Drive

It seems that these days, the only way you are going to get an artfully-made movie is if it is an independent one. With directors like Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich, who are just shelling out mindless swill, it’s refreshing (and kind of shocking) to see a movie with so much intensity and thoughtfulness. Such a real world in the film “Drive” is created, that you are actually shocked when people are killed. Crazy, I know.

There are very few movies that make you feel as uncomfortable as the film “Drive” does. The first 40 minutes are very slow moving with an emotional setup. It is a mixture of slow camera movements and lingering shots of intensity. Even the music of the film, while beautiful, is meant to make you feel uncomfortable. You start to forget you are watching a thriller, (and you may start to feel kind of bored) but this is all part of the director’s point. The character Driver (played by Ryan Gosling) stares blankly at everyone that speaks to him, and all the while you wonder what he is really thinking.

These subtle characters, pace and music, make you relax, so that when the violence starts, you are shocked by its graphic nature. When Driver starts to care for his neighbor Irene (played by Carey Mulligan) he gets involved in deeper issues than he was bargaining for. There is no end to what he will do to keep her safe. There seems to be a interesting feel throughout the movie put forth by shots of Ryan Gosling as seen through reflective surfaces, car mirrors, windows and shadows. This is interesting film-making that most movie goers won’t notice. I enjoyed this film for its depth in areas, and simplicity others. All the answers will not be given, leaving you wanting more.

This film has the feel of David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence”, and “Eastern Promises.” If you like those films with their level of realism, you will enjoy this film. See it!

The Rating System:
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 5-5 One of the more artfully crafted films I’ve seen, fantastic score.
Story (Plot) 3-5 Felt a little like “ The transporter” at times, but still interesting.
Characters (Likability, Acting) 4-5 I would have liked to known more about the character Driver
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5 Not much dialogue (which was the point), subtle
Emotions (Was it: Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I Care?) 5-5 You will be shocked by this one
Overall score 21-25

Fright Night

(Let’s step into the Back to the Future DeLorean) Set time circuits to 1985: I was two and wasn’t watching any movies, let alone horror movies. When I was 27(time circuits to 2010) I watched the 1985 movie “Fright Night”, because I heard it was kind of a “cult classic”. Now, it is in no way a good movie, but I enjoyed it for what it was: an 80’s campy, vampire movie. The character of Charlie is kind of a whiner, but it could be that I just don’t like the actor William Ragsdale; his voice just hurts me, as in real pain. It has its moments of awesomely bad gore though, that I really enjoyed. Back when they couldn’t CGI the crap out of everything, it was called “practical effects,” people, bring them back!
Set time circuits to 2011: wasn’t that a fun trip? They decide to remake this awesomely horrible horror comedy. Why not, its got vampires in it, and vampires are hot right now. Side note: getting kind of sick of vampires. So I saw the trailer for this flick, and it didn’t look half bad. Colin Farrell plays Jerry, the vampire (true to the original) and that awesome guy from Star Trek plays Charlie (Anton Yelchin) no more bleeding ears! David Tennant plays Peter Vincent, a mockery of the goth vampire hunter/Vegas performer partly true to the original). Hey, and they have MCLOVIN!
So how was the movie you ask? I consider that it was a great script, with believable characters. It was tons of fun, and it satisfied my gore craving. Some of the parts that they changed I enjoyed very much: the poking fun at the Vampire culture myths was fun and interesting, and they even taught us something new, not just rehashing what everyone knows about vampires. “Silver is for Werewolves” was one of my favorite lines. At its heart, however, it was still a campy vampire movie. The plot is almost exactly the same as the 1985 version, except for some little differences, so the writers didn’t put in a lot of effort, so they can focus or the good dialogue I guess. Even though I enjoyed my movie-going experience, I won’t be writing home about it. Just writing a review I guess. See it.

The Rating System:
Production ( Directing, Editing, Music): 3-5 soundtrack was good but no theme to speak of
Story ( Plot ): 2-5 it would get more if it wasn’t the same plot, because I liked it
Characters ( Likability, Acting ): 4-5 great fun here, the characters make the movie
Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness ): 4-5 great tension is some scenes
Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care? ): 4-5 Laughing one minute, grossed-out the next
Overall Score: 17-25

'Battle: Los Angeles'

Almost all alien invasion movies bother me a little. In Steven Spielberg's ‘War of the Worlds’, you follow a family through their adventure: surviving an alien attack and the emotional turmoil of people getting blown to smithereens all around them. In some scenes, you see the military running to fight the aliens. Yet all I thought was “What are they doing?” and “ I want to see more of their story”. In ‘Independence Day’, you see Will Smith flying around in his fighter, attacking an alien ship. “OK, cool, we are going see some crap!’’ but not really. Instead, we see quick shots of planes getting blown up and cut-backs to the President screaming “ Get them out of there!”, like hes the only one that knows whats going on. So I always asked myself, “Can you have an Alien Invasion movie about just the military fighting the aliens, and stop with the cut-backs to the “civilians” who are emotionally involved? Well, I think this movie is trying to answer just that.

