The Twilight Saga: New Moon

- One star (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for some violence and action.
- Who's going to like it: fans of the Twilight books or movie – nobody else.

A teenage soap opera adaptation of Romeo and Juliet with vampires and werewolves

If you thought that Seinfeld earned the title “the show about nothing,” you obviously haven't seen New Moon – the longest movie where absolutely nothing happens. No plot.

New Moon – the second chapter of the Twilight franchise – is basically the same movie as the first, just with a different freaky male romantic interest. After Bella (Kristen Stewart, Adventureland) unintentionally poses a moral threat to Edward (Robert Pattinson, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) and his family, the Cullens leave the small town of Forks, WA to begin a new life somewhere else, leaving behind everything – including Bella.

In a deep dark rut of depression, Bella begins performing stupid reckless acts just to be visited by warning apparitions of a protective Edward. After her suicidal acts lose their luster, Bella copes with her depression by spending all of her time with a local Native American boy, Jacob (Taylor Lautner, Cheaper By The Dozen 2). But the relationship between them is damned to be like the one with Edward because of Bella's everlasting love with Edward and Jacob's new monstrous secret.

Other than a tiny ten-minute plot that's conjured up in the final moments of the movie (which is a blatant rip of Romeo and Juliet), that's all there is to New Moon. Only two revelations come about that further the saga's storyline – one you see in the the trailer (Jacob is a werewolf), and the other we've all presumed since the story began (I'll keep that one a secret for those who don't want me to spoil the one-and-only surprise).

Considering how much of a huge impact the Twilight saga has had on pop culture worldwide, it's shocking to me to the see the low-caliber in which the films are made. Every aspect of these movies are executed in the worst possible way. Each one of the the following rants exemplifies those poorly crafted aspects:

– Acting. Taking off your shirt multiple times in one movie and clinching your jaw is not acting (Jacob). Being slightly more tan than you were in Twilight, constantly breathing deeply, biting your lip and screaming is not acting (Bella). Smashing and contorting your face to show disgust is not acting (Edward). Don't even get me started on the secondary character's acting. Every one of the werewolf gang members that Jacob runs around with needs to take acting lessons. I've seen better acting on the CW.

– Directing. The directing in New Moon is no better from that of Twilight. Director Chris Weitz (The Golden Compass) relentlessly fills the frame with absurdly long single shots of nothing – a spinning overhead shot of Bella pointlessly crawling through the woods for a minute, a 360-degree slowly rotating shot of Bella sitting in a chair for over a minute just to show the months and seasons pass outside her window. For some reason, Weitz also feels the need to over-use slow motion effects – not only during action scenes, but any time a boy (shirtless or not) enters the screen. The majority of the New Moon consists of improperly used camera work – including several sequences that come across as dialogue-less music videos set to the least fitting music possible. Combined, all of these misused elements are enough to drive one crazy.

– The story (or lack thereof). It's hard to believe a slow, strung-out love story when not an ounce of chemistry exists between the romantic leads. I don't buy that Bella could be that caught up in Edward when he's so shut-off and cold. He never even smiles at her, so when he tells her that he loves her, I laugh. I don't buy it. And when Bella begins passing time with Jacob, she's so rude and blunt to him about how they will never have a romantic relationship that I can't figure out why he'd stick around with her. She's so obviously using him as a rebound that he's got to know. I don't buy any of it. It's too shallow and unbelievable.

– The studio. Nothing personal against Summit Entertainment, but with an already huge cult following, why would Stephenie Meyer sell the movie rights to her series to an unknown independent film studio? Why not something big? We saw what New Line did with Lord of the Rings and Warner Bros. with Harry Potter. Why settle for the lowest common denominator? Because of Summit's newness to the industry, it's obvious why the first two movies in this four-film franchise have been atrociously awful. It's like I said in my original Twilight review, these films feel so amateur that it's not surprising that I've seen better short films by undergraduate college film students. While the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films will live forever, Twilight will be forgotten.

With all of that said, none of it matters. The Twilight saga is critic proof. All the giddy teenage girls and romance-lacking middle-aged women will still see New Moon and absurdly drool all over it. My job is to stop those who aren't into the series to never get into it, to stop feeding this undeserving cash cow.

