AMB Reviews

Where The Wild Things Are: 9/10 Stars

Release Date: October 16, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action, and brief language. Mature thematic material includes family dysfunction, coping with pain, and dealing with anger. The Wild Things get in several fights throughout, several being comical, while others can be quite violent and scary (no blood). A family screams at each other, and a son bites his mom.

Review:

"Where The Wild Things Are" is a very short book. That being said, the movie sure did capture the wonder of it...

In Short:

"Where The Wild Things Are" is based on the classic book by Maurice Sendak. It's a children's book, that many families enjoy worldwide. Now, we get a little twist, as the book is made into a full-length movie that, in my opinion, surpasses the book. But you should know beforehand, this is not a children's movie. Though you may have no problem reading the book to your 4-year-old... be cautious of the film. This deals with dark and mature material here, mainly revolving around a boy named Max's figurative trip into a world where beasts called "The Wild Things" lurk. There, he becomes their king and helps them through thick and thin. The acting was great, the visuals were even better, and the movie had a certain fluency that was poignant and breathtaking.

In Full:

"Where the Wild Things Are" is based off of a classic children's book that clocks in at 10 sentences. You may be wondering how they would pull that off, but take in mind... they did it with "The Cat In The Hat." And however unfortunate of a film (if you can even call it that) it was, "Where The Wild Things Are" takes a bit differerent approach and makes a movie about childhood... for young adults and older. This movie follows the main story's plot: after getting in trouble, a young boy named Max finds himself in a magical world where he becomes the king of crazy and very big creatures called "The Wild Things." However, this dives into deep material dealing with family dysfunction, coping with pain, and dealing with anger. It's not for the little kids, as ironic as that may be. For them, there'll always be the book. For the older ones, however, this is a truly beautiful film with good pacing, a great story, and wonderful messages.

The acting/voicing was near perfect. Max Records plays the character of Max, and though I've never seen or heard of him before, he was absolutely great for his age, and gave the perfect emotion and character to Max. Throughout the film, I was in awe of how well he portrayed his character. Lauren Ambrose, James Gandolfini, and Catherine O'Hara voice several of the Wild Things, and all of them did a fine job. Overall, the actors all added to the film, and were part of the reason this ended up with 9 stars. Without good acting or voicing, you don't have much of anything. Bad acting distracts you from the plot, visuals, and every other good thing films have to offer. Luckily, I can't say that about this film.

The visuals is where everything really comes together. Mainly the reason for the 9 stars, the acting was great, the story was nice, but the visuals were fantastic. From the grandeur of the Wild Things, to the absolute wonderful backdrop of the film, there isn't one negative thing I can comment on, visual-wise. So many camera shots had me simply staring in awe at how beautiful it all was. I wanted so much to lie down with the Wild Things as they peacefully slept. I wanted to jump into the spectacular ocean that lay before me. What I'm trying to say is, even if you weren't a fan of the book... go to this movie and be simply amazed at the gorgeous, life-like, and jaw-dropping visuals.

If I had to try and find something negative to comment on, I would have to dig deep. And after getting my shovel, digging a deep hole, and stopping only when the pile of dirt was taller than me, maybe then I would find the small flaw in this film: its length. Yes, it's only about an hour and a half, but it felt somewhat longer to me. I don't know why, as I was never bored at any point, but it just felt like I had been sitting for much longer than 90 minutes when the end credits began to play. Of course, that being such a minor con, it's buried far beneath all of the pros found here.

In the end, I have to say that I don't recommend this film for anyone under the age of 10. Drop your mouths, say what you like, but that is my simple and humbled opinion, as I believe that this is mainly more for teenagers and adults. The content dealt here isn't the frothy, light, playful sentences found in the book about dancing and having a good time. Max's stay on the island is often painful and not all relationships are neatly tied up. My 10 year old sister tagged along, believing it to be a kids movie and came out saying it was "boring and just okay." Many parents have already fallen for the trap, taking their 2 and 3 year olds to the film. If you're reading this review and have anyone falling into that age group: take caution. Everyone else... have fun and enjoy the breathtaking splendor of "Where the Wild Things Are."

Love Happens: 8/10 Stars

Release Date: September 18, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for some language including sexual references. A scattering of mild swear words. Several sexual references. A car slams into a pole. A man's feet are severely burned when he steps on burning coals (only briefly seen).

Review:

"Love Happens" just so happened to be one of the cleanest romantic movies I've ever seen...

