Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 Review

Rating: 3/5

There truly has never been a franchise like Harry Potter. Seven full-length books turned into eight feature films that have been released over the past 10 years, all with one cast telling one story. After part two of this epic finale, the story won't just be ending, but the franchise will as well.

Harry Potter 7 Part One features everyone's favorite boy wizard still on the hunt for the thing that will destroy Voldemort forever. The Death Eaters are on the move, family members are hurt, and in all this is the end of puberty.

Yes, the obnoxious girl troubles that took up 99.9 percent of the last movie are still there, but thankfully not as prominent. However, this time David Yates focuses on the whining of the three main characters. Instead of moving on, there are several scenes simply dedicated to developing characters everyone already knows and loves.

My main problem with both this movie and all the HP's since HP4 has been Ray Fiennes as Voldemort. He talks like an effeminate man with a whole in his throat and just overall isn't threatening to me. He just talks about killing Harry and barely shows his noseless face in real action. Speaking of that, the action scenes here are pretty good. Instead of just having Death Eaters blow crap up, they're really organized now and attack like they are truly dangerous.

The cinematography is quite good, the acting is the same as usual, the writing is good, Emma Watson is still very pretty, but for some reason, the special effects haven't improved since the second one. Dobby and Kreacher look EXACTLY THE SAME as they did in their respective first appearances. Anyway, while this isn't the worst Harry Potter (HP6 takes that one), it's definitely not the best either (that's HP3). As someone who's read the books and seen every movie, I'm kind of tired of it. Go see it just to complete the saga.

Unstoppable Review

Rating: 1/5

Tony and Ridley Scott are brothers, directors, and complete opposites. Ridley uses an excess of slow-motion, swords, and Russel Crowe, but can tell a story well and has a good track record. Tony uses an excess of explosions, vengeance, and cannot tell a story without action, and has an ok track record. If you don't get what I'm saying, let me put it like this: Ridley directed Alien and Gladiator, and Tony directed Top Gun and Beverly Hills Cop 2.

Denzel Washington and Chris Pine are Denzel Washington and Will Colson respectively, two train yard workers in southern Pennsylvania. After another worker makes a careless blunder, an unmanned train full of hazardous chemicals is let loose, and it is gaining speed and heading towards a highly populated area. And you guessed it, Will and Denzel are the only ones who can stop it.

The story is the first problem. Tony Scott needs action, and it is basically impossible to make pulse-pounding action with a TRAIN. The acting is boring, Denzel plays an unbelievable Mr. Miyagi of trains, and Chris Pine looks like he's embarrassed to be in it. The script is unbelievable......y awful. I don't understand why they hired who they did, because they did not do a good job. Sublots make no sense, characters are idiotic stereotypes, and somehow the news knows all the personal information about everybody in the movie.

Overall, besides some pretty intense train scenes at the end, Unstoppable sucks. It's badly written, miscast, mis-crewed, and BORING. Seriously, I almost fell asleep. Don't give this movie money, because the way everything is a franchise now, I really don't want to see an "Unstoppable Part II: The Revenge."

Monsters Review

Rating: 4/5

I'd like you imagine something for me. Imagine yourself in one of those funky walkthrough zoos. Imagine you're walking through one of the exhibits with your friends, family, a tour guide, whatever. Now imagine that you hear a noise. The noise gets louder, and trees begin to move. You look up and see a hundred foot tall creature, with octopus-like tentacles and a mysterious glow in its center. Whatever it is, it's like nothing on earth. You don't move, and the creature might notice you, but it barely gives you any attention, and moves on. This isn't an invasion, or a radioactive beast from Japan. This is an animal in nature.

Moving on, in the near future, NASA sent a probe to a moon of Pluto, and it brought something back. Six years later, the north half of Mexico is "the infected zone," and whatever NASA brought back has made itself at home. America quickly built a wall to keep the infection out, leaving Mexico to its own devices. Andrew Kaulder is a journalist instructed to bring his boss' daughter back to the U.S. After a series of setbacks, the two have to cross through the infected zone in order to get home.

First things first: despite the title, this is not a monster movie. It is for this reason that a lot of people will not like it. Another reason is that the creatures themselves don't do a lot of destroying. However, saying this movie sucks because the two main characters are annoying and the monsters aren't "monstrous" enough is an argument one kind of person will use: fanboys. The reason for this is because fanboys of alien movies like District 9 and...Alien need to have human-esque aliens, or at least threatening ones. These aliens look nothing like humans, and don't attack anyone unless attacked first. As a result, most negative reviews are fanboy reviews, so please, ignore them.

Anyway, director Gareth Edwards makes a shockingly unique and interesting portrayal of alien life forms. The squiddy things in this movie are not intelligent, nor are they hostile. They simply are life from another planet. Edwards asks us to imagine what it would be like if those yak things the Tusken Raiders ride on in Star Wars roamed the earth instead of Jawas. These aliens are animals, plain and simple, and we refuse to adapt to them.

What this movie really is is a romantic drama with aliens. Both Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able are very convincing and act/look like normal people would. The effects of the rarely seen (which adds to the mystery) monsters are also good, especially considering one guy did it by himself. The script is a bit slow at times, but knows where it's going and what it wants to be. The only problem I had was the ending. It takes place immediately after a fascinating and beautiful scene, and is lackluster. Overall, if you can find this movie near you and you're willing to not see it as a fanboy or with one, go see Monsters.