For my superbly brutal review on Twilight, click here.

The image below very well could be a snapshot of the cast while watching New Moon. That's how entertaining it is.

Photo credit: Summit Entertainment

The Blind Side

- One star (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references.
- Who's going to like it: fans of feel-good movies and true story sports flicks (even though less than half of the movie is about sports)

A long, jumbled mess of a feel-good true story

The first trailer I saw for The Blind Side made it look like a serious drama with a heart about a woman who took in a homeless teen and taught him to be good at something he liked. The second trailer made it look like a comedic sports movie, playing circus music and slide whistles in the background. In reality, The Blind Side is a conflicted mix of both – two things that don't blend well together in this case.

The Blind Side's first half focuses on the homeless teenage character Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron, Be Kind Rewind). With nowhere to go on a cold Memphis night, Michael is picked up by the wealthy Touhy family (parents Sean and Leigh Ann played by Tim McGraw and Sandra Bullock) who take him under their wings and give him a future.

For anyone who knows sports, you know this as the story of the Baltimore Raven's Michael Oher. As amazing as the story may be, the movie falls apart because it is such a bad telling of Oher's experiences. While the movie is full of dramatic and comedic moments, they don't harmonize well together. Just after a moment where your heart strings are tugged on and you're finally starting to feel something, a bad one-liner is dropped, causing you to quickly lose the emotional connection that was just established. It's this dichotomy repeated over and over again that ruins the movie. The acting is good, the movie is well made. It's within the script that all is lost. The result is a movie barely over two hours, yet it feels more like three.

Although I'm just one person who strongly disliked The Blind Side, people are going to like it. It's that time of the year when people want feel-good flicks, and this one is more “feel-good” than most of those of the previous years – like Seven Pounds and The Pursuit of Happyness. If you liked those examples or movies in that same vein, you ought to enjoy The Blind Side. If not, stay away. It's sap and corn in it's highest concentration.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

The Box

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Richard Kelly, Donnie Darko, The Twilight Zone and decent science fiction stories that require you to think and create your own conclusion IF you can write off a few bad things for a bunch of great ones

It's like an indie Twilight Zone with extra odd science fiction

Richard Kelly has a fairly big cult following. It all stems from his 2001 indie hit Donnie Darko, staring Jake Gyllenhaal. Folling Donnie Darko, Kelly wrote the screenplay for Keira Knightley's bounty hunter action flick Domino. Because of the admiration of his peers and colleagues, Kelly was asked to present his unfinished work-in-progess Southland Tales at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival. It received awful reviews, followed up with by a very limited theatrical release in the U.S. - so small it appeared to be a direct-to-DVD title. Perhaps trying to prove himself as a more than a one-hit-wonder, Kelly has attempted his first major studio flick with The Box.

The Box is Richard Kelly's feature-length adaptation of the Richard Matheson's short story “Button, Button” which was also adapted into a 1986 Twilight Zone episode. It stars Cameron Diaz (Charlie's Angels) and James Marsden (X-Men) as a married couple struggling financially to support their family. Just as their financial troubles hit a new low, a mysterious package shows up on their front doorstep. Inside is a box with large red button and a note saying that a visitor will be arriving. That evening, a man named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon) shows up at their house to explain the conditions of the box: if the button is pushed, somewhere in the world, someone they do not know will die. As a result of having pushed the button, the couple will receive a case containing one million dollars. The terms of the agreement are that they can never ask about the identity of his employer, they must keep it a secret and they have 24 hours to make the heavy decision.

Because The Box is adapted from a short story into a 115-minute movie, some of it feels unnecessary. Once it gets past that initial premise of the story, it starts to get excessively wild – especially when it comes down to the science fiction parts of the story. If you can write-off those problems, knowing that you're going into an odd Richard Kelly film, then you should enjoy The Box. If not, you'll most likely hate it.