In Short:

"Love Happens" is labeled as a romantic comedy. I would actually consider it a romance with hints of comedy sprinkled throughout. This movie tells the story of Burke Ryan, a man who, after the loss of his wife, is determined to help others stop grieving and start living. Problem is, he still hasn't overcome his own grief. That's when he meets Eloise. Step by step, she helps him stop living a lie and begin living a life. This romance was predictable, as well as corny in some parts, but it was so downright cute and sweet, that I couldn't help but enjoy it.

In Full:

Burke Ryan is determined to help people deal with losses of loved ones. After losing his wife in a car crash, he wrote a self-help book, leading people through, chapter by chapter, the process of overcoming pain. The problem is, deep down, he still hasn't moved on from his loss. The very advice he gives other to take, he can't take himself. At a seminar in Seattle, the death place of his wife, he meets Eloise, a beautiful woman who at first, hates him. But as they spend more time together, Burke realizes that Eloise may just be the one to help him recover. It's a predictable yet very sweet romance that is actually very sad. It keeps the romance in the background, and focuses a lot on death and grief. It's not too original, but it sure is a heart warmer.

At one point in this movie, I leaned over to my cousin, and told her, "I like Jennifer Aniston and Aaron Eckhart together." It's true... their chemistry explodes throughout this movie. Neither of them really stretch their acting abilities, but they both shine with what they're given. There were times when Eckhart's lines verged on horrendously corny, but I then realized that they were made like that. His "self-help" advice is basic and cheesy, but I'm guessing that is what the director was aiming for. The supporting cast also helps make this movie's acting a success.

This is filmed in Seattle, and let me tell you... it's quite gorgeous. From an expected scene atop the Space Needle, to a fight scene set in a gorgeous forest, I was so relieved that this wasn't set in the typical romantic settings, such as Los Angeles or New York. Instead, we're given a handful of stunning, sometimes frantic, yet still peaceful backgrounds that help make this movie quite lovely. Seattle just seemed to be the right place for "Love Happens."

Of course, "Love Happens" wasn't completely perfect. As I said before, this is a romance... it's rarely unpredictable, though a sudden plot twist at the end did leave me a bit in shock. There's nothing new or exciting contained here, and the dialogue can sometimes verge on the cardboard side. That being said, several scenes in this film were quite original. I won't tell you what happens, but look for the concert scene. It has to be the most unique date I've ever seen in a movie. And when was the last time you saw a movie where the couple didn't jump into bed at least once? That's right... here, Burke and Eloise shake hands on their first date. Talk about 20th century.

"Love Happens" is so much more than a simple romantic comedy. It had its share of problems, as I already mentioned above, but the movie was just so darn sweet that I just had to love it. Many other critics disagree with me on this one, but I don't care. This is probably the cleanest romantic comedy you'll ever see. It's not completely hilarious or unpredictable, but it's cute, humorous, clean, sweet, and touching. The actors do a fine job with what they're given and the setting is gorgeous. Its large focus on grief, death and loss isn't for everyone, but for those wanting a film that will make you think, smile and cry... this is for you.

9: 7.5/10 Stars

Release Date: 9/9/09

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for violence and scary images. Near constant, bloodless violence includes explosions and fighting with weapons. Rag dolls have their souls sucked out of them, and scary images include a skeleton-like snake monster that slithers around and wraps people up like a spider. Large machines have red eyes and kill whatever's in their way.

Review:

Let me just give you a heads-up: despite the animation, this is NOT a kid's movie...

In Short:

As much as I wanted to give this 9 stars, unfortunately, it was stuck with 7.5. This dark film takes place after the world has ended and been wiped clean of humans. Beforehand, a scientist created little rag doll type creatures that are given life and made to start anew after the world's end. But evil machines still lurk in the distance. They wiped out mankind, and they can wipe out the rag dolls. Now, it's a battle of life or death to save the future of the only survivors. It's not an entirely original plot, but it didn't really need one with all of the constant action going on. From start to finish, there really is no break, making this film seem frenetic and claustrophobic. The voicing was great, and the visuals were absolutely spectacular.

In Full:

"9," unlike many movies that revolve around the end of the world, takes place after the end of the world. After humans have been wiped out by large, havoc-inducing machines, the only survivors left are small ragdoll creatures, called stitchpunks. They are the creation of a scientist, left to inherit the Earth. They are numbered 1-9, 9 being the main character of the film. But the machines are still out there. And it'll take all 9 of the stitchpunks to band together and make one last stand. The plot itself needs work. It had a very nice flow and everything seemed to work together, but the storyline itself was pretty weak and unoriginal.