Megamind Review

Rating: 3/5

You know, thinking about Superman, he doesn't do much. To be honest he's a bit of an arrogant jerk who does nothing except keep the status quo in check. Superman doesn't fight the LRA in Sierra Leone, or try and find Osama Bin Laden, or save the environment from catastrophe, or try to cure diseases. That said, let's dive into Megamind.

Megamind is a flashy supervillain who likes 80's hits and is constantly in conflict with Metro Man, the hero of his city. One day, a plan mysteriously goes right, and Megamind kills his superhero. Suddenly, the big-brained villain has no purpose. He sets out and creates a new hero. However, Megamind's new hope decides that being evil is more fun, and Megamind has to step up to the plate.

This movie is interesting in two ways. One, it asks the audience the question: are supervillains bad, or were they just bullied by the heroes in school? Two: what does a villain do after they take over the world? Play Call of Duty all day? Both concepts however are undermined by the script, which doesn't trust itself or its audience and aims very kiddie.

Despite the slapstick and the humor of Megamind's mispronunciations, there is stuff for us old folk. For example, a very funny Marlon Brando from the first Superman movie parody, and some good old fashioned violence. Overall, Megamind isn't great, it's not as good as Despicable Me, but not terrible. It just is what it is, but it aims to low.

Due Date Review

Rating: 2/5


I would really like to tell you that Due Date is super funny, is as memorable as The Hangover, and that you should go see it. However, if I did, I would go to hell for lying.

Robert Downey jr. is Peter Highmam, an architect trying to get back to LA so he can see the birth of his child. After an incident with aspiring actor and professional eccentric Ethan Tremblay, (Zach Galifanakis), Peter ends up on the no fly list and has to hitch a ride with Zach across the country, and of course, hijinks ensue.

Now, this SHOULD be the part where I say the funny parts, but again, I'd rather not go to hell. This movie is just not funny. At all. Ever. It's almost at Date Movie level, but I wouldn't go that far. The script is boring, uninteresting, and has no good jokes or funny situation. I'm honestly confused at some of the gags, because I have no idea who would find them funny. What's funny about car crashes? Or adultery? Or animal abuse? The script doesn't even try!

The actors try to make the best of it, but RDJ is a completely unlikable dick, and Galifanakis comes off more as pathetic than funny.

Overall, I'm surprised this movie isn't starring an SNL star and a Baldwin who isn't Alec. Go see Machete if you can find it, or Megamind, but don't see Due Date. It just isn't good.

The Town Review

Rating: 3/5

This movie took me forever see, and I was bombarded up until now with positive reviews from critics and friends alike. To be honest, I was pretty exited about it. So, I finally saw it. And....it was ok.

Ben Affleck directs as well as stars as Doug McCray, a Bostonion bank robber who just wants to make it. One day, he and his crew rob a bank, and take the manager, Claire, as a hostage. To play it safe, Doug's crew has him follow Claire to make sure she doesn't bust them. And wouldn't you know it, they fall for each other.

On the other side is Jon Hamm AKA the coolest guy ever as FBI agent Frawley, who is trying to catch the robbers. The performances are....mixed. Ben Affleck and Jeremy Renner especially are good, and Jon Hamm portrays a very serious, not messing around guy very well. However, Rebecca Hall is kind of flat as claire, and Blake Lively chews the scenery in every scene she's in, even her sex scene.

The directing is impressive, but the script falters in a few places, and leaves some big holes. For example, if Doug is known to be the son of a bank robber who hangs out with other bank robbers, how does he not have a tail on him? Either way, I didn't love The Town enough to recommend it, and I didn't hate it enough to shout stay away. This is your call.

The Social Network Review

Rating: 3.5/5

I never really thought about Mark Zuckerberg. I am glad he invented facebook, and obviously I'm writing this on facebook, but I never thought about his story. Well, I saw The Social Network in a sweaty Las Vegas theatre and here's my impression.

Mark Zuckerberg is a socially awkward computer whiz at Harvard in 2003. After getting in trouble for causing the Harvard network to crash and being propositioned by three other students to create a Harvard-based dating website, Mark gets an idea. This idea is "The Facebook," an exclusive website for students, that basically takes the social experience of school and puts it online.

What follows then is a series of events that all lead up to Zuckerberg being sued by various people, including his best friend. Let me get one thing straight, I enjoyed this movie. I didn't love it though. Remember, this is all opinion. For me, nothing really stood out as excellent or impressive. The script was the best part overall, and the dialogue was good, but not great.

How's the acting? Good, actually. Jesse Eisenberg continues to prove he's a better actor than Michael Cera, Justin Timberlake continues to make up for N'Sync, and wow is Andrew Garfield skinny. Armie Hammer is also great, playing two roles as twins. On the other side of things, David Fincher isn't exactly in top form here. In my opinion, he works best on dark, super violent stuff like Se7en and Fight Club, not dramas like this or Benjamin Button.

Overall, The Social Network is far from the best movie of the year, and I wouldn't vote for it in the Oscars, but I think it's worth seeing. It's most unique feature is the fact that this movie is made for people my age and in my generation, and doesn't talk down to them or tease their intelligence. There should be more movies like this in that respect.