‘Battle: Los Angeles’, promises action and excitement. In reality, the majority of the movie was spent following characters who were whining in buildings, talking about their feelings.The movie starts out strong, and I love the “Tarentino” thing they did in the beginning: i.e. “lets show some awesome battle stuff, then flashback 24 hours.” Its a great way to get your audience excited for things to come, then show some character development.

As the movie started to introduce the characters, I felt more and more cheated. “Lets focus on too many characters, so you don’t care whether they die or not,” great plan. When the action finally starts again, you are happy, but when you realize it’s going to be a bunch of shaky camera shots, and can’t really make out whats going on, your brain stops caring. At least if this movie had some good action to fall back on, it would make up for the simple-minded character development and the absence of plot.

I do want to talk about some plot points that I thought were interesting, so SPOILERS for the rest of this paragraph. There is a scene where the military captures one of the aliens and they try to figure out how to kill it (they had been having trouble with that before). Well, they proceed to cut it up and torture the crap out of it . I know it’s not a real creature, and it’s “war,” but I felt like this scene was unnecessary.

MORE SPOILERS: One of the plot points is that a giant alien ship controls the other small ships. Hmm, wait, that sounds familiar. This made me very mad; it’s too easy! Why? They needed some epic thing for them to destroy at the end. Everything that involved this “control ship” bored me, which is most of the last 40 minutes. Why would an alien race make such an easy target? It doesn’t make sense. Lets make one ship that if you destroy it takes out all our ships. great plan guys. END SPOILERS

So what does this movie have to show for its self? Interesting characters? Nope. Good action? No. Original plot? Not really. I couldn’t even tell if the special effects were good because of all the shaky camera stuff. I know they are trying to be intense, and it works when its done right, but when the characters get blown up at the end, and you don’t really care, what’s the point? I think you will feel the same way I did at the end: you just want it to be over. So do you have to make a movie about the civilians for the benefit of the audience? Can I empathize with military troops? I feel like this movie had a good idea, and I was excited to see it, but it falls flat.

The Rating System

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 2-5

Story (Plot) 2-5

Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5 (for acting only)

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 2-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)1-5

Overall score 10-25

'The Adjustment Bureau'

Who is in charge of our fate? What is point? Where are we going? When will they make a movie explaining this? Why am I writing this review!? These questions have plagued me for years. Do we have a fate? Is it all random and we make the decisions? I have gotten into many arguments with people that think its both. For the longest time I believed it was either one or the other. Some all knowing “thing” has a plan for all of us, well that’s nice. The flip side there is no one looking out for us, we make our own way. While the ladder is more bleak, people could see that one as more empowering. “I decided what happens to me”. People like to think both apply, they want the best of both worlds. To be honest not knowing one or the other kind of frustrated me. I would just like to know either way.

‘The Adjustment Bureau’ dives right into all these questions. I was worried going into this movie, I have obvious feelings on the subject. I am please to say the questions and answers in this movie are done very well. They talk about all the thoughts I’ve had on the subject of fate and destiny. First off, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are really good in this movie. They probably won’t be winning any awards, but I found them likeable and believable. I found myself hoping they would succeed and surprised by the characters depths. Some of my favorite scenes in the movie are just Matt and Emily’s characters having conversations that have nothing to do with the movie’s plot.
Now ‘The Adjustment Bureau’ didn’t answer any questions for me, about my own fate, but when I left the theater I felt hopeful and satisfied (although, parts of the movie felt a little heavy handed.) Any time they mention the “chairman” I rolled my eyes. But for the most part the idea of someone watching over you was done very well. It could have easily felt too religious or preachy, but it surprised me how subtle they made it. I hope you will enjoy this movie as much as I did.

