Yeah, so I didn’t like this movie, but I might be a special case. I was taught Greek mythology from a very early age-concurrently, in fact, with stories like Little Red Riding Hood and Cinderella. I loved the Greek myths, and as a result I grew to hate most of the movies, games, and books that branched off of them, as they were usually grossly inaccurate. I can’t even watch Disney’s Hercules without getting pissed off. Zeus is shown as having a loving relationship with his wife Hera (fun fact: they’re also brother and sister), when in reality Zeus was the Charlie Sheen of mythological deities, in that he was single-handedly responsible for nearly every pregnancy in Greek history. So being a Greek-Myth purist, this movie might have been ruined for me from the start. I’m sure plenty of people will say that they enjoyed this movie, shortly before being dragged out of the theater for trying to dig through the floor in search of the lost city of Moletopia; such people undoubtedly suffer from severe brain-damage

The setup of the movie is as simple as it is generic: long ago, during the war between Cronos’s army of Titans and Zeus’s army of Gods, Zeus commissions Hades to create the Kraken from his own flesh to destroy the Titans, as well as ruin the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. When the war is over, Zeus rewards Hades for his hard work by screwing him over and making him ruler of the Underworld, a realm that is slightly less depressing than reading the list of books Twilight has outsold, but still pretty gloomy. As a result, Hades nurses a grudge to take down Zeus and claim his rightful place as the main character of this horrid mess, although if I were him I’d just stay in the Underworld. It’s where the careers of most people involved in this monstrosity are headed anyway, so he could just show them Clash of the Titan’s Rottentomatoes score and get his revenge that way. Oh, and nice job making Death the villain, by the way. Edgy.

So flash-forward a few hundred years, and Perseus, one of Zeus’s myriad sons, is sailing with his foster-dad out on the open seas when Hades sends in some monsters to punish some humans for knocking down a statue of Zeus, and Perseus’s only family is killed in the crossfire. Already pissed off, Perseus’s mood doesn’t exactly improve when the Queen, being drunk, stupid, and utterly one dimensional, remarks that it’s now the age of man, and that her daughter is totally cool enough to be worshipped as a God. She goes on to refer to each and every one of the Gods as “total pussies” and remarks that “only, like, complete losers” don’t dramatically appear and demand her daughter’s sacrifice to the Kraken. Hades responds by dramatically appearing and demanding that Andromeda be sacrificed to the Kraken, a plot twist so shocking it leaves Andromeda’s mother completely speechless. “Acting like a total asshat to beings who can kill me with a fart and are notoriously vain and short-tempered has negative consequences? What madness is this?” her scared, poorly-characterized eyes seemed to say. And so Perseus volunteers to partake in a suicide mission to find some way to defeat the Kraken, leaving the town to puzzlingly call for the sacrifice of the fair-tempered, reasonable Andromeda and not the stupid, short-sighted idiot queen who caused this whole catastrophe. These people need a strong, manly Greek leader not afraid to kick people into death-pits and march into battle wearing a thong.

One of the most irritating (albeit pettiest) gripes I have with this movie is its title. There are absolutely no Titans in this movie, and the most epic clash is not the fight between Perseus and the Kraken, but rather between the writing and interpretation of Greek Mythology, which are fighting over who’s more mediocre. Really, this movie should be called Look! Look! We Have the Guy from Avatar fighting a Squid!, as the movie’s crappiness constantly reminds you that they cared far more about that than, say, any form of actual quality. For example, Zeus, despite knowing that Perseus and the rest of his crew’s stated objective is to destroy the Gods and everything they stand for, decides that he should arm the blood-thirsty scamp with various magical weapons and gadgets. That makes sense, right? Arming someone whose stated intention is to kill you with the most powerful tools you can give them? Even ignoring the fact that giving the gifts makes no sense, the movie couldn’t even give Perseus the gifts he actually got in the myth, where Zeus and him are best pals. At one point-I swear to Christ this is real-Perseus receives a lightsaber. I repeat: Perseus, ancient Greek hero, son of Zeus, is going to fight gorgons and harpies with a lightsaber. A white one. If they were going to rip off Star Wars anyway, they could have at least made it a good color.