The voicing was filled with some big stars. Elijah Wood, for example, voices the character of 9, while Jennifer Connelly voices the warrior stitchpunk, 7. Other noticeable voices include Christopher Plummer, John C. Reilly, and Martin Landau. That's pretty much about it. In a film where the only (and I mean only) characters left on Earth are 9 rag dolls, there's no need for a huge cast. Everyone did a fine job voicing their character, and to me, they all put life into them. The stitchpunks came alive, partly because of the solid voice-overs.

Of course, the other larger reason they came alive, was the fantastic animation. This is where "9" absolutely explodes. From the opening scene, to the bittersweet ending, "9's" visuals are shockingly original, stunning, and very life-like. It's not like anything you've ever seen before. It's not Pixar, Dreamworks, or Disney. I believe that one day, people will look back on "9" as the start of a new dawn of animation. It had to be some of the most jaw-dropping 3-D animation I've seen in a long time. Now, am I saying that "9" levels out with Pixar's "Wall-E" or "Finding Nemo?" Good heavens no. But the animation just might.

As noted previously, the storyline in this film could've been stronger. For such original animation, I was hoping they would make something more out of it than just your typical plot for this kind of movie. There were certainly original elements to it, and the whole "ragdoll" characters were certainly new, but no element to the story really struck me as new or original. The film was also extremely short. Clocking in at about 75 minutes, I felt like I was probably sitting in the theater for 10 minutes. Is this is a good thing? I personally felt that it gave it a more claustrophobic feel... but I still felt like something was missing as I walked out of the theater.

"9" is a movie that I love mainly because of the animation. The plot was mediocre, and though the voicing was great, my eyes remained fixed on the screen because of how magical the animation was. Every ragdoll, every large, killing machine that popped up on screen, I dearly wanted to reach out and touch. The vast, dark, bleak atmosphere that "9" is set in, seemed so life-like. That's the reason I gave this film 7.5 stars. If a 2-D animated film would've come along with the same voicing and script, I doubt I would be giving this more than 6 stars. So, for those teens and adults (any parent taking a little child to this film is insane) in the mood for a dark, short, and truly beautiful film... "9" may just be your ticket.

All About Steve: 6/10 Stars

Release Date: September 4, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for sexual content including innuendos. A man and woman almost have sex while in a car, but it is stopped before anything explicit happens (they straddle each other and kiss passionately, while the girl wears a bra and skirt, and the man is shirtless). A scattering of other sexual references. A tense scene involves a tornado sucking up a car. A woman, man, and group of kids fall down an empty mine shaft (none are killed). One very muffled f-word.

Review:

"All About Steve" is said to be one of the worst movies of all-time. It looks like I'll just have to disagree with the critics on this one...

In Short:

"All About Steve" is a comedic little film that is touching yet corny and a bit stupid. It tells the tale of Mary Horowitz (played by my favorite, Sandra Bullock), an extreme optimist who makes crossword puzzles for the newspaper. Then she meets Steve, and is convinced that it's love at first sight. But when he goes on a news trip around the country, what can Mary do? Well, she can stalk him. And that's what she does for the entire movie, embarking on a crazy and adventurous quest to find Steve, whom she barely even knows. Who knows? She may even learn a few lessons along the way. Stupid? Yes. Corny? Yes. Hilarious? No. Uplifting? Yes. Funny? Yes. Worst movie of all time? Good heavens no. No. No!

In Full:

In "All About Steve," Mary Horowitz is the biggest optimist you'll probably ever meet. No matter where her life goes, she tries her best to make the best of it. Her job? Making crossword puzzles for the newspaper. She lives with her parents at age 40, and hasn't had a boyfriend for... a while. Then she meets Steve on a blind date. For Mary, it's love at first sight. For Steve... it's not. And when he embarks on a business trip across the country, so does Mary. Hitch-hiking, tornadoes, and... falling down mine shafts. She experiences it all... just for Steve. Along the way though, she learns a bit more about accepting others for who they are and being yourself no matter how much you don't fit in. It's a "Sesame Street" type lesson, but it sure hit home to me.

Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress. When I heard that this was her worst film of all time, I knew I had to check it out. Sandra Bullock? Her worst performance? The two just didn't seem to fit. Let me tell you that her role of Mary is quite a hard role. You won't really understand until you see the movie, but I now see why she chose this role. Her character is brave, determined, optimistic, quirky, and just downright fun. This is definitely not Sandy's best performance, but I like how she's stretching the boundaries of her acting box. Bradley Cooper turns in a decent, if not bland performance as Steve, who is never really given much to do (despite the title of the movie). Thomas Haden Church rounds off the cast with a larger and quite funnier part.