The Rating System
Production ( Directing, Editing, Music) 3-5
Story ( Plot)4-5
Characters ( Likability, Acting)4-5
Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness)4-5
Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)5-5
Over all score 20-25

"IP Man"

When I was in high school, I went to see a movie with my brother. We arrived late and had to sit in the front row, as the theater was completely sold out. There were giant subtitles flying right in front of my face. The film was “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and I could barely keep up. At the time, I had not seen many foreign films and had not experienced many martial arts movies. To say the least, I was blown away.

Today, I watched “IP Man,” a semi-true story of a Chinese Kung Fu master set in 1937. The real life “YIP Man” was the Master of the famous Bruce Lee, and from what I have read about this man, he lived an interesting life. The actions of the movie take place years before he met his most famous student. This film was recommended to me by a friend months ago, and I just got around to watching it. All I have to say about this movie is, HOLY CRAP! It rocks, from the bad ass choreography, to the intense story, to the beautiful sets, and the realistic tone, it makes me want to see a sequel. Mandingo! There is one already, but unfortunately not released in the United States. Now, the original movie is very entertaining, but at times it seems kind of repetitive. They seem to just make up reasons for the Grand Master to fight. JMC watched this movie with me, and remarked “Why are the fighting?” I thought it a fitting question.

Most of this movie you don’t really know why they are fighting, but you really don’t care. The movie looks amazing and the characters are interesting, because you feel for their hardships. I’m not saying that this movie is a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” which I feel melded together a beautiful story with amazing fight scenes. For me, this is the standard to which I hold all martial arts movies. But what “IP Man” lacks in amazing story-telling, it makes up for in pure unadulterated action.

The Rating System:
Production (Directing, Editing, Music): 3-5
Story (Plot): 3-5
Characters (Likability, Acting): 4-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness): 3-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care?): 5-5
Overall score: 18/25

"I am number Four"

Watching this movie, I thought, I am sure this movie is going to tank. When I mean tank, I mean fail. Horribly. Case in point: two rows behind me, a couple was laughing and carrying on the entire film, obviously bored and enjoying making fun of it. I bet you are thinking to yourself, “Yeah, it doesn’t look that good, I won’t go see it.” I say “Nay.” I enjoyed this movie. Hang in there I’ll explain.
“I am Number Four” is a highly flawed film, mixed with unexplained plot points and awful dialogue. The first hour is pretty boring, and has a terrible setup. There are parts that make no sense, seem really out of place, and are never explained. The only redeeming thing that I can think of about these parts is that they go into more depth in the book. I forgot to mention: this based on a book. The story is more or less a Superman rip off. Alien children come to Earth to hide from an evil force, and they all have special abilities that are never explained. They just have them. I understand that you have to leave things out to make a movie, but I feel this story was missing some much needed explanation.
OK, now that I have the bad stuff on the table, here’s the good. I like the characters, and although the dialogue on the whole was bad, there are genuinely parts of good humor and cleverness. It is almost like there were to many scriptwriters for this film. The last 40 minutes are pure action, special-effects-face-melting, awesomeness. Aside from one scene with a dog (to avoid spoilers I won’t go into detail) I enjoyed all of it. I left the theater wanting to see more and I will probably read the book, hoping to get more plot and character development. I do not think this is what they had in mind when they made this movie, but nonetheless, it’s how I feel.
I am sure they will not make a sequel, and people will tear this movie to pieces. But I am going on the record: I liked it. I hope enough people liked it so that they do make a sequel. I would go see it.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music): 2-5
Story (Plot): 3-5
Characters (Likability, Acting): 3-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness): 2-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care?): 5-5
Overall Score: 15/25

Charriots of Fire

Sometime around 1990 , I watched “National Lampoons Vacation.” If you are not familiar with the movie, Chevy Chase and family go across the country to get to “Walley World,” the movie shows the perils of a drive across country and the hell that is family vacation of When they finally arrive at their destination and park at Walley World, they stop far away from the amusement park. when asked why his parking so far away, Chevy Chase’s character explains: “When everyone is trying to leave, we will be the first ones out.” They proceed to run to the entrance, in slow motion, to the amazing music of Vangelis’ “Chariots of Fire.” At the time my father laughed, I didn’t understand what I was missing.

Years later, I find out that the they are making fun of another movie that came out just two years earlier: “Chariots of Fire.” I am a self proclaimed movie theme master. Years of watching movies has expanded my knowledge of film score composers and my physical collection of soundtracks. One that stands out among my favorites is Vangelis. I own Vangelis’ Greatest Hits, and “Chariots of Fire”, is one of their best. Until yesterday, I had never seen this movie.

