonist churlishly replies, "rock and roll is an art form. Does Dostoyevsky keep you young?"

Eight years ago, in the same Valentine's day weekend, "50 first dates" hit the theaters and made memory loss into a romantic comedy. "The Vow" takes another form of memory loss but the same guy-forgetting effect to a romantic comedy setup. Paige (Rachel McAdams) loses the past five years of her memories; the past five years where he met and married her husband Leo (Channing Tatum). Then tada, the plot then circles back to the same need: he must make her fall in love with him again.

Memory loss makes for good Valentine's day fodder because it can explore the concept of soul mates. If the girl loses the memory of the entire relationship, would she do it over with the same guy or would she forge new lives? After all, couples destined to be together should survive a memory loss.

Away from the main plot engine, "The Vow" is a good romantic drama; it is given to very little of the usual confectioneries and cheesiness that comes with Valentine's day pushes. McAdams expertly portrays the stranger while Tatum expertly does the love-sick but often kicked puppy (or bulldog). Paige and Leo are art-school city "hipsters"; them not being upper middle class, it provides some fresher and more interesting dynamics in the story telling.

As a sideline, I think Leo probably has two really dumb and uncomfortable lines in the movies. The first being something about tingling hands of Thom Yorke's fingers and marriage. The second being when asked about if recording studio is a dying form because people can record on their computers, he goes on a long bubbly enthusiastic blabber about slapbacks and something else.

Overall, "The Vow" makes for good Valentine's day movie but I think it also makes for good drama. Comparing it to the lame romantic comedies that have come to define this week of year at the movies, at least you won't be spend the entire length of the movie rolling your eyes and shaking your head.

First thing about watching "Safe House" in the theaters: do not, I repeat DO NOT, sit in the front half of the cinema; I would suggest sitting in the back row unless you want to get nauseated and dizzy. Why? The shaky cam is really bad on this movie. Even in the non-action scenes, the camera is never still and constantly moving. During action scenes the camera all over the place creating headache inducing jerkiness and bobbling that can only be described by comparing it to symptoms of deadly diseases. The constant camera movement in the non-action scenes is also so bad that during each and every conversation in the movie, it's slowly rocking side to side for absolutely no reason, giving sea-sickness.

Add to the shaky cam that half the movie is a close up of a close up. The faces take up most of the screen and go beyond even the field of vision. On top of that, add the way too much frequent cuts. It's a real eyeball and brain buster.

However, if you're one of these people who are immune to shaky cam, the next topic is of course Denzel. Denzel gives his greatest hits: the Denzel-against-the-world Denzel, the Training-Day Denzel and the drama Denzel. Denzel is supposed to be playing a character Tobin Frost, but it's like we are watching Denzel Washington do his thing rather than Tobin Frost.

Safe House borrows heavily from the Bourne movies, not just the shaky cam but the large screened command centers at the Pentagon and the mannerisms of the staff there. Another Bournesque element is the fights between trained agents; however in this movie, they just seem to be of lower quality with slower labored movements and the scenes reduced to a frantic blur. The singular car chase scene despite being the highlight of the action sequences, is also unsatisfying.

The real oddity of the movie is how philosophical it wants to be about lives of CIA "employees". The movie gives us these long sullen monologues on relationships, pasts and futures, innocent victims etc. These musings would probably have some gravity if any of the characters were more than half dimensional and possessed some sort of personality. What we end up in the movie are a bunch of really big talking heads, sprouting lots of hollow dialog and adding to that headache.

Other minor things, the water-boarding scene that the trailer alludes to completely flubbed. It is as exciting as watching someone water their lawn.

Speaking of product placements, "Safe House" has been commandeered as a product placement vehicle for a certain brand of car that only makes boxy SUVs. Each and every car in the movie is of this brand; I mean every government car, every bad guy car, all 3-4 cars jacked along the way is a boxy SUV. This way too silly and distractingly sticks out.