The visuals were corny and unrealistic. I'm just going to be downright honest. It began with a short-lived fist fight between Steve and his pal, Hartman. The punch honestly reminded me of action movies back in the 60's, where you could just tell the punches were fake. Then a tornado came and swept its way across the screen, looking as artificial and CGI-ish as it can get. You can tell that it wasn't the main focus of the film, but it did give it a more... childish and immature feel when those parts did come on.

What can I say? If you've watched the trailer for the film, you know what it's going to be like. If you found the trailer hilarious, you'll find this movie hilarious. If you found the trailer stupid, you'll probably find this film stupid. For me, I neither found the trailer hilarious or stupid. It made me laugh, but not too hard. While entering the theater, I had a sinking feeling that maybe the critics were right. Maybe this was just one huge disaster. Was it? No. This film deserves better grades than what critics are giving them. It wasn't hilarious, it never made me laugh until my sides hurt, but it made me feel cheerful and optimistic. It made me long for the kind of bubbliness and happiness Mary had. It was a corny movie, and the dialogue a bit wooden, but it gave me a good feeling at the end, and left me feeling uplifted. Stupid? You might say so. You might not.

"All About Steve" is one odd movie. From the beginning, when Sandra Bullock begins talking... and talking and talking... you know something's different about the movie. And there is. This is one weird film, a kind that doesn't come along very often. Many would argue that it's a good thing. Me... I'm not so sure. Though I didn't love this movie (6 stars proved that), I most certainly was glad I saw it, as it left me with the age old moral of being yourself and not being ashamed of it. I could've learned that from "Barney," but learning it from this movie clicked and made me feel all the more happier. I don't recommend this movie to all, but if you're in the mood for some stupid, corny, uplifting, and humorous fun... check this one out. It may be your ticket. As Mary says: "A good crossword puzzle must be entertaining, solveable, and it must sparkle." This movie doesn't sparkle like Mary Horowitz, but it has a certain glow about it that helps you move past its corny and stupid tendencies.

The Time Traveler's Wife: 7/10 Stars

Release Date: August 14, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality. Many instances of passionate kissing, which usually leads to sex (off screen). Several shots of bare buttocks, as well as one brief glance at the side of a woman's breast. A man is seen shot, with blood pooling out of his bullet wound. A woman is seen several times with blood pooling around her after several mis-carriages.

Review:

"The Time Traveler's Wife" really never ended up being as epic as it said to be, but was still heartfelt and touching...

In Short:

Rachel McAdams (who previously starred in the chick flick hit, "The Notebook") and Eric Bana lead "The Time Traveler's Wife," a romance film about a man who travels back and forth through time in his life, never knowing when or where he'll end up. Of course, this eventually causes problems when he meets Claire... the love of his life. But how can they love each other and marry when he can't control when he will disappear? It's a thought provoking and confusing film that is similar to a complex board game: it takes a while to understand, but once you get used to it, it's pretty easy to get the hang of.

In Full:

No matter how hard Henry tries... he can't help himself from randomly disappearing and traveling back and forth through time to different periods of his life. Of course, this definitely has its up (as he gets to see things ahead in his future and relive good memories of the past), but he mainly looks at it as a curse. And when he falls for Claire and they decide to marry, they're going to have to brave it out and make it work through all of his disappearances. It's a gripping premise that will really get you thinking. It's quite confusing at first, but you eventually get the hang of it. The pacing seemed a bit redudant and the ending a bit rushed, but it was heartfelt and quite touching.

I've enjoyed Rachel McAdams ever since I saw her performance in "The Notebook." Here, she plays a struggling lover who is trying her best to love her husband, even when he isn't always there for her. In the end, she turns in a low-key, powerful, and very sweet performance. Eric Bana was not as good. Many times, he seemed to be reading right off a script and he delivered his lines in a very corny and unrealistic way. His performance didn't come off quite as believable, but he did have some good moments. The supporting cast really wasnt given much else to do, and so I was really only left with McAdams for a solid and consistent performance.

The whole movie kept quite a beautiful backdrop with gorgeous scenery. I don't know what it was... but the whole ora of this film just seemed almost majestic. It kept a romantic, flowing, and very serene background and scenery. The visuals were clearly added trying to make this film seem so much more epic than it really was. It couldn't save the movie from its occasional redundancy, but it was enough to keep me thinking, "Wow! These visuals are great!"