Sorry for the long intro, but I wanted you to understand what this movie meant for me.“Chariots of Fire” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards in 1981, and on a lark I looked up what movies it beat , “Raiders of the Lost Ark” lost to it . This made me laugh from what I said in my last post. The movie’s first few minutes is the famed running-on-the-beach-to-the-amazing-music-in-slow-motion, scene. I finally get the joke. “Chariots of Fire” is a fine film and its set to a great score. But years later I’m sure there is a lot of people who have seen “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, and yet not even heard of this movie. It drags in spots and has a predictable story, being based on a true story, its not very exciting.
I am glad to has seen this movie, only to say I’ve seen it, and to expand my movie knowledge. I am afraid it will be lost in the depths of movie achievements. I don’t think I’d care to watch it twice, to much slow motion running. I think this movie will only be watched in film schools, as it is very well made, by lacks a flair that other movies have. Watch it.

the rating system
Production ( directing, editing, Music)5-5
Story ( plot)4-5
Characters ( likability, acting)3-5
Writing ( dialogue, cleverness)4-5
Emotions ( was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, do I care)4-5
Over all score 20-25

When I first heard about this movie I thought “Oh, look, another teen drama, probably crap.” Well, I was half right. Months later, I heard that Emma Stone was nominated for a Golden Globe. Normally, I’m not interested in award shows... most of the time it seems they just pick the most boring performance/movie and give it a bunch of awards, and ignore the movies that will be remembered for years to come. Who really gives a crap about “Shakespeare in Love”? For starters, it beat “Saving Private Ryan” for best picture of 1998. And that’s just only one small example of such epic miss-cues by the Awards.

When I watched “ Easy A,” my preconceived notions of teen drama were wrong. The main character, Olive (played by Emma Stone) makes reference to classic movies from the 80’s, like “Breakfast Club”, “Say Anything”, and “ Can’t buy Me Love”. At first I was overjoyed: “they are talking about movies I’ve seen!”, but wait! those movies came out in the late 80’s. Have any teenagers, who are the target audience of this film, seen any of those movies? I know people who are 25 and not seen these movies. So this movie is made for the 25-and-older crowd. But why? How many thirty-year-old’s are going to see movies about high school kids? But hold on Sally, they aren’t really high school kids, are they? Emma Stone is a hot, vivacious 23 years old and Amanda Bines is an old 26. It’s not unusual to cast older actors to play teenagers. Grease, anyone? If you cast sixteen-year-old’s to play sixteen-year-old’s, would they have been dressed to sexy? Or had such adult themes that it makes one feel creepy even viewing it? These people are supposed to be under aged, yet appear to be fully developed.

I don’t want go off on a rant, because I enjoyed this movie. Wait what? Well, this movie was made for me. And by me, I mean my demographic. I got the 80’s movie references and the semi narration/ webcast by Emma Stone. Those of you that don’t know, will soon know that I love narrations. The movie was clever, witty, and generally a good time, but yet strangely forget-able. I still don’t know why the Golden Globes nominated Emma for her role, maybe to get some younger audiences watching the Globes, or perhaps just to get Emma Stone to show up. Despite her stellar performance, she didn’t win any awards. Frown. Watch it.

Per a request from JMC I am adding a rating system at the end of my reviews. I think rating systems are flawed because seeing a 3 /5 stars for a movie doesn’t tell you whether or not you are going to like the movie. So I came up with a much more detailed way of rating the movies. I will break down each movie into 5 categories and each of them will have a number out of 5 see below.

Easy A:
Production ( directing, editing, music) 4-5
Story (plot) 3-5
Characters (likeability, acting) 4-5
Writing ( dialogue, cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (was it: fun, scary, sad, do I care? etc.) 4-5
Over all score 19-25

Day 5 " The social Network"

When I saw Jesse Eisenberg staring back at me from a movie poster, and the tag read “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies,” I said, “Jesse Eisenberg is a good looking dude." I mean, “What movie is that?”

My friend, Brosky( alias) said, “that’s the movie about Facebook.” With a puzzled look on my face, I thought: Who cares about a movie about Facebook? And promptly decided that day not to see it. Well, that feeling lasted about 10 minutes.

Brosky informed me that “The Social Network” would be directed by David Fincher; who also directed “Fight Club,” “The Game,” and “Se7en,” which are three of my all time favorite movies. Well, crap, to add insult to injury, the movie was written by one of my favorite writers: Aaron Sorkin. He also wrote: “A few Good Men,” and “Charlie Wilson’s War,” just to name a few. OK, so I’ll see it, jeez.