Just as questionable is the choice of Io as Perseus’s love interest. First of all, Zeus and Io were having non-consensual sex way before Perseus was born, so considering that Zeus is Perseus’s dad, that situation has to be a teensy bit awkward. More pressingly, the movie changed Hera’s punishment towards Io for daring to be the victim of Zeus’s repeated sexual assault: Io, rather than being turned into a cow as in the myths, was instead cursed with immortal life. The horror! Giving her a trait usually reserved for relatives of the Gods or great heroes as a punishment! And she could have been turned into hamburger, too! I know I’d much rather be forced to crap where I stood and milked thrice a day than be young and beautiful forever.

In terms of acting, it matches the rest of the movie, in that it sucks and I hate it. The two big-name actors-Liam Neeson as Zeus and Sam Worthington as Perseus-decide to phone it in and hold in their emotions until they can have a temper tantrum with their agents for hooking them up with such a God-awful film. Everyone else is straight-up awful. The rest of Perseus’s friends are forgettable at best, and (in the case of two “hilarious” comic-relief mercenaries) most notable for confusing “funny accents and yelling” with “acting, characterization, and not being gigantic reminders of the poor quality of the film.” A special shout-out must go to Hades, whose performance as an evil mastermind is so unsubtle and hackneyed that I think he actually would have done quite well if given a suitably sinister moustache to twirl, and maybe a monocle.

Overall, Clash of the Titans comes off as a film that thinks that characterization, story, and mythological accuracy should take backseat to boring CG scorpions, boring fights with Perseus’s second dad (who’s a zombie, don’t ask), and one, really long, boring fight with the Kraken. The original 1981 film that of which this is a remake suffers most of the same problems, but its generic action sequences use awesome stop-motion skeletons, so it is clearly the superior film.

Don’t see this movie. Don’t even pirate this movie, because in order for that to happen, somebody else will have had to have seen the movie to film it. The best way to approximate the experience of this two hour abomination is to bang your head against a wall until you start to see cracks, then play through the opening levels of God of War 3 on hard difficulty with your controller upside-down, and then watch the last ten minutes of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest while letting a bird fly around near the TV and poop on everything. The more you cry, the more accurate it is. The only way this movie could possibly be worse is if they gave Sam Worthington a Hitler moustache, named the Kraken Winston Churchill, and called it Triumph of the Will 2: the Revengening.

Oh, and whoever played that one guy with the giant forehead zit who keeps whining about how great Hades is needs to be found and placed in some sort of Bad Actor Prison. Maybe real prison if one hasn’t been built yet.

Summer is in the air: the days are longer and warmer, the tensions of school stress are finally starting to slacken, and (most crucial of all) Hollywood is starting to churn out mindless, explosive action movies every weekend. The Losers signals the beginning this years’ series of pumped, bullet ridden summer action blockbusters. It won’t redefine action movies or buddy/team movies, but the film’s self-awareness and fun qualities make it a perfect way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

We meet the fabled special-ops team, who’ve dubbed themselves the Losers, on a black-ops mission in Bolivia. When they choose to disobey orders in favor of their own morals, they are betrayed by a powerful C.I.A. operative known only as Max. Unable to return home or do anything that would reveal the fact that they survived this betrayal, the team is forced to remain in Bolivia until a mysterious and beautiful woman (aren’t they all?) named Aisha offers to get them back home to carry out their revenge on Max. For the rest of the film, the Losers blow up cars, pull off heists, shoot a platoon’s worth of hired mercenaries, get betrayed a couple more times for good measure, and blow up more explosives. They also manage to save the world along the way. What keeps this from being a typical stock action film and being enjoyable is that the film knows exactly what it is, and what its audience expects of it. As such, the movie doesn’t take itself seriously and blazes through with both intense action set pieces and witty dialogue to deliver one of the more enjoyable mindless action romps in the last few years.

The team is composed of Clay, the grizzled leader of the team; Roque, Clay’s brutal, no-nonsense second in command ; Pooch, the team’s transportation expert (a.k.a. designated driver) the only married man on the team; Cougar, the quiet, ladies man sniper; and Jenson, the geeky technical expert who tells all of the jokes. Sound a little familiar? It probably is, but the actors really bring the fun out of all these characters in such a way that it doesn’t matter how familiar it seems. They have a genuine chemistry that makes the action scenes that more fun to watch because the characters are enjoyable, much like the Lethal Weapon films.