In summary, Safe House would have been a mediocre but watchable movie without the shaky cam. With the shaky cam, it's just a big headache inducing mess. Devout Denzel followers might get something out of it but for most action fans, I would suggest waiting for the DVD version which it is more suited for.

"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" is a blue-screen CGI extravaganza that is mixed in with the picturesque Hawaii locations, but containing a plot that is essentially all told in the trailer and presented with the dynamics of an amusement park tour. The "2" in "Journey 2" is because it is the sequel to the 2008 movie "Journey to the Center of the Earth"; the "The Mysterious Island" in the title because both movies are both derived from books by Jules Verne.

Watching "Journey 2" is like being stuck in a vacation with five slightly unpleasant people with slightly uncomfortable dynamics between. Sean (Hutcherson) is bratty and overly entitled, Hank (Johnson) his stepfather and Alexander (Caine) his grandfather are constantly bickering, the tour guide Gabato (Guzman) is overly emasculated and his daughter Kailani (Hudgens) surly.

The 3D, the CGI of the island and the sets are perhaps main draw of the movie. We see elephants as big as cats and bees as big as cars. The effects are mostly impressive all around but it never manages to find the right pace or impact because it just comes in one after another without the dramatic tension. It's hard to care about the perils or be in awe at what's shown when the characters are so thin.

After watching the movie, I get this feeling that the Rock had way too much creative input in the movie. His absurd peck joke from the trailer aside, his character is a prize-winning Navy cryptographer who also knows structural engineering and who can also play a mean ukulele and really hold down a tune (although awful singing truth be told); This all hints at the big guy pretending to be smart and sensitive. Combine this with the almost palpable resentment between him and Caine and the sickening obsequiousness of Guzman towards him, it just feels uncomfortable.

While the movie is impressive as a 3D CGI set piece, it is severely let down by the characters. A lot of kids/family movies lately have this undertone of spoiled rich American kid gets everything he wants but this movie does this in a very ugly way. Kids will overlook all these flaws in the movie and be mesmerized by the 3D and special effects but I think adults would find it a bit pointless and uncomfortable. Empty entertainment for kids is my view of this movie.

How much you will enjoy this movie will rest heavily on how much you would enjoy looking at Daniel Radcliffe for two hours. For the entirety of the movie, he is either on the screen or a few seconds away from being so. Daniel Radcliffe is a handsome man; great posture, very well-dressed and the sideburns give him a completely new look that is far and away from Harry Potter. But half an hour into the movie, I'm already sick of looking at him. If it was Emma Watson for two hours, then that'd probably be good entertainment for me but I suppose there are lots of movie goers who would prefer Daniel Radcliffe and this should prove good entertainment for them.

The movie plot is a ghost story but really is an excuse to get Daniel Radcliffe alone inside a house where he cautiously walks from room to room with sudden jack in the boxes frights. We get long shots of him cautiously walking towards something and then BAM! something pops out and then we have another long shot of him reacting and adjusting. A large portion of the movie is spent simply looking at Radcliffe. I remember a few such movies where we spend half the movie looking at beautiful female leads but here looking at Radcliffe isn't as engaging for me.

As a horror movie, it's around par or slightly below par. The low budget really shows through and the unimaginative use of the limited budget really makes the movie grind. The scares are cheap and as the movie goes on, it only increases in frequency rather than in scale and so, the movie really never takes off instead just plodding along. On the other hand, by not being one of those digital camera horror movies, it has some clear beautiful shots but again, somewhat wastes it by staying indoors and only using glimpses of the beautiful setting and outdoors of the location. However, in my book, its biggest fault is that it is simply without many new ideas, if follows the horror genre recipe to the tee and becomes rather predictable.

The focus, the center, the star and the reason for the movie is Daniel Radcliffe and unfortunately, there is not much more. This is probably a good enough reason for a lot of movie goers. However, I found the movie dour, risk-averse and unimaginative.