So I’m sitting in the theater , the music starts, the credits roll, and I see music by Trent Reznor ( Of Nine Inch Nails fame) as well as “Atticus” and “Book of Eli.” Now, I have to love this movie, you sneaky punks. At that very moment, I knew that I would enjoy this movie. Well I did, but not without the movie getting in the way. I hated all the characters, especially the main character of Mark Zuckerberg. For me I enjoy seeing good fight evil, for someone to overcome adversity, for the characters to grow and learn. This movie is a money-grubbing mess, filled with characters scheming and back0stabbing. Now that’s more or less how it happened.

Mark Zuckerberg, the real one, did an interview after the movie came out. All he really had to say, was that he didn’t invent Facebook, because a girl that broke up with him. Really? that’s the only thing you have a problem with? The guy has billions of dollars, and if he wanted to, could sue the crap out of these guys for defacement of character and anything else he really wanted to. So, is it a romanticized tale? Probably. Is it not “based on true events, and the names changed to protect the innocent?” most likely.

Do I like this movie? Yes, but only because they stacked the deck. If all these aforementioned guys were not involved, would I have enjoyed this movie? We will never know. It’s kind of like “Star Wars,” but without George Lucas, and plus Jar Jar Binks. Would the movie have been good? Sorry, George, but the best two movies are ones you DIDN’T direct. Watch it.

Day 4 "Delirious"

When you are ten year’s old, your taste in movies is terrible. And with that statement, I just made all the ten-year-olds’ hit lists. Do ten-year-old’s have hit lists? Never mind that. I watched a movie from my childhood, one that I enjoyed back then. It was straight up entertaining and really funny... but now, something is... different. So I look at all these kids’ movies nowadays, and think to myself: Some child loves this movie now and is going to watch it again in 20 years. They are going to think to him or herself 20 years later “What was I thinking? This movie is awful!”

You certainly have guessed it by now: I am talking about “Delirious.” Yes, THE Delirious. A lesser known John Candy movie for the uninitiated. For me, this movie ranked up there with “Uncle Buck” and “Who’s Harry Crumb?,” which are a few of my favorite movies from my childhood. Now I am questioning everything. Are they good movies!? What is the half-life of strontium? Why didn’t the tooth fairy come when I got my wisdom teeth YANKED? I digress. I say this, because “ Delirious” is, in one word, bad. I used to think that John Candy hitting his head and going into this “Soap Opera Dream World”, where he is a writer, and were he can control the world through his typewriter, was awesome. It isn’t, as it turns out, because of the ultra cheesy moments, and therefore quintessentially “80s.”

I also thought to myself: Well, Self, they make really bad movies in the 80s, so maybe it’s just that. I don’t think things have changed that much though. They still make really awful, cheesy movies today too. Certainly, there are a bunch of ten-year-old’s now that love the new “Clash of the Titans.” Well, Little Virginia, in 2031, when you put this on your Virtua-Netlfix Nuclear 3D and you watch it, I am sorry, but your childhood was a lie. :) Caveat videtor! Viewer be warned!

Day 3 " The Girl that Played with Fire"

“Have you read the book? Its great!”

“I love that book, I can’t wait to see the movie!”

I am sure you all have heard this before. There are a crap-ton of movies that started out as books; from the Watchmen, to Hunt for Red October, to just about any Grimms Brother story turned Disney movie. Now, I just have one question . Are any of them good? Well, I ‘m sure you are thinking to yourself, “Lord of the Rings is a good one!” Yet, I know people who read “Lord of the Rings,” who say “Nay”. Directors always have to leave stuff from the book out, and most of the time that takes away from the movie. The movie, lacking that extra detail. Now, they can’t make six hour movies either, so what do we do?

Recently, I watched “The Girl that Played with Fire.” If you don’t know what that is, it’s a Swedish film based on a book by Stieg Larsson. This is the second movie/book in a trilogy. The first one was “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” which Details showed me months ago. Details has a thing for crazy, random movies. I enjoyed the first movie very much. So I thought to myself, “might as well see what crazy adventures the characters get into this time.” I have to say, I thought this film was good, but nowhere near a good as the first. Maybe the story was not as interesting, or the film was not paced as well, but it just lacked the intrigue of the first. Now I can hear someone chime in, “they left so much out, you should read the book!” Well, then why the heck do they even make the movies, if they are leaving the good stuff out!
My next thought is, do I really want to read the books? I have already seen the movies, I can’t un-see them. I feel like these movie are good, but it’s what I call “a one-time watcher.” The subject matter is very graphic, and was hard to even watch that. I can, however, recognize the quality of the story and production. Just thinking about reading the books, where things are literally spelled out and gone into more detail, makes me want to hurt myself. I will be watching the third movie, “The Girl that Kicked the Hornet’s Nest,” as it was added to Netflix recently. Gotta know how it all ends! The subject matter is graphic, and if that doesn’t bother you, watch it!