Most out of place here is Zoe Saldana, still hot off the success of Avatar. As Aisha, she needs to be mysterious, seductive, and dangerous. However, it’s hard to look dangerous when you dress for your missions like a low-end JC Penny catalogue model and strut whenever you carry your bazooka. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe Aisha has the skills of her fellow black-ops teammates and that she has a dark past when she looks like she could have been raised  in Beverly Hills. While none of these types of action movies would be complete without at least one slinky femme fatale strutting around in her underwear while gunning down corrupt C.I.A. grunts, it feels as though the filmmakers had to include a “bad-ass chick” and also a “sexy chick” and maybe even a “thoughtful, more-than-meets-the-eye chick” and they decided to combine all of these into one character in order to economize. It doesn’t drag the film down, but the issue with her character is noticeably there.

The villainous Max, played by Jason Patrick, is a silly if typical action villain. He behaves like a kind of businessman, although he seems unaware that killing your employees AND your trading partners after every deal does not gain one good press. Besides betraying highly valuable and incredibly dangerous black-ops teams, Max’s agenda involves acquiring unbelievably destructive bombs to make fake wars so that…well, it’s really irrelevant what he uses them for, because the main point we as the audience need to get is that he’s bad, he does bad things, his badness must be stopped at all costs, kill him already.

The Losers will deliver on an action and dialogue level, if not a plausible and sophisticated level. But the film knows this, and doesn’t distract itself by taking any of the proceedings seriously. What’s left is the kind of action packed buddy cop movies of the 80s and 90s, minus the ridiculous hairdos.

The Alexander Most Perspective

Had you been at the showing of Race To Nowhere, you would have noticed one predominate fact about the crowd that had gathered to watch: they were all middle aged mothers. Outside of the PAC lay an ocean of parents coming to hear about how their children were overworked -even the news reporter who showed up to report on the film was a middle aged woman.
It was this composition of the crowd that helped define the film. Race To Nowhere is a documentary about parent’s growing concern for their children’s education, presenting issues such as childhood depression, excessive and potentially useless amounts of homework, teaching to the test and neglecting to teach to learn. These issues are presented in conjunction with how the race to be in the top their students going to the top tier schools is crippling students with absurd and expanding expectations.
The film’s maker, Vicki Abeles, was inspired by the overstressing of her own children and growing medical problems stemming from this stress, and a local suicide of a 13 year old girl because on stress at school. She attempts to reveal the deep-seated issues in our school system that hurt students and force students into habits such as cheating and stimulant drug use. Essentially, she hopes to expose “the dark side of America’s achievement culture”.

Before actual commentary on the message, a quick comment on the production. This film was excellently produced; everything from the introduction screen to end credits looked beautiful. Interviews and tapes of classes came together seamlessly. The only complaint I have would be the varying quality of video, several interviews seemed to be done on much lower quality film than others which created a unique flavor for many parts of the film, but took away from the cohesion of several arguments.

The film begins beautifully: a series of short clips from various people interviewed in the film, relating key points that will be made, using provocative statements to get the audience receptive and engaged. These clips serve as a hook, investing the audience in the film. It could not have been better done, with taste and style, representing the creative highlight of the film. The film then progresses into the filmmaker’s story, how she was inspired, and the initial interviews that begin to reveal the many issues underneath the surface of our educational institutions. The film then hits the apex of its focus, where in a passing comment a student utters the ultimate thesis of the film, that all of school and all the stress is merely “a race to nowhere”.

But then the major flaw of the film is quickly revealed when this statement, this statement is dropped and not expanded upon. The film flows to another issue. As the viewers watched, they were shown various issues such as whether boys struggle with coping with failure or the crippling standards of No Child Left Behind. But no issue was fully explored. In a stroke of irony, a film discussing how schools teach too broadly but not deep enough itself fails to provide any depth on the issue. Some of the most compelling and controversial pieces (such as doctors being taught to the test with specific criteria and answers and thus being less able to innovate and work around problems they have not yet been faced with) are merely mentioned for a period of maybe two minutes, and then never brought up again.