Contraband starts like "Gone in 60 Seconds", but instead of boosting cars it's about smuggling contraband, and like GI6S it's because of an idiot younger brothers and familial responsibilities that brings an ex-criminal/smuggler out of retirement for that one last job. Chris our smuggler protagonist is deemed the Houdini of smuggling but in reality, he's a general super bad-ass who can talk fast, kick ass and smuggle at superhero levels. We are then treated to the Mark Wahlberg show where it's hard to imagine anything adverse happening to him and we just go along with the ride.

The movie is at its best after it sheds its GI6S intro and moves to the nitty gritty details of smuggling. The movie feels at home at sea where everything is calculated and ordered, but while on land, the movie is always bizarre, violent and out of control. This lends for some really angular storytelling that keeps the movie exciting and interesting.

It's great to see Kate Beckinsdale in the movies again though she plays the wife whose main role is to look great and be in distress, a far cry from her iconic Underworld Selene or from her last movie Whiteout.

On the whole it's a good action movie and if you liked Mark Wahlberg's previous movies like the Italian Job and Shooter, you will also like this.

"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" is an incredible name for a spy book or a movie. Pity what lies underneath is an competent but average story. Starting with the school-boyish obsession with talking in code (where the title comes from) to the ho-hum Russian characterizations and overly stuffy and bureaucratic view of the British intelligence structure, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" becomes as dramatic as a chess move with a dramatic name.

While I was watching the movie, I caught myself thinking about different things, my thoughts wandering because there is just so much space between what goes on. As we get more characters and sub-characters, each one played by as recognizable an actor as the other, all the alluded bombast, gravity and grandeur of the espionage world just boils down to what seems like petty personal bickering. The old cold war character templates, the beautiful Russian girl and the sadist torturer, just feels tired and one-dimensional and personally, just reminds me of the moldy smell of old paperbacks more than anything.

The huge hype around the movie got me to see this but while perhaps enjoyable in its atmosphere and music, it's probably the making of simple things overly complicated that made the movie feel hollow and pointless.

As you'd expect, "Man on a Ledge" is a Swiss-cheese plotted heist and "prove his innocence" movie but taken as just that, it's quite an enjoyable movie. I suppose after having seen enough of these kinds of movies, I shouldn't expect perfection in how every plot thread is tied up since very few movies manage it. However, what the movie does excellently is setup the plot and build up the situation perfectly. Just starting as a literal man on a ledge, we see subtle layers added until we get this full on crescendo of diamond heists, negotiators, cops, convicts, bad guys, good guys all happening on in a single block in New York. So, given that you're willing to suppress your tingling plot-hole sense, it can be an enjoyable movie.

The cast is quite good and the acting and tension is par for the course. The leads Sam Worthington and Elizabeth Banks do a great job. Seeing Worthington as an ex-NY cop, ex-convict and Banks as a negotiator/psychologist with a past is surprising on paper but they manage to pull it off very well. However, Jamie Bell is one of the heist-team but his opposite who plays Angie make for some cringe-worthy comedy, like some Sofia Vergara slapstick in the middle of a tense situation. Ed Harris looks emaciated but equally sinister as the villain and there are a host other minor NY characters.

I can hear the Hollywood pitch for the movie in my head, "it's like The Negotiator combined with The Italian Job but happens in NY and instead of a hostage situation we have a jumper." And, essentially it's just that – a movie that heavily recalls other movies from the past except perhaps for the man on ledge. On a side note, it seems that every NY movie nowadays has a reference to the OWS movement and what a typical OWS protester might look like.

The movie is at its best when it clamors for our hero who desperate and is fighting all odds to clear his name as he shouts from his ledge, "I am innocent and this is my retrial." The movie is at its worst when it's ungainly roping in all the plot threads it cast out but can't seem to put it together. Overall, it's a good enough movie for people who like these kinds of movies. If you've caught yourself bitterly berating the many plot holes in heist movies, maybe this isn't for you.

My review is going to be extremely biased because I love these kinds of movies. I thought Skyline was quite entertaining and Battle Los Angeles pretty good, though I never liked Independence Day for some reason.