As I mentioned before, the film had a tendency to become somewhat redundant. Besides the numerous and unneeded shots of many bare butts, I felt that every single kiss in the film led to sex. They didn't exactly show any of the sex, but it got to bug me when they couldn't just share a tender kiss without hopping into bed immediately after. The ending also seemed rushed and by the end credits, I left saying, "It's over already?! That was a great ending... but it seemed like such a cliffhanger." It's true... the ending seems quite abrupt, as good as it ended up being.

"The Time Traveler's Wife" in no way surpasses "The Notebook." It's not epic and it's not amazing. Rather, it's a pure and beautiful love story that starts off as quite confusing. This is a film with mediocre dialogue and only a couple of great actors. It isn't a masterpiece and will not be looked upon with as much love as, per say, "The Notebook." But all of that said, I still found myself entertained throughout. This film warmed me up inside and made me smile and made me want to cry. I didn't cry, due to the fact that I really didn't connect too much with the characters, but the movie's story and tenderness was good enough in itself to make this a worthwhile movie to look into.

Ponyo: 8.5/10 Stars

Release Date: August 14, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated G. A very powerful storm at sea wrecks havoc through a town and completely floods it. Several intense moments.

Review:

Though I've never really gotten into any anime movies, "Ponyo" spiked my interest after watching the trailer...

In Short:

"Ponyo" is the American version of a Japanese film about a goldfish princess wanting to become a human. It is a modern day re-telling of "The Little Mermaid," with five year olds as the main characters. It features a star studded cast, including Cate Blanchett, Liam Neeson, Matt Damon and Betty White. It was a simple story that was brought to life with stunning animation. Academy Award winning director Hayao Miyazaki brings us a pure and down to earth story that is sure to captivate anyone of any age.

In Full:

"Ponyo" sounds like a very dumb movie whenever someone describes its plot. It's a movie that you just have to see it, no matter how childish or stupid the storyline sounds at the time. But... I shall still try my best. "Ponyo" documents the life of Sosuke, a five year old boy who lives by the ocean with his mother. His father is in the Navy, and spends most of his time out at sea, leaving Sosuke feeling very lonely. But that all changes when he rescues a goldfish from the sea and names her Ponyo. He soo finds out that she is a goldfish princess who longs to become a human. But, her father (who is also a powerful enchanter) will stop at nothing to get her back. It's a stunning and simple story that kept me entertained throughout. This one is for all ages.

What I found most jaw dropping was how many huge Hollywood stars gave their voices for this film. Cate Blanchett is given a smaller role as a beautiful goddess, while Liam Neeson plays Ponyo's angry father. Noah Cyrus voices Ponyo, while Frankie Jonas is Sosuke. Tina Fey rounds it up as Sosuke's mother. Every actor in the film brought their character wonderfully to life, and I found it another very big pro that made "Ponyo" so marvelous.

Let's just say that the animation is way off from, per say, Pixar or Dreamworks. This is pure, honest, and simple 2-D animation. That being said, I found it absolutely spectacular. The animation seemed to bring the story to life... finishing off a wonderful story and wonderful voicing with wonderful animation... like the icing on a colossal, two-layered ice cream cake. I think that if the animation would've been any more complex, it would've detracted from the movie's beauty and simplicity.

Probably the only thing I could find wrong with the film was its occasional tendency to drag on towards the end. Up until the climax, I felt totally engrossed in the story, but once it got on its last part of the story, it seemed to drag a bit. It wouldn't have killed them if they shortened the ending up a bit, but I still left the theater feeling like I hadn't wasted any time. This movie may feel a bit slow while you're watching it, but the end credits will roll and you'll find yourself saying, "It's over already?!"

In the end, "Ponyo" is an uplifting, inspiring, cute, and family friendly anime movie that is sure to capture your heart. Though littler ones may find it a bit plodding and hard to keep still through its whole 1 hour and 40 minute running time, it should still have them entertained for most of it. This is a magical fairy tale, running alongside the likes of "The Little Mermaid." "Ponyo" had me walking out of the theater thinking that I'm going to have to start seeing more of Hayao Miyazaki's films.

*Written by Guest Reviewer, Anna Bankes*

G. I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra: 4.5/10 Stars

Release Date: August 7, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout. Constant action violence includes explosions, hand-to-hand combat, and lots of gunfire. Several disturbing images include deformed faces. Cars crash and flip through the air. A mild scattering of swear words throughout. Some revealing outfits and passionate kissing.

Review:

"G.I. Joe" was over the top and ended up being nothing more than an adult version of "Spy Kids..."