The two parts of the film that are never dropped and remain core arguments are homework and mental health. The filmmakers believe that homework is being assigned too much, and that the additional work causes stress which has detrimental effects on the student populace. This remains the strongest argument of the whole film, managing to remain solid despite several statements that incite doubt that all school can be taught in just school hours, that parents should discuss abolishing AP’s at their school, and that an new AP teacher cutting homework raised pass when the possibility that the teacher was merely better was never considered. But the strength of these arguments is weakened by the huge amounts of partially developed” stances which were insufficiently supported. Had the film spent five minutes explaining it’s various solutions and data to support (maybe even present opposing arguments if there is time) then the film would have halted doubt in its viewer’s minds.
At the start of the film, Vicki Abeles commented that they needed to start the film as it was 85 minutes and in her words “very long”. The truth is that the film was not long enough. The film need to be about half an hour longer, just to expand and interconnect the arguments.
A final note, this is a film for parents. Though it has suggestions for students, parents, teachers, and administrators, the arguments are often based on pathos, appealing to the emotions of parents worrying about their children. Students who watch the film most likely will not be moved, simply because nothing new is presented to them; this is the world they live in, and they understand it to a level that not even a documentary can fully convey. As much as the film wishes to be branching out to a diverse audience, the line into the PAC remains mainly middle-aged mothers.

Grade: Read the review, I wouldn’t want to cause the filmmaker any stress.

The Anna Luke Perspective:

The movie “Race To Nowhere” discusses the way the curriculum is set up in schools today. The movie broke down the educational process from the student board, to teachers, to parents and family life then to the actual students themselves. The general message was that schools are pushing kids too hard academically, and that they are teaching kids only to perform well on tests and not to actually learn. It also described the sources of the stress students are feeling: pressure from their parents, coaches for sports, and their teachers at school.

I appreciate the fact that the makers of the film want to change the goal of school so that kids actually learn—as of now, many students are only retaining information for tests, not to actually process the information. The filmmakers are encouraging parents to talk to their kids about their schedules, so that the kids have a better idea of what they can handle, as well as an idea of what will help them be successful. Another one of their ideas: having less homework will help students’ stress levels.
The only thing I did not like about the film was that it gives the impression that with these changes, teenagers’ stress will decrease dramatically. I felt relieved after seeing the film because maybe with some of the recommended changes, students’ schedules would become more manageable. But after thinking about it more I realized that these changes will happen slowly and it will be a long process. The film is a first step to the changes that need to be made for the future generations of students, so that they can become as successful as possible.

The Lindsey Sepulveda Perspective:

The Race to Nowhere, a documentary film that examines the pressures put on youth, was shown at the Menlo-Atherton PAC last Tuesday. The movie tells the story of young students who have been pushed passed their breaking point and the challenges that face educators and parents because of the competitive atmosphere. Three members of our staff give their feedback:

If I hadn’t received a free ticket to Race to Nowhere by Vicki Abeles, I probably would have never watched it. The movie has many respectable themes and ideas, but it is directed to people who have to deal with over-stressed and hormonal teenagers, specifically parents, educators and government officials. I felt like I wasted an hour and a half of time that could have been dedicated towards homework.

This movie focuses on the stress put on students by school, extracurricular activities, and colleges, but the movie completely ignores other stresses, like the effects of the economic crisis on students who have to work to provide for their family while staying in school. Also it fails to acknowledge the stress on students who are in relationships in general, whether it’s between the teenager and their family, friends, boyfriends, or girlfriends. And most importantly the movie didn’t mention one of the biggest problem among all teens, peer pressure, which can be just as stressful as staying up to do some English project that is due no later than eight o’clock in the morning.
Like many people, I enjoy relating to movies and often visualize myself in the film, but rarely am I able accomplish that. There wasn’t much racial diversity or a variety of personalities either. It seemed as if all the students were exactly the same. They all had the same mindset and the same issues. I felt like it was too repetitive. I got the message very quickly, so I didn’t need to hear it over and over again.