The movie derives heavily from other movies in the genre. We get the zapper from War of the World that zaps humans to ash, iridescent aliens from Skyline but they're yellow here, and the empty city from Vanishing on 7th Street except that the city here is Moscow. Similar to the above movies, we follow a small group of survivors as they try to escape the human extermination. The alien invaders eschew WMDs and choose "hand to hand" combat, patrolling as near invisible ball of sparks and zapping humans to ash as they find them.

One thing I should probably clarify is that this is a sci-fi movie and not a horror movie. I am making this distinction because the aliens though deadly and powerful do have their limitations that create rules for surviving and fighting them.

Another thing I noted was that the movie really respects its Russian characters even though the movie is presented through American eyes. I noticed that Timur Bekmambetov was a producer in the movie and had probably something to do with it. We meet the heroic soldiers fighting the aliens, the resourceful young girl, and the crazy scientist using homemade equipment to figure out the aliens. This is quite refreshing since most American productions in foreign countries suffer from this malaise that they make the local characters weak and one dimensional.

If you like this genre, this is an above average movie in the genre and quite entertaining. I don't think it manages to rise above its genre but as an action, sci-fi movie with 3D and lots of special effects it's worth the ticket price.

As the movie started and the projected picture shortened to half the screen, became black and white, and did away with dialog, my biggest concern was if this is just a gimmick that would wear really really thin over the one and half hour movie runtime. Modern audiences are used to widescreen pictures, vibrant colors and booming sounds; could a hundred year old movie experience still captivate modern audiences? In short, yes.

We are transported to the 20s Hollywood, pretty girls and dashing leading men filming stories of adventure and action. But, without sound and dialog, the actors use elaborate facial and physical cues to inform the audience of what's going on. And, throughout the movie that is all the actors use. With great skill, the actors take use through the gamut of emotions, happiness to personal hell, triumph to despair, love to heartbreak. Valentin, a star in the silent movie era, laughs at the advancement of technology of talkies at his own peril. His pride, his fall, his despair and his love are all communicated poignantly through this medium.

The only major criticism that I have for the movie is the soundtrack. Rather than ebbing and flowing with the movie, the orchestral soundtrack feels somewhat robotic and dull.

If you're intrigued by the idea of the movie, then I highly recommend you see the movie.

First of all, why does Daniel Craig keep his British accent while everyone else in the movie does a Swedish accent? This gives the movie an Englishman in Sweden feel, instead of a wholly Swedish story feel. Maybe Daniel Craig got dropped into the movie at the last minute and maybe for that reason also, he never manages to quite capture Blomkvist properly, he's not the tired, financially ruined reporter whose career has just been destroyed escaping his problems, but he comes off as an strong, athletic, physical presence, headstrong and determined.

I admit that I finished reading the book right before seeing the movie and probably for that reason the movie felt more like a PBS re-enactment of the book rather than a feature film. The movie felt like it lacked style and when it did apply style, it felt grossly out of tone. For example, the James Bondesque opening "immigrant song" sequence which seems hardly appropriate for a sleepy murder mystery that aims to explore themes of sexual sadism, Nazism, anti-Semitism etc.

The original book is not without its faults, while brilliant in places the author filled in gaps with tripe. Nothing characterizes this more than Lisbeth which the author Larsson made into an Asperger's syndrome inflicted super-intelligent super-human. The movie version of Lisbeth is sexy and cool but cartoonish. There is no effort to elucidate Lisbeth and her actions, she just is cool and smart and that is all we get about her.

Having read the book probably puts me in a different category than a large portion of the audience for the movie. While it's never possible to tell a 400-page plus novel in a three hour movie, I really wished for style and focus rather than a quick retelling of the story. It's disappointing that the movie just aims to tell the story rather than take risks and explore themes and ambiances while visually telling the story. Finally as a side note, for those who read the book, the movie version eliminates the Australian sheep station, which leads to a change in the tone of certain characters from the book.