In Short:

In this film, the G.I. Joes are trying to stop a corrupt arms dealer named Destro bent on destroying the world, as well as the rise of the eerie organization called Cobra. It's your typical "save the world" type film with nothing new or surprisingly original in it. It gave the makers a perfect excuse for near constant action violence and nothing else. The acting was corny and the dialogue stiff. The visuals were at times decent, and at other times over the top and annoying. In the end, "G. I. Joe" was neither great nor horrible... it simply stood in the middle ground.

In Full:

"G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra" tells the unoriginal and overused story of an army of fighters named G. I. Joes. Together, they must take on an evil arms leader named Destro, bent on destroying Earth with his weapons. There is also reference of the rise of the sinister organization, Cobra (hence the title). Sound familiar? That's probably because it is. From fake and corny action violence and to a plodding pace and an overlong running time, "G.I. Joe" contains really nothing memorable or worth seeing.

The acting was pretty bad, even though it contained some pretty good actors. Dennis Quaid is the best example of this. Though he is usually decent in all of his films, here, he was boring, corny, and obnoxious. Channing Tatum, who is best known for his role in "Step Up," shows us once again that he excels at showing absolutely no emotion. Sienna Miller was decent as Ana, as well as Marlon Wayans as Ripcord. Other than that, however, all of the actors was just bland and void of anything worth grasping.

The visuals were a great example of how over the top CGI does not always make a good movie. Take "Transformers 2" for example... it was an overlong ride full of near constant CGI... and I guess that's what this movie was like as well.

Though some of the visuals were exciting, mainly their weapons and their suits... most of it just felt unoriginal, like we had all seen it before... which we had. The film just didn't give us much to take home with after the end credits.

The backdrop of this film mainly took place in Washington DC and London. They were pretty good locations for this kind of movie, but it still couldn't help the film feel like an overall mess. It wasn't a horrible movie, as there were some memorable parts (including their spectacular looking suits), but overall, don't expect to see anything new or worthwhile in "G. I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra."

Julie & Julia: 8.5/10 Stars

Release Date: August 7, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for brief strong language and some sensuality. Several passionate kisses and implied sex between two married couples. One f-word. A couple of sexual comments/jokes sprinkled throughout.

Review:

I don't really know why "Julie & Julia" spiked my interest, but it did. It was probably the collaboration of two wonderful actresses...

In Short:

"Julie & Julia" is a movie about cooking that will probably appeal to anyone, whether you like cooking or not. It tells the two true stories of Julia Child and Julie Powell. As you must know, Julia Child was a famous French cook. This movie tells of how she first learned to cook and how she went on to publish her first cook book. Julie Powell, on the other hand, is a woman who hates her job and has been known never to commit to anything. Her job: cook every single one of Julia Child's recipes (524, to be exact) all in one year (365 days). Though they never meet in person... this movie intertwines both of their lives. The acting was superb (and may very well be Meryl Streep's passage to her 16th Oscar nomination), and the script well written. It ended up being a very long movie, clocking in at about 2 hours, but it ended up being quite a tasty treat.

In Full:

Back starting in 1950, Julia Child began to build her reputation as a cook. She didn't really know what to do with her life, until she attended cooking school. Now... she's known as one of the greatest cooks of the 20th century. Julie Powell, on the other hand, spends her days in a cubicle, answering phones. She never has really committed to anything, but that is all about to change. She decides to start a blog. But what about? With the help of her husband, she decides to cook through Julia Child's complete cookbook (524 recipes) in one full year. Meanwhile, back in the 1900's, Julia Child is slowly gaining a reputation as a wondrous cook. The whole movie felt balanced, even if it was a bit too long in the end.

Meryl Streep never fails. No matter what film she is in, she pretty much dominates the screen. She has become an acting legend that many actresses look to as the prime example of how to act. Here, she couldn't be better. Playing Julia Child, she has a certain charm that she brings to the screen (as always) and I'm sensing a possible Oscar nomination (her 16th, to be exact). And though many other reviewers have commented on how Amy Adam's part as Julie Powell is very dull... I found it quite the opposite. Without her, the movie would not have ended up as good, and without Meryl Streep, it would've been a very big dud. They worked together wonderfully, even though they never met in the entire movie. Amy Adams just seems to bring a certain delightfulness to the screen, while Meryl Streep is just... Meryl Streep. Enough said. The supporting cast, including Stanley Tucci and Jane Lynch rounded off the movie very nicely.