Vicki Abeles created the documentary, Race to Nowhere, to inform the nation of the stress that is put on students through school, after watching her kids suffer from the difficulty of school. She gathered several students throughout the nation to tell their story and how they’re dealing with school and life now. Abele also promotes different solution on how this stress epidemic can be dealt with by changing the way education is structured. She offers students, parents, teachers, and other government officials different advice on how they each can tackle the big bad wolf known as the American school system.

Although Abeles is very convincing that together we can change the school system because some student can’t cope with the work, it doesn’t mean the entire nation should conform to their needs. I think the people who do like our school system should stick to what they believe in and not change just because 90-minute documentary told them they were wrong.

There have been many movies about time travel, from the latest Star Trek to Timecop, but all include fantastical elements; a watch that warps you and your perfect hairdo to the century, or a black hole that miraculously does not crush you beyond recognition. The core feature of Primer is the fact that there is no fantastical element, no attempt to wow the audience with theatrics. Primer presents a time travel film that focuses purely on the moral and mental ramifications of two men trying to perfect their present.

The first twenty minutes of the seventy-minute film do not even mention time travel; the two engineers fiddle with strange terms and the occasional perplexing voiceover presides over the scene. As a matter of fact, this is the only weak part of the film, as it is an exceptionally slow start to the story. But as the engineers discover an oddity in the contraption they have made, and accidentally discover that they can travel back to when they first turn on the machine. Though not as fancy as a time watch, the result is believability. There is no magic fix, only a slew of numbers and calculations made on screen.  And as a result, the film seems real.

Over halfway through the film, the two protagonists have only made their first time traveling trip together. However, it is in the last thirty minuets that the true genius of the film is revealed. The remainder of Primer is not a cohesive, linear film, but mere bits of what should be a chronological story. Though they are shown out of order and are often confusing, each clip teaches you something about the scheming of the engineers. You know that they wish to stop a shooter at a party and you know that the more they travel through time, the more copies of themselves begin to exist in one timeline, but the mystery remains: what is truly going on?

The majority of people will not enjoy this film. It is one to be seen, pondered, and seen again. I personally have seen Primer four times, and only after the fourth time did I look up the official timeline of the film (of which certain points are still debated).

Primer is a slow film with minimal action. But there is tension and mystery, mystery that never will be resolved. The dialogue isn’t dramatic or compelling, the shots aren’t brilliant and expertly made, and its greatest strength is the harsh realism that sacrifices theatrics for atmosphere. The film may be six years old, but its complexity continues to entrance its fans and, for those willing to take the chance, offers an opportunity for a good old-fashioned mystery.

Released last June and recently out on DVD, The Hurt Locker creates what our generation has been lacking- a film to represent the horror of our recent conflict. Vietnam had Apocalypse Now, Somalia had Black Hawk Down. But Bigelow treads in a previously unexplored section of war, that of those who dispose of the residue of bombings, those who risk their life and limb on every mission diffusing bombs, the EOD teams.

Written by Mark Boal, an embedded reporter, the film follows three members of an EOD team in their stay in Iraq, capturing a team coping with the stress of having to gamble with death every time they go on a mission. The group slowly comes to terms both with the death around them and the growing tension of having a gung-ho new teammate who is more interested in the adrenaline rush of disabling a car bomb than the survival of his team.

Without giving away too much of the story, I will say that the movie truly captures the inglorious, grim, modern view of war; nowhere in this film will you see soldiers charging a Nazi-controlled hill and raising an American flag. It is this stark realism that carries the film. Things simply seem real, and the characters never behave like actors. You see them as people with real sweat, real fear, in a real city.

If you expect to see a war film with a Private Ryan-esque ending battle, or a film with the humor of Full Metal Jacket, don’t watch this film. The Hurt Locker is an emotional hurricane which will cause everyone to leave the film in a daze (save those rare individuals who are hardened beyond belief). It is not, I repeat, it is not a happy film. Then again, there is no sad ending either; there is simply a moment when you return to the thesis of the film and accept it with grim satisfaction.

Though none of the actors are well-known, all deliver their performance with unfaltering grace. From the conflicted adrenaline junkie to the refugee, trapped in an explosive vest and begging for his life, never do you doubt the authenticity of the emotion. Where most movies have a moment where the illusion crafted in front of you falters, and a cheeseball line slips from an actor’s mouth, The Hurt Locker makes you believe that what you are seeing is actual documentary footage.