Here we go again, another spy thriller action movie that looks like it was half made for the car, cellphone and tourism companies, and half made for the superstars to generate talk in the celebrity shows and magazines about how athletic they are, how cool they are, how funny they are. What it certainly doesn't seem to be made for is an interesting plot or a story or anything resembling an opinion. The plot is so generic and predictable that I doubt anyone will remember any of it in a few month's time. It's a bean counter's action movie, utterly predictable and by the numbers, designed for star-power and product placement. It's more of an insult to the movie goer than entertainment.

If you enjoyed the other Mission Impossible movies, you'll probably enjoy it too. If you didn't like the older mission impossible movies, don't go to this movie thinking that this one's different or you'll be sorely disappointed.

There is an uneasy vibe one gets from the trailer of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, a vibe that the movie might suck and dear god does it suck and suck hard. Where do I start? The awful grating British accent of Downey which falls apart in that sped up, manic tone that Sherlock Holmes has throughout the movie or the super-hero Sherlock Holmes that can do the entire Jackie Chan routine in his head or that the entire plot is dumb as a rock, especially for a movie with the words Sherlock Holmes in its title.

The movie does feel high budget. There are expensive looking shots and special effects that litter the movie as the Europe-trotting duo go on their adventure. However, the main theme of the movie is costumed buffoonery - Holmes disguises himself as a woman (for some weak plot points), Watson has a bachelor party, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson squabble like an old couple while we get bombarded with a bevy of unlikable buffoons like Holmes' brother and a squawky Prof Moriatry. All of this buffoonery going on in a paper thin plot, a plot that feels like its been lifted from Captain America; Germans and weapons. Captain American Britannica would be a more accurate title than Sherlock Holmes.

There are bombings because it seems like they had a budget for a bomb exploding and wanted some costumed bomb explosions. The plot doesn't tell a story but more like puts all the set-pieces into a time line. This is a movie to avoid unless you can forget all the annoying problems with movie and go watch it for the explosions.

The first thing that stood out for me in the movie is the absolute scale of most of the shots, thousands of penguins dancing, with it all feeling natural instead of it looking like a giant copy and paste operation with a bunch of a cloudy and blurry wiggles all over the screen. The penguins seamlessly transform from the documentary penguin visuals we are accustomed to, to the talking penguins. Visually and technically, it's a marvel and the ticket price is worth it for that alone.

The first Happy Feet was five years ago and I remember it having a lighthearted feel to it. This new Happy Feet Two movie starts with a foreboding view of earth from space where the ice shelves are cracking off from the south pole. It then moves to a penguin dance to the song "Rhythm Nation" that is almost a military march and then to our our new baby penguin protagonist Erik, who is unable to both sing or dance. Gone are the themes of heart-songs and tap dancing. The south pole has become a dangerous ice jungle with calamities and predators at every corner. The themes have changed from individualistic to the nationalistic, the characters from didactic to the cautionary. I think adults will enjoy this change of tone but I don't know how kids will feel about the new dark and non-individualistic themes.

The most jarring aspect of the movie is the accents. Some characters have neutral American accents while some have African-American stylings. Sea-elephants have British accents as do some penguins. A different nation of penguins all have Spanish accents. I don't know if there is a method behind all these accents but I can't help but imagine an underlying social or political commentary in the story. Or, it could just be my imagination.

Overall, it's a great movie and I suggest you definitely go see it. The ticket price is worth it for the visuals alone. The engaging story and the great singing are just bonus value.

The standard that Adam Sandler movies has set is pretty low, but even with such low expectations going to the movie, the movie still felt terrible. The gag is twins and ignoring that healthy identical twins with different genders is impossible, we get to see Adam Sandler dress up as a woman. And, we get to see Adam Sandler dress up as a woman a lot, ridiculously lot and so much so, that Jack Adam Sandler and the rest of the cast are just supporting actors to the almighty squawking of Jill Adam Sandler.