Forgive me for the brevity of this review, but if I go any deeper into any aspect, I will end up spoiling something. Simply pay attention to the criteria of people who will like The Box. If you don't qualify, don't see it.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated R for language, some drug content and brief nudity.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Clooney's recent comedies (like Burn After Reading)

A comedy that draws laughs, but not as many as the trailer leads you to believe

The Men Who Stare At Goats opens with a line of text claiming that “more of [the film] is true than you would believe.” Take it as you will, but I'm going to believe it. In the early '80s, the government put together a secret program (called the First Earth Battalion) training psychic spies – or as George Clooney's character Lyn Cassady refers to them, “Jedi Warriors.” They were a group of odd men who (supposedly) possessed psychic abilities. They were used to track the locations of hostage soldiers, trained to pass through walls and kill with their minds – which is where the film gets it title. They were taught to kill goats with their minds by staring at them with intense concentration.

The film picks up with reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan MacGregor, who coincidentally played famous Jedi warrior O.B. Wan in the Star Wars prequels) trying to get into Iraq with press credentials in 2003. Upon meeting and befriending Lyn – a former “Jedi Warrior” – Bob decides to travel with him and uncover the unique story of the government's First Earth Battalion program from twenty years prior. The film jumps back and forth from Bob and Lyn's road trip through war-ridden Iraq and Lyn's retelling of his origins, those of the program and his involvement.

The best parts of The Men Who Stare At Goats come from the performances. As always, MacGregor is average and Clooney is perfect for the role he's in. Along with Clooney's, the other real memorable performance comes from Jeff Bridges (The Dude from The Big Lebowski) as the hippie founder and creator of the “Jedi Warrior” program. Clooney is always great, but any time Bridges is on screen, he's amazing.

Although The Men Who Stare At Goats is a fun and entertaining film, it's not the great film the trailers make it out to be. Instead of laughs and sizzle, it's chuckle and fizzle. The trailer is definitely funnier than the movie as a whole and the climax doesn't pop like the build-up leads you to believe. Simply put, it's good – not great. Worth watching as a matinée – not full price.

Photo credit: Overture Films

Gentlemen Broncos

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for some crude humor.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Jared Hess , Jermaine Clement, Sam Rockwell and silly awkward comedy.

Writer/director Jared Hess' funniest/quirkiest film yet

The summer that Napoleon Dynamite opened, I waited through all the relentless quoting and hype to see it. By the time I saw it, my response was, “That was it? This is what you're all talking about?” It wasn't until years later when I revisited it that I found it funny. Jared Hess' big screen debut was actually a pretty entertaining movie.

When I saw Nacho Libre for the first time, I didn't expect to like it much – figuring it too would take multiple viewings – but I was wrong. Though I loved it, I had to admit that a lot of the amusement I got from the movie stemmed from my background of having lived in Central America for a couple years. The comedy that Hess pulled out of that foreign culture was hilarious to me and those who have experienced it. But I still wasn't a huge fan of Hess' work. It all felt too contrived, forced. And it definitely ripped off a lot from fellow indie comedy filmmaker Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums). Although his third film, Gentlemen Broncos, also borrows a lot from Wes Anderson, without a doubt, it is his funniest film (upon first viewing) to date.

If Napoleon Dynamite took you into the weird world of an odd boy in Idaho and Nacho Libre showed you a Mexican monk's secret aspiration of becoming a professional wrestler, then Gentlemen Broncos introduces you to small town Utah and a home-schooled boy's obsession with bad science fiction – two things which when added together equal comedic greatness.

Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) plays the awkward teenager Benjamin. When shipped off to a home-schooled student's writing festival, two things happen that change Benjamin's life: he meets his favorite science fiction writer, Dr. Ronald Chevalier (Jermaine Clement, Flight of the Conchords), and he submits his own sci-fi book, "Yeast Lords", into a nation competition where the winner receives a limited publication and cover art hand-drawn by Chevalier himself.

With heat from his editors due to writer's block, Chevalier decides to plagiarize "Yeast Lords," only slightly changing the names and characters. With no knowledge of this, Benjamin sells the rights to "Yeast Lords" to a tiny local production company that spits out awful short films. Wackiness ensues as things get complicated and hairy.

