August 2011 Update

I'm now going to be doing monthly updates to inform you readers about why I may not be blogging weekly or if there's any special reviews coming up. I can now say that there's both.

Blogging and Movie Viewing Time:

I haven't been blogging as constantly as I hoped I be because I have another semester of college coming up to where I'm trying to register for classes and such. After I get all that cleared, I should be good to go weekly.

Also I still haven't had a chance to go see Cowboys & Aliens, Crazy Stupid Love, Larry Crowne, or the Change-Up. I did have time to go see Harry Potter, but I'll let you know more about that in the next section. I may just wait until Larry Crowne comes out on DVD and the rest I'll still try and make. So just FYI, I may never review films after I said I would and even if, I may not even be able to blog about it weeks after I've seen it. Just putting that out there. I'll still try my best.

Special Review
Or should I say reviews. Since the Harry Potter movie franchise has finally come to an end, I want to express my full opinions on why I'm a fan of the franchise, what I think of each film and even a special RTL awards among the Harry Potter films only in ranking them from best to worst in each category I've made specifically for this awards special. I will also give reasons why I made the rankings for each category in that certain order. Here's a schedule I've made to show what order each blog of this Harry Potter special will occur:

-Introduction to my full thoughts and inspirations about the franchise.
-My review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
-My review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
-My review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
-My review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
-My review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
-My review of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
-My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
-My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
-The Harry Potter Fan Made RTL Awards (listed by ranking Best to Worst)

Now even though you would think I would review The Deathly Hallows Part 2 first since I just saw it recently, I would prefer to go in order starting back from when I first saw it as a kid and ended as an adult. I mean, how could I not. I have been a huge fan of the movies and books to where I wouldn't be doing this special if I truly wasn't. I hope you look forward to reading my reviews and rankings of each film. If you're not a Harry Potter fan, I would recommend you wait until the special is over because that's all I'm gonna talk about for the next 10 blogs straight. For those who are a fan as well, I look forward to reading your comments about my thoughts and would love to know yours if you want to express your feelings about the movies/books as well. Well nothing from here on except Harry Potter. Time to get to it.   

Midnight in Paris Review

When it comes to Woody Allen films, it's always interesting to hear people's opinions about each of his films. A few that I think are overrated most people seem to like, and vice versa. There always seems to be different opinions about each film he makes literally every year. It was finally this year that I came upon no harsh criticism at all on this latest film of his. From what I heard, apparently no one hates it; it did extremly well at the Cannes film festival; and that it's become his highest grossing film of all time. Obviously after reading upon that information, I knew I had to check it out myself to see if the hype was true if it was TRULY one of his best. I am happy enough to confirm that it is. Here's my review:

Surprisingly, I've always thought one of Woody Allen's best genres was fantasy. This film is a perfect example of how to mix in smart comedy with that genre. Owen Wilson plays Gil, another personification of the character Woody Allen always played in his early films. He's a writer moving from screenplays to literature who becomes heavily facinated with the surroundings of Paris when visiting there to discuss marriage plans with his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams), and her parents as well. The parents of course don't fully approve of Gil's personality because of his "facination" with life in Paris. His fiance, Inez also runs into an old friend of hers, Paul (Michael Sheen) who seems to act more rich and sophisticated than Gil when it comes to mannerisms and knowledge. As Gil becomes more bored with the marriage planning and Inez's "facination" of Paul, he decides to go for a walk at around the time of midnight in Paris. Later a car picks him up to where he begins to run into characters who seem fimiliar to historic figures of the 1920s. Gil later realizes that he went back in time after having an engaging conversation with F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda. As time goes back in the dawn of Paris, he later returns back to present time and has the urgency to go back again by waiting until midnight again. After realizing the power he has, he begins to adventure nightly making acquaintances with all these different historic people (mainly writers).

I'll leave the rest off at that point because since the movie's only an hour and a half long (like most Woody Allen films), I wouldn't want to give away too much detail. What I can say is that, (just like the hype is saying) this is truly one of Woody Allen's best films. I'm glad that most of his audiences are all coming to that same agreement and are going to see this in theaters helping Woody Allen's profit increase heavily. It wasn't since Hannah and Her Sisters that a Woody Allen film has grossed that much at the box office. I can only hope that the Oscars and Golden Globes can recognize this great piece of work and nominate the film that I believe could possibly be on the Top 10 of this year (along with Harry Potter and Super 8). The film has great pacing enough to where I was never bored for a second. It has terrific performances from the whole cast, especially from Corey Stoll who played Ernest Hemingway. I definitely think it's the best performance Owen Wilson's ever given and I may have a chance at a Golden Globe nomination in the Best Actor - Comedy/Musical category.