We could say this is just Adam Sandler up to his usual antics but Jill Adam Sandler hogs up the screen time and nothing about her really makes any sort of logical sense. There is Al Pacino as himself who falls for Jill, a possibility that the writers explain away as madness or nervous breakdown of Al Pacino. Then, there is Jill who is loved by the kids and Jack's wife Erin (played by Katie Holmes) for reasons that Jill doesn't portray on screen and we are never shown, all we are shown is the mean and manipulative Jill. The Jill that Adam Sandler portrays is his own immature rendition of a woman, filled with toilet humor and displays of uncharacteristic skills and strength as positive attributes. Jill is portrayed uninteresting and vacuous though written differently, and that being the center of the movie makes the movie uninteresting and tiresome.

The movie would have been an acceptable Sandler movie if Jill had been played by a woman who could actually portray a big heart. The previous Sandler movies were enjoyable movies, but Jack and Jill is a real stinker, barely watchable. The only thing I found interesting was the background opulence of everyone around, thrown around so casually that it really feels like the big guys involved in the movie have severely lost touch with their audience and given way to sloth where they think anything they do is magical. Avoid the movie.

Real Steel is a quirky movie, the trailers make it out to be a science fiction/action movie; the first half an hour of the movie runs like a redemption drama and then again it morphs into a family drama about a boy and his pet robot before ending in a boxing/fighting movie. But, what makes it cohesive and entertaining is that it does it's main attraction of robot boxing superbly where it's brimming with ideas that elevates all it's themes beyond the hum-drum.

Although often compared to Transformers, the robots give off a different feel of movement; it's the feel of hydraulics with heavy machine parts that makes robot punches have impact. This makes the robot fighting engaging and full of tension and not a blur of colors and movement with robots doing incredulous things. The movie takes the old boxing ring structure and expertly enact robots as boxers and make everything look fresh and exciting. Max in the movie says, "people want to see something they've never seen before", and if this is true then this movie has that in spades. The shadow feature, that's shown in the trailers, where the robots match the human movements is one great show by itself in the movie.

It is one of those movies where the audience will be cheering in the theaters as if they were by the ringside. I highly recommend the movie not just to sci-fi fans but to boxing/sports fans, parents looking for a family drama for their early-teens and people who like dramas. But, most of all I recommend this to people who want to see something they've never seen before.

Killer Elite starts with the Jason Statham super-assassin fare, some random Mexican or South American dude is getting whacked and Jason Statham as Danny here kills car-fulls of them. But, then it manages to enormously over-complicate things the way only a British movie can do. There is the secret society called the feather-men (because their touch is sooo soooft), some oil sheik who hires Danny by kidnapping his mentor and a whole slew of characters and sub-characters that inhabit the Killer Elite world that all manage to be a little inconsistent with the rules of the movie.

Jason Statham, DiNiro and Clive Owen star, one gets the feeling they aren't in the movie but are sort of doing their thing floating above it. Statham has to be the super-man, the assassin who can kill a whole army if he wants to, DiNiro has to have his intricate monologues and dialogs, and Clive Owen has to be a badass. It does claim to be inspired by a true story but it's hard to weed out the "it could happen" true part and the chaff that all the big actors drag into the movie. We have the hokey "it's easy to kill but the hard part is living with it" kind of assassin introspection and on the other hand it hints at blood for oil military campaigns and political web but they distinctly form two separate layers in the movie.

As an action movie, it's full of it's shares of shootouts, grisly deaths, car chases and burly men punch-ups. It does that weird thing where goons are shot in the leg or punched in the head rather than killed. I suppose if you don't really care how the plot stupidly unravels itself, it's a decent action movie. But, as a plot, it's over-complicated and borderline nonsensical.

From what I've seen, the trailer on TV and previews have everyone expecting a sappy and cloying family drama; all the elements for it are there - war tragedy, absent parents, incredibly cute animals, confused adults, children - but somehow it manages to transcend the trappings of the family drama genre. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than what's on the trailer but nevertheless, the way it gets to the inevitable points in the story are done with great skill and nuance. The performances coaxed out of all the actors are great, even the dolphin Winter and the pelican.