Many people dislike watching the grim realities of our world, seeing the portrayal of less happy aspects of humanity. These people will hate The Hurt Locker. If you can handle intensity and appreciate reality, watch The Hurt Locker and pray it gets the Best Picture Academy Award it so thoroughly deserves.

Score: A+

The end of the world has been predicted for years; whether you thought the years 2000 or 2001 were conspiring against us, or if you believe we’re all going to have a really bad day on December 21, 2012, it’s common knowledge that we’re just counting breaths until the universe pulls the plug on itself. Even worse, we might pull the plug on ourselves in a hypothetical nuclear war. When any of this transpires, what will be left of the world that was; what will happen to our culture, or society, our humanity…or our faith? While we can’t be sure of any of those things, we can certainly hope that the never-ending barrage of apocalypse movies will finally cease (seeing as reality will have at last robbed them all of their subject matter). The Book of Eli is the latest of these post-apocalyptic thrill rides, and it tries to distinguish itself from the herd by focusing on faith and religion after the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunately, it takes the Good Book and makes a mediocre film.

With old classics such as Mad Max, and new films such as The Road and Terminator: Salvation, most audiences are relatively familiar with post-apocalyptic settings. Despite how much The Book of Eli wants to distinguish itself from these others, it is still far too recognizable in terms of the genre. The people still alive are cracked and scraggly, and if they travel, they do so in motorcycle gangs (honestly, why do all these movies have motorcycle gangs?) that scavenge the roads and prey on wanderers like Eli. And while there are only so many ways you can make a barren wasteland, The Book of Eli has the exact same dry, colorless film grain as countless other films. If Eli were suddenly attacked by a Terminator (or Christian Bale, come to think of it) it really would not come as any surprise, because at a glance both films are identical.

The story, unfortunately, is also too familiar. The lone hero travels on a quest to reach the light at the end of the tunnel, and the villains want to stop him at any cost. Eli might be packing a Bible rather than a sacred gold idol, but the bad guys generally pursue the object all the same. It’s still exciting to watch and the story still works, but it’s been done many, many times. The film at least manages to create a somewhat western feel to the story, which makes the film feel fresher than it really is. However, don’t expect any surprises until the end, when the film’s undertones become overtones and most of the movie’s flimsy believability is snapped in two.

So why is this movie worth anything at all? Mostly because of Denzel Washington as the determined Eli, and Gary Oldman as the nefarious Carnegie, the leader of the town Eli passes through in the height of the film. Denzel Washington is, well, come on— Denzel Washington—and he’s both thoughtful and inflective as well as dangerous. He can switch between ‘pure-of-heart hero’ mode and ‘indestructible badass’ mode easier than anyone around. It was an extremely good decision to cast such a versatile actor, because it still seems odd whenever Eli, whose sole reason to live is to protect his Bible and use it to save civilization, viciously hacks everyone around him into tiny bits with his machete (“Thou shalt not kill…unless thou can do thy killing with as much stylized violence as thy can handle in a short time”). Gary Oldman is, as usual, a chameleon—whether you know him as Sirius Black in the Harry Potter films, or as Lt. Jim Gordon in the Dark Knight, you won’t find a trace of either character in him now. He’s so adaptable to any role he’s given that it is a sure shot that he will make the most out of his part, which, of course, he does. Both he and Denzel Washington really make The Book of Eli a movie of higher quality than it should be, and they must be applauded for it.

Somewhat out of place in the dreary, desolate landscape setting is Mila Kunis, a girl who joins Eli in an attempt to escape Carnegie and find a better world. Despite the world having ended, she still finds ways to keep her hair silky and stylish, a feat never satisfactorily explained. It takes a bit of the edge off of the film to find her being cute and alluring after Eli slashes apart hordes of dirty motorcyclists. As far as acting goes, she’s neither good nor bad; character-wise, she feels out of place.  But her interactions with Eli allow us to see the better side of our hero, and for that reason she is certainly necessary.

The film has plenty of violence and a fun adventure in tow, as well as a deep message about the power of faith. However, the only message you really need to get from this film is this: even when civilization is dying, society is crumbling, and humanity itself is on the brink of destruction, there will always be Denzel.