Of course the best of all is the writing and direction from Woody Allen. That man has never lost his touch when it comes to true original filmmaking. Even though he always has the same main character that usually he or any other similar to him has played, he always manages to create the most unique plots very different to his previous films. His direction is as great as his writing because he always knows what the right shots to use when it comes to defining the mood and moment of the character. I'm saying that from an overall aspect to his work, because he does make a new film literally every year. He's made few stinkers in my opinion, but only a few among 41 films he's made so far in his career. This among those 41 I must confirm again is one of his best. It has a great feeling to it and I believe Gil is one of those characters that almost everyone can relate to (including myself). I once again hope this gets recognized during awards season and doesn't get looked as another overlooked May/June release. Even if you're not a Woody Allen fan, I still recommend that you see this film, because you never know when you'll finally come to terms with his work, knowing he does it yearly. 

***1/2

The Tree of Life Review

When it comes to films that are truly like no other and go a route that filmmakers could be inspired by but not follow, those would be films by Terrence Malick. Here's a film that tells a simple story, but tries to tell another story as well using the simple story. The other story though is what you have to make of it instead of trying to depend on Terrence Malick to try and tell that other story for you. To some audiences that would be a problem, but for me it's a terrific feeling since I have a huge appreciation for cinema that much. 

What I can say about the simple story is that it involves a family of five: a father, a mother and three sons. One of those sons is named Jack, and we see a view of Jack's young childhood set in a small Texas town in the 1950s. We also see a glimpse of his current life set in the present where he is surrounded by city buildings and modern art structure (which I must say is fun to view multiple times in my opinion). I'm sure you're wondering where the simple story comes in, but no that's it. It's just the point of view of a guy named Jack on how he was raised and what his reactions were to his life situations. Is that all there is? Maybe for the simple story, but Terrence Malick always likes to put in that one extra layer in his films. You just never know what it is though, that's the fun of it. I did say that the film tries to tell another story, but that's what I believe what the extra layer is. It may not be what Malick's was.

When you look at the title "The Tree of Life", you may wonder what it means or already have an idea what its meaning is. Most of the beginning shows aspects of life creation before it gets to Jack's childhood telling. It features shots of planets being created, dinosaurs and evolution. The thing I do know what Malick is trying to tell is "What do you get out of it? What do you think it means?". I thought it had meaning, but it's meaning that doesn't need to be explained scientifically or posted on a blog or forum. It's more personal that can remain in my head or that I can say to a family member or a close friend. 

If you're confused by my review, then you may be confused by the movie. It's okay if you are because this film may not be made for everybody, but it's still worth seeing just to see if you get anything out of it. In simple terms, the film is well made. It never addresses things clearly, but the cinematography is flawless and the performances are reaching. I'm not saying to everyone to go see this film, but check it out if you want something to find meaning to or to judge the look of the film.

***1/2 

Horrible Bosses Review

I could say my expectations for this movie came true. It was funny and had a somewhat original premise that avoided most hollywood cliches. This film is a good example on how not to screw up in making a movie. Here's my review on why I think that.

As you know from the trailers (if you've seen any of them) that this movie is about three men that all want to kill their so-called evil bosses so that the world could be a better place for them and everyone else they know. Would that mean our three main characters are psycopaths, or is it their bosses? Well you have our first opening character of Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) who is upset with his boss Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey), because Dave decided to promote himself to vice president instead of Nick after Nick's been working for him for over 10 years including overtime and etc. We get the picture. Next you have Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) who is a dental assistant to Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston) who keeps hitting on him sabotaging his engagement with his fiance. Last, you have Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) who was actually having a good time with his job until the owner's son Bobby Pellitt (Colin Farrell) becomes his new boss and does nothing put goof off, hate on slow people and do drugs. Not exactly the best situation for each of those characters specifically, but overall I'm sure everyone else on Earth would have a different take with at least one of those bosses per se.

Now that I told you the opening, you think I'll tell you the middle and end? Of course not, you have to go see the movie because I am recommending that you see it. Not in a strong way, but if you want over-the-top yet smart humor to brighten your day, this movie will do the job. The best parts I can say about the movie though are all the scenes with the bosses, including Jennifer Aniston. Yes, for once in a long time, Jennifer Aniston has actually done a funny role in a movie since "Office Space". The role she plays was either perfectly written for her or she took a few improve classes and got a B+ or above. I certainly hope to see her play more roles like Dr. Julia Harris. Now for Kevin Spacey should come no surprise. He's ALWAYS funny at playing any evil boss you see in a movie. Going all the way back to his role of Buddy Ackerman in the 1994 film "Swimming with Sharks", he has not lost any of the talent he had playing that role. I truly think you'll enjoy him in this. Now with Colin Farrell, his character is too enjoyable that I can't explain any of his scenes without giving any spoilers away. I do tell you though, his scenes are funny all right.

So I'm glad to say that our three main characters are still likable even if their plot in the movie is trying to kill their bosses. Their chemistry goes so well together that it's hard to see any other actor playing their role in this movie. This has definitely been a great year for comedy. I can't say it's funnier than Bridesmaids or is one of the best films of the year, but it's still one not to miss out on.

***