"Dolphin Tale" aims to tell a very simple story and never over-complicates it. The movie aims to offer an atmosphere and glimpses of lives rather than something story driven. Though the movie boasts of big names, they are never above or beyond the story and all are pieces of the story rather than big actors. The movie does veer a bit into the boy and his beloved pet territory that might get parent cringing that their kids are going to want dolphins for Christmas or dolphin rides or whatever the amusement park version of it is. But, as a whole the movie does manage to be about the dolphin Winter as the title promises and not overly about the characters.

For a movie to take your kids too and for you to enjoy as well, I highly recommend the movie.

I saw this movie at the 20 city live red carpet cast premiere. Even though the movie has lots of talented cast like Mario Bello, Jason Issacs, Sigourney Weaver, Alfred Molina - the movie and the poster squarely focuses on Taylor Lautner. The red carpet talk was about his martial arts background and the numerous cuts and bruises everyone had suffered during the filming process. I was expecting an stunt based, action oriented movie; even more by the talk and comparisons made to the Bourne Identity Matt Damon and Mission Impossible Tom Cruise.

First and foremost, the writing is sloppy, the story is riddled with weak dialog and clichés, tones changes on a whim - there isn't much more to the plot than what's given in the trailer - a missing children website leading to the world of guns, secret agents, CIAs etc etc. This movie continues a trend in modern CSI-CIA-crime writing; a lack of understanding of the basic principles of technology and I guess it won't bother most people but for me the whole plot seemed rather forced.

The most disappointing thing was that the action never felt like a high grade action movie. The much vaunted stunts came out as weak and the fights were just basic B-movie stuff that would have been acceptable in an early 90s action movie. There are no big car chases and the big stadium final set-piece is bit anti-climatic since the writing couldn't cover up the basic lack of oomph in it. This is even more surprising since the director John Singleton's last movie is the ultra-violent "Four Brothers".

The man Taylor Lautner himself does his thing and manages to not look like turning into a werewolf every time. He doesn't impress with his acting or his martial arts; which begs on why he didn't insist on a full team of martial arts coaches and stunt-men to make this movie into his action star vehicle. Lily Collins as Nathan's love interest looks a bit plain jane and has no personality; and doesn't quite create the chemistry with Taylor Lautner. The train kissing scene, which we were told would leave many a girls jealous, feels more voyeuristic and uncomfortable than jealousy-inducing explosive.

I hate to say it but it feels like a quick cash in on Taylor Lautner's name and fame. Everything is so undercooked and cheap feeling with numerous blatant and obtrusive product placements that it's just a big dupe to get the Twilight fans and teenager's ticket sales before anyone realizes that this isn't a good movie.

The new footloose is a real hodgepodge; dancing, Southern culture, love story, family, church, tragedy all sort of power-blended into with the spices of music styles of blues, country, Jack White and the footloose theme song. While perhaps brilliant in small areas, it doesn't make for a good film.

I don't know if it's because I'm a guy, I found Julianna Hough's character fascinating or maybe it's because it's something the director really knows how to do well. It's basically the same character as Christia Ricci's in Black Snake Moan. The themes are all there, young confused beautiful girl that's rebelling in sexuality but meets salvation from her troubles from a man who refuses the sexual advances for something more gentlemanly. Saying that, Justin Timberlake's acting and character in Black Snake Moan was one of the most atrocious things on a major movie. The new-comer dancing Kenny Wormald fares a lot better but doesn't manage to shine. Ren played by Kenny, never really exudes rebellion nor does the chemistry with Ariel (Hough) truly sizzle. He exudes the sinuous athleticism but rarely convinces as a public orator or as a rebel or a lover. Dennis Quaid doesn't look the part of a preacher and feels way too hip to be an antagonist to dancing.