The Blind Side is a film representation of the true story of a man named Michael Oher (Oher being pronounced “just like the one you use on a boat,” according to Sandra Bullock).  The real Michael Oher is currently in his rookie year, starting as a left tackle for the Baltimore Ravens in the NFL, and the movie is the engaging story of his life.   What makes his life (and therefore the movie) so incredible is the strength and devotion of Leigh Anne Touhy, played by Sandra Bullock, the woman that brought Oher into her home and made him a part of her family.

I gave The Blind Side a well-deserved A for incredible acting, especially from Sandra Bullock and Quinton Aaron, the 6ft 8in man who plays Michael Oher.  Sandra Bullock does an amazing job playing the powerful Leigh Anne, who demands respect from everyone and who doesn’t take crap from anybody.  Quinton Aaron is the other half of the movie’s emotional side; he is quiet, shy, funny and strong as hell.  Half of the most intense scenes of the film are Bullock and Aaron’s facial expressions and tacit communication.

Oher grew up homeless in the projects, and the film features a couple powerful scenes showing his later visits to his home neighborhood.  These scenes, rather than dominating the story, simply add balance to the film, so it does not become a pure chick flick.  The Blind Side also made me laugh out loud several times, most often precipitated by Leigh Anne’s youngest son and Michael’s step-brother SJ, played by Jae Head.  SJ becomes Michael’s closest friend and doubles as his training coach for football.  His gapped teeth and hilarious lines give the film a lighter side that fits in perfectly with the more serious themes.  Most all of the humor provided by SJ and occasionally by Leigh Anne is somewhat inappropriate, but fortunately it appeals to both men and women.  The movie also boasts several scenes of Michael kicking ass on the field, all of which are awesome.

I recommend this movie to everyone, for it offers a wide variety of entertainment: action, inappropriate humor, emotion, and power.  However, it is still a story about a man who grew up homeless in the ghetto; as such, this emotional side of the film is fairly prominent.  So if you despise heartwarming movies of any kind, The Blind Side isn’t for you.

After only a short but agonizing year of waiting, teen girls around the world can scream in a collective hormone rush: New Moon has arrived! The cultural phenomenon continues the immortal romance started by Twilight, in which both vampires and werewolves exist and humanity is far too stupid to notice any of it (not even the vampires with blood red eyes—hello?). So the question remains: is this immortal romance and teen angst flick worth a dime? The answer is, as everyone knows, that only those who have been brainwashed by Stephanie Meyers’ books will feel the love. For the rest of us, the experience is like trying to watch a film in 3D without the special glasses: the magic simply isn’t there. I can appreciate that the books are the ultimate wish fulfillment for adolescent teen girls who want sweet, intelligent, sexy, bloodthirsty guys to devote their lives to them. My biggest concern is this: how do these characters fulfill this wish? Between the suffocating amount of teen angst and the vampire-werewolf fighting (which looks like the wolves of Narnia fighting the X-men—in other words, jarringly bizarre), the audience is meant to be thrilled with a teen romance as compelling as Titanic. Too bad this ship had sunk before it even left the harbor.

The story begins with Bella, the pretty girl with whom every guy wants some action, awakening to her 18^th birthday—which for her is an issue, because she might get too old for her vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen. Their relationship is tense, as there’s always the risk of going to dinner with his family and being eaten, but Bella is happy (which is a purely hypothetical observation, as she never looks happy at any point in the film). Unexpectedly, however, Edward approaches Bella one day and—Shazam!–does a complete 180 on his ‘eternal love’ standpoint. Bella is devastated, until she begins spending time with a childhood friend, Jacob, who happens to be the perfect friend and look like Conan the Barbarian all at once. Things get complicated when it turns out that Jacob is a werewolf; worse yet is that Bella feels something for both him and Edward, who are mortal enemies (naturally). The main meat of the film is Bella’s suffering as she tries to forget Edward and start a new ‘immortal’ romance (which should be impossible if you go by the definition of ‘immortal romance’, but in a film that displays both vampires and werewolves, anything is possible). This somewhat abnormal love triangle believes that it is as powerful as Romeo and Juliet, but the sad truth is that none of these characters display anything as heart-throbbing as they would have you believe if you haven’t read the book.