Let me say this: after sitting through two hours of this movie... it made me starving. Also throw in the fact that I had barely eaten anything that day and you have a not so good combo. Most of the food made in this movie looked fabulous and really inspired to try new things! Let's leave out the fact that they made a jello mold out of a calf foot in this film, because otherwise... it all looked quite delicious. The scenery was beautiful, especially in France. The landscape Julia Child lived in was portrayed as vast and beautiful and very upbeat, while Julie Powell lived in Queens, New York... a bustling, busy, and very crowded city that expressed a lot of how Julie probably felt inside. Overall... the scenery, along with the fantastic visuals ended up being a yummy combo (excuse all of the food metaphors).

Unfortunately, once you begin to see food on screen continuously for two whole hours, your awe and hunger for the food soon turns into downright frustration as your stomach growls grow louder and louder with each moment. As much as I enjoyed the movie, it seemed to start to drag towards the end. Though all of the information in the movie was crucial to the plot and very, very interesting... something or the other should've been trimmed, as a 2 hour cooking movie did seem a bit too long. Other than that, there's nothing really that I can remember that stood out to me as a con. The movie is historical, witty, and quite delightful.

"Julie & Julia" will make you hungry. It will make you crave some type of food or the other. And then it will run on for two more hours, seeming to mock you that you don't have food and Amy Adams/Meryl Streep do. It will inspire you to try new foods, as vile as they can sometimes look, and it will at least make you think about how fun it could be to cook something new. Something weird and something zany. It may be too long for a movie about food, but it sure is an entertaining two hours. Amy Adams and Meryl Streep have great chemistry without ever even working together, while the visuals will make your mouth water. Here's my advice: after watching the very long, yet very good "Julie & Julia..." treat yourself to a nice, big dinner. Trust me... you'll deserve it.

G-Force: 3/10 Stars

Release Date: July 24, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for some mild action and rude humor. Several jokes revolving around the bathroom. Action is common, but very comical, as all of it involves guinea pigs. Cars are flipped upside down, and there are several explosions. A bit of gun fire and guinea pigs dangling from great heights. We're talking mild stuff here.

Review:

"G-Force" never spiked my interest. I had a good idea of what I would think of it after simply viewing the trailer. Let's just say that I was right...

In Short:

Walt Disney Pictures brings us a 3-D animated/live action fable about genetically altered guinea pigs who are supposedly meant to "save the world." This includes Darwin, Blaster, Juarez, and Speckles. In this film, they take on an appliance industry that is supposedly a threat to the human race. Yes... you heard me. Killer appliances. It can't get much more corny than that. The voicing was filled with stars including Nicolas Cage and Penelope Cruz, but not even their talents could save this film. It tried to poke humor in so many places, and in the end, it really had me asking these questions: "Why am I here? Why did I pay money for this? Is there really any point to this film?" To answer that last question, it's quite simple actually... no.

In Full:

Darwin is the leader of a specially trained pack of guinea pigs, meant to save the world. Blaster is a weapons guru, while Juarez is a sexy martial arts know-it-all. Speckles is the geeky computer specialist. Ben, a human, genetically altered them at birth and now they are locked and loaded. Or something like that. And in this film, they are taking on Saber, the owner of a worldwide appliance store. But what if there's more to his appliances? What if they're alive... and ready to kill? This is major corn we're talking here. The dialogue was mediocre at best, the pacing was slow and draggy, while the humor was lame and very cheesy. I think I laughed several times at its sheer stupidity, and that was about it.

Surprisingly, this film features an all-star cast. Why any of them would sign on for such a film is beyond me, but they did. Bill Nighy stars as Saber who is basically give several scenes to perform in and rarely any dialogue. His character is boring and given pretty much nothing to do. Nicolas Cage voices Speckles, while Penelope Cruz brings the character of Juarez to life. Though I find their impersonations pretty decent... they just couldn't save the film. They couldn't bring back an already dead plot, dead dialogue, and dead humor. Their talents were wasted on this dud. Sam Rockwell and Tracy Morgan join in the cast, as well as Zach Galifianakis, whom I found atrocious at acting.

The visuals and animation were pretty much what you would expect of this kind of Disney film. The guinea pigs are clearly animated, and come off as rather unrealistic, while the "killer appliances" remind me of Transformers. My sister, who was sitting beside me, kept asking me if they were trying to remake a "Transformers" type film. It sure did seem like it at times. The one scene I must comment on is one filled with many fireworks. I won't give away any more, but that is the one scene that kept me entertained. A very unrealistic, but stunning scene. But that's about it folks. In the end, you'll end up with some fat and 3-D animated guinea pigs in a live set with live actors. Nothing special or grand.