For a movie with dancers in the lead, the movie is quite restrained in the dancing department. It is almost stolen by Willart (Miles Teller) who does his amateurish renditions that almost outshine Ren. There is never a real sizzling dance between Ren and Ariel except for a short one in a drive in movie field that is never given the full treatment. Even the factory solo dancing isn't cathartic and explosive enough to awe. The soundtrack that mixes blues, country, rock and with a very little pop does give the movie a distinctive feel but really detracts from dancing since the choreographers don't really become inventive with the odd soundtrack. The angst, family drama and tragedy never seem to gel with the footloose skeleton borrowed from the original movie, nor does it really gel with the dancing.

While the movie is truly Brewer's footloose, the movie would have greatly benefited from either more dancing or a more introspective study of catharsis through dance by a more charismatic lead. As it is, it's an odd movie - riding on the footloose name while trying to explore themes perhaps not quite suitable to a dance movie.

Driver is a story of an unnamed laconic protagonist - all action hero minus the one liners and more than that all the conversations kept to a bare minimum. In fact, the lack of responses and the silence between scenes of immense cartoonish violence drew laughter out of the audience; possibly because there is room left for reactions but we are given none, just swathes of silence. The story is perhaps secondary to the vibe and style deriving it's ingredients from mob logic of why all the cast dies or is slated to be killed.

One thing that Driver doesn't strive towards is the standard action fare of Transporter series or the car-mod scene of Fast Furious movies. The few car chase scenes are well done, the highlight being the first one evading the police but really isn't enough of it to be a car chase fan's movie. Most drivings are like videos for pounding 80s-insipired synth-pop soundtrack. It dwells heavily on the brooding and moody ambiance that never leads to any sort of payoff.

The biggest fault of the movie is that it doesn't tell a story, everybody does their thing and then it's over. Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan look gorgeous all highlighted by the lingering and lengthy close-ups. Oscar Issac manages to exude an unlikeable vibe and Ron Perlman does his thing stealing a few scenes. The movie won't have everyone cheering in the theater but will leave audience with little bursts of uncomfortable laughter and then a vibe rather than a story when it ends.

Contagion uses the palette of intertwining and interweaving stories like Babel and Crash against the backdrop of a viral epidemic and boy do they have some wonderful talent among some of those story lines - Gwyneth Paltrow. Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburne and many more in smaller roles. This isn't a bio-thriller or whatever you'd call Outbreak but a more "realistic" view of how such an epidemic might go.

However, the movie is a bit disappointing because after the gripping opening scenes, the story becomes ho-hum and moves in an inconsistent pace, practically screeching to a halt at the end. The movie cannot keep the focus and intensity up since we never get to know any of the characters and just have brief glimpses into their lives. Some of those intertwining stories are probably unnecessary and detract from the major themes.

However, the worst part is that apart from the opening scenes, it can never quite give us a visualization of an epidemic. There are many many facets to an epidemic that's explored through the storylets, from the people in the CDC to the average husband, father etc but it always has to resort to simplistic table talks to tell us the status of the epidemic. We never get a iconic image of an epidemic in the movie, lots and lots of talk and people doing things but not the feeling of being in a middle of an epidemic.

Hong Kong and China are given the claustrophobic and borderline dirty impression, images of sick Chinese perhaps meant to be perhaps impactful - all the while being standard fare. Back in the states, the images lock into medical drama visuals and it's the same ho-hum we see on TV everyday. We get lots of the TV Fishburne and heaps of the low budget movie inconsistent blabber that tries to imply everything without really meaning anything. All the while the virus never manages to feel more than a big nuisance rather than a global disaster.

I suppose intertwining story based on viral epidemic is a brave and interesting experiment for a movie; it's just that the story sidelines the epidemic for human drama and the movie itself is never able to provide a strong enough visceral canvas and background of the raging viral epidemic to really drive the human drama home. Despite showing promise at the beginning of the movie, it slowly drifts into forgettable territory.