First is Edward Cullen, the sophisticated, sensitive, edgily handsome dude whose sole purpose for living eternally is for his true love. It is beyond me what kind of black magic Stephanie Meyers used to make this guy such a heartthrob, as he is so weird that even Robert Pattison, the actor who portrays Edward, is creeped out by him (no joke). Edward goes a bit beyond the protective boyfriend role; he watches Bella while she sleeps, he sneaks into her room to look through her diaries and photo albums, he’s by her side ALL the time (Plus, he’s 109 years old and Bella’s 18—does that not scream pedophile?). In an early scene, when Bella pricks her finger and invokes the bloodlust of another vampire, Edward demonstrates his ‘protective’ nature by throwing Bella back into a wall to get her out of harm’s way, thereby cutting open her arm at the shoulder and getting blood everywhere. Um, mission accomplished? Pattison does as good a job as he can do with such a character, but in truth, he knows that he really doesn’t understand the character and that his only concern should be to look tormented in as sexy a way as possible. There’s never much explanation as to why he’s so tormented, but it might have something to do with the fact that he’s chosen to spend his immortality in high school. It doesn’t matter how many chicks you could score over the eons, re-reading Shakespeare every year would get to your head. Edward Cullen is the vampire equivalent to a Twinkie; he might look good, even after prolonged years with no exposure to sunlight, but underneath it all he’s deeply unhealthy for you.

Then there’s Jacob, the ultimate BFF for people who want “friends with benefits”. He’s that sweet, funny guy who wants you to like him so much that he lets you take advantage of him, and loves it—which is exactly what Bella does, like it or not. She gets him to hang out with her and fix motorcycles in Edward’s absence, but you never really feel like she is ever going to return his love. Jacob’s character, however, is going through that ‘delicate phase’ of male maturity, the part where you just gotta BREAK something, because you’re so angry at the world. Jacob, as played by Taylor Lautner, is largely similar to Anakin Skywalker from Attack of the Clones; he has frequent conniptions and tantrums (“It’s NOT FAIR!” or “How could you understand?!! You can’t!! You never will!!”), which really don’t add anything to the story besides excessive angst. But soon Jacob’s situation gets really hairy when he becomes a werewolf. At this point, he is entitled to get a crew cut (an ancient, respected tradition among his tribe) and walk around without his shirt. Give Lautner a few more years in the gym, and he’ll have a shot at running for Governor of California—or maybe earning a role in 300-2. Lautner really doesn’t have any acting talent to carry his character any further, but luckily for him, the dialogue is generally so hokey and stilted that none of the other performances fare any better.

Yet even in the ridiculous company of a tormented vampire and a moody werewolf, the most ridiculous and least likeable of these characters is Bella. This quickly becomes a problem, as she is the main character and the center of all the hormones and romantic interest roiling throughout the film. Bella has all the emotion and expression of a drug addict; she is unresponsive to what people say to her, she generally speaks in a depressed or uninterested tone, and she even has hallucinations of Edward after the breakup.  Bella is meant to be the girl who every guy wants to date and every teen reader wants to be, yet in Kristen Stewart’s hands, it’s hard to believe that anyone would want to do either. Stewart has proven herself capable of acting in films such as Adventureland or In the Land of Women, yet she doesn’t come out any better than Lautner in this film. The most potent emotion I could sense from Stewart was that she herself was NOT a Twilight fan, and therefore was not entirely willing to commit to the film. It almost makes you wish that someone in the film had just decided to take her character out completely, and had left Edward and Jacob to fall in love with each other.

The film also boasts a few action sequences (with noticeably better effects) and a creepy performance by Dakota Fanning, but both of these also fall flat, given that every fight ends by talking it out and that the Count from Sesame Street is more intimidating than Fanning. The sad fact is that the film loves itself more than Edward loves Bella, and that only teens who have already fallen hopelessly in love with the source material will say the film deserves such excessive devotion.  Without first reading the books, you really won’t care whether or not Edward and Bella have a happy ending. If you find yourself in need of vampires and romance, you should wait for the New Moon DVD release while you read the books. Otherwise, turn on the TV and watch True Blood.