Hmmm... it seems like I've mentioned so much of what I disliked about the film. Did I mention that the voicing was good? Besides that though, I found it all very dry... as if I had seen it before. The humor that didn't revolve around the bathroom was old and used in so many Disney movies before it, while the pacing just seemed to drag. It didn't really pick up until the end, and the rest of the time was spent lazing around in grassy territory trod down so many times that there was only dirt left. I rarely ever laughed at the film and walked out thinking, "That was the biggest waste of 90 minutes that I'll never be able to get back!"

As I wrap things up, let me just say that if you've watched the trailer for the film... you've pretty much seen it all. All of the humor that comes even close to funny is contained within those two minutes, as well as snippets of the action. You won't find much else in the actual film, other than tired jokes and empty dialogue. Besides the solid voicing, most of the actual actors are given rarely anything to do, and those who are can't even act. In the theater, there were little toddlers and old grandmas and they all began to clap at the end! So, I will leave you with this: "G-Force" is recommended for 6 year olds and under and for 80 year olds and up. Anyone else who doesn't fall into those age categories are better off just giving the trailer a quick view and wasting only 2 minutes of their life, rather than a full 90.

*Written by Lauren Langham, Guest Reviewer*

Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince: 8/10 Stars

Release Date: July 15, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for scary images, some violence, language, and mild sensuality. A quick glimpse of a passionate kiss. The scary images include a person who gets cursed, a poisoning, and a few zombie-like creatures. The mild violence includes a couple of punches and a scene with non-realistic blood.

Review:

The sixth "Harry Potter" movie was fast paced and well written, but they skipped many key plot points that were essential to the story.

In Short:

"Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" is a compelling film that sucks you in the moment the lights dim. This installment of the series documents Harry's sixth year at Hogwarts, and this time he and Headmaster Albus Dumbledore are studying the Dark Lord Voldemort's childhood to find a way to defeat him. There was a lot packed into the script, which gives the film a rushed feel. They didn't include numerous scenes that helped explain Voldemort's back story. The CGI was impressive, but the ending wasn't as satisfying as it could've been.

In Full:

The infamous trio is back for their sixth year at Hogwarts. Professor Dumbledore has Harry busy doing errands and spying on teachers for him all year long. Ron gets a girlfriend while a jealous Hermione tries to get his attention. This year, Malfoy is up to something and Harry knows it. But, once again, the teachers don’t believe him. Then there’s the mysterious Potions textbook filled with notes and spells by the Half Blood Prince. No one knows who this mysterious character is. And, as an added bonus, it’s finally revealed which side Snape’s really on. This exciting movie is fast paced, almost too fast at times. If you haven’t seen the previous movies or read the books, you wouldn’t understand what is going on in this movie at all. But if you’re a fan, you’ll love this movie.

The cast has some new additions this year. Helen McCroy as Narcissa Malfoy and Jim Broadbent as Professor Horace Slughorn are added to the Harry Potter family. Most of our old favorites did return, but they didn’t get much screen time. Neville Longbottom and Seamus Finnigan were in the whole movie for about two seconds while Crabbe and Goyle are just in the background for one scene. But the actors pull off many hard stunts and made the movie once again. There weren’t as many actually funny scenes as there were in previous movies. There were many attempts that just fell short. But, when the scenes were really funny, they did a good job of keeping it going.

The setting was perfect, as always. The crew does a great job getting the setting just right for the scene they’re shooting. The special effects were amazing; there were some times when the CGI was so realistic, I almost thought it was real. There were some times when the camera work was shaky and not well placed. There were many explosions that were spaced out just enough in the script that you didn’t get tired of them. The crew that worked with CGI and special effects was very good at making some scenes have subtle extra stuff or other scenes over flow with necessary visual effects. I think this is a strong point for all the Harry Potter films.

Even though I really liked this movie, there were quite a few things I really didn’t like about it. There are many times where you don’t entirely know what’s going on because there was so much in the movie, they didn’t have time to explain it. After a while, it was really annoying! Not to mention that the love stories between the main characters were so rushed, it seemed fake. It also seemed to drag a little towards the end, almost like they didn’t know how to finish it.

"Harry Potter 6" is an excellent movie, one of the best that has come out so far in 2009. The CGI is, as always, amazing. There are problems with some of the shots and the script, but it doesn’t outweigh the amazing job the cast and crew did once again. The ending leaves you wanting to find out what happens next. Over all, it’s worth watching at least twice!