Day 2 " unknown"

So apparently my crazy voice inflections and mad hands did not translate to my writing; I will be working on that the best I can. Talking about movies seems to be much easier for me, given that I am so animated. But fear not, I am not giving up! See, exclamation points help (smiley face).

I watched a few movies yesterday with the JMC (alias). He and I both enjoyed this one when it first came out, but unlike JMC, I have seen this film more than once. When we started the movie, I said “ Oh yeah, Jude Law narrates this movie”. I thoroughly enjoy movies that are narrated, as they seem to add an extra element of depth to the film. Narrated movies make me feel like I know something that the characters do not, as in: “ I’m sorry this is not the movie you will be watching. The movie you are about to see is extremely unpleasant. If you wish to see a film about a happy little elf, I’m sure there is still plenty of seating in theater number two.” Have you guessed what movie I am talking about yet?

“Lemony Snicket’s a Series of Unfortunate Events” is kind of a strange movie. I say strange, because I don’t know who this movie was made for. When I watch a movie, I try to decide who is the target audience. If it’s “Toy Story 3,” I can guess it’s made for kids, or people who have enjoyed the other “Toy Story” films. Pixar is really good about making stories for everyone: adults and children alike. This film, on the other hand, seems too simple for adults, i.e. based on children's books. And yet, too dark for kids: there is death, and children put in danger. “You need to Lighten up!” you say. Do I?

It seems like our kids are having to grow up way too fast these days. To make movies about death, murder, and greedy villains. Do they enjoy these movies? Or are the adults enjoying them, and the kids are just going with it? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie. But to be honest with you, I might have actually enjoyed the movie about the littlest elf more. Watch it.

Day 1 500 Days of Summer

A movie a day keeps the mundane away. Not exactly a common belief , but that is exactly what I am going to try and do. "do or do not, there is no try" Did i just quote Yoda? why yes I did. Watch any movie, Netflix, theater, DVD, and whatever else, write a review about the movie and start putting my thoughts into reality instead of just annoying my friends with my crazy movie opinions and well I just want to, so deal with it!

Joesph Gordon Levitt is the man, If you do not know who that is, look him up. He is one of my favorite up and coming actors. I was always aware of him but never really thought much of him until I saw him in the movie "Brick" where he played the main protagonist. If you didn't see him in that, go watch it it's awesome, you might have seen him in the movie Inception. Inception is amazing. The movie I watched is 500 days of Summer. Which is my first post is going to be about.

Now I didn't see 500 days of Summer in the theater, which is my preferred method of watching movies, But I saw it later from netlfix, was instantly amazed and watched it twice In a 24 hour period. What instantly struck me about this movie is the depth of the characters and the none linear story telling. The opening shot is of Joesph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel Sitting in a Park on day 488, with some narration we learn this is a movie about Boy meets girl, but its not a love story. Instantly hooked, we watched the opening credits of the two main characters as children growing up, with fantastic music by Regina Spektor. Now I don't want to dictate the entire movie to you, but the beginning really sets the Stage for an amazing story.

You should watch this movie before you read anything else. My friend Details( alias) said she hated this movie. This was the reason I watched it Twice to show her what she missed. Details hated this movie because of how Summer ( Zooey) treats the character Tom (Joesph). "She is such a bitch", said Details. I found it my mission to show Details how wrong she was, and ultimately how amazing this movie is. This movie is all about perspectives. Tom had built the relationship to be more than is was, by a lot. Summer in the beginning had stated she doesn't want a relationship, but Tom either thinks he can change her mind or ignores this. Tom being the romantic, believing in Fate and love, doesn't understand why anyone would want to not be in love. Well his struggle is the center of the movie. Now its easy for you to just say Summer is a cold hearted bitch. But what they didn't show you is her preceptive till the end. but if you are already to pissed at her you will miss it.

This movie is one of my all time favorites and I have so much to say about it. But being this is my first post I should probably stop. Watch it.