The best thing about Gentlemen Broncos it the science fiction aspect. Throughout the film, it jumps to live-action scenes contrasting the differences between Benjamin's original book and Chevalier's rewritten version of "Yeast Lords." Sam Rockwell (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) plays the book's main character Bronco in so-bad-it's-good '50s style science fiction scenes. Any scene featuring Rockwell is comedic gold. (Stay until the end of the credits for an addition Bronco scene).

My only problem with Gentlemen Broncos is an unnecessary, uncalled-for shoot-out scene that feels lifted right out of Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Other than that, Gentlemen Broncos is a hilarious, laugh-out-loud comedy that deserves far more credit than national reviews are giving it.

Photo credit: Fox Searchlight

A Christmas Carol

- Half of a star (out of four)
- Rated PG for scary sequences and images.
- Who's going to like it: the simpletons who like every movie

Disney tells the same story again, only this version is not worth watching

I am huge fan of Robert Zemeckis. I'll never forget seeing the Back To The Future movies on the big screen for the first time. Forrest Gump is one of the best “feel good” films. And Contact is one of my favorite science fiction film. Those films are all in my all-time favorites list, so it personally wounds my soul for him to make a movie so bad that I wanted to walk out.

From Bill Murray's Scrooged to Mickey's Christmas Carol, every has seen one version or another of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol – so why Disney has decided to tell the same story again is beyond me. All I can figure is that they wanted to give it a CG 3-D twist – allowing them to charge more for admission.

A Christmas Carol was filmed the same way that Peter Jackson shot Andy Serkis as Gollum for the Lord of the Rings movies - motion capture: hook-up a bunch of odd digital devices and dots to an actor's body and face and have them act the scenes out. Computers take the data from the devices and dots and translate them into a digital image of the actor. Often times, the resemblance can be perfect. But why would you want to film something, then try to digitally make it look exactly like what you filmed already once? Seems like a lot of work to see the exact same performance for a digitally created face. It's obvious why Jackson used motion capture for Serkis' Gollum – nobody with or without make-up can create a character that looks like that. Once again, why Disney and Zemeckis wanted to make A Christmas Carol this way is beyond me.

The most annoying (and possibly disturbing) problem with Zemeckis' motion capture animation is in the eyes of the digital characters. You probably noticed it in both The Polar Express and Beowulf, the dead-looking eyes. They're lifeless. They look like Woody's still, fixed eyes in Toy Story whenever a human is present. With a few of the main characters in A Christmas Carol, the problem is better – not fixed, just better. Other times they look “dead” again. And the middle ground looks like crossed eyes – which I can't imagine was intentional.

I'm fairly surprised that Disney picked up A Christmas Carol for a few big reasons: one, it's disturbing – not in the scary Ghost of Christmas Past kind of way, but graphic in nature. For example, when Marley's ghost visits Scrooge in the beginning of the movie, while talking, the skin of his cheeks rips and tears from the corners of his mouth back to his ears. Unable to talk, he has to manually move his jaw by flapping it up and down with his hand. The movie consists of many graphic scenes of this nature.

Two, it's frightening – the only thing more frightening than a scary scene is a scary scene with scary things coming out at you in 3-D. Sorry, Disney – I don't want to deal with my kid having nightmares because of your inappropriately rated PG flick. No, thanks.

Three, it's not a kid's movie. The majority of the film is words – serious adult conversations, talking and talking for long chunks of time, followed by low-brow, dumbed-down "kids" humor. When they're not talking, it's Scrooge flying or falling through the air; it's a shrunken Scrooge running from huge dark horses; it's tiny Scrooge falling down the stairs, sliding down an icy rooftop repeatedly racking his groin into hanging icicles. There's a word for that – it's stupid. Stupid and inconsistent. Are you trying to make a dark version of A Christmas Carol? If so, that's okay – but stick to your guns. Make it a kid's movie with stupid kid's jokes in it, or make it a dark adult movie. You can't make it both because neither audience will be fully entertained.

It's takes a lot for me to hate a movie, but it didn't take Zemeckis much to make me hate A Christmas Carol. I don't know that I've ever wanted to walk out of a movie so bad in my entire life. That's how much I hated it. What a boring a poorly crafted movie.

You may be asking yourself, “If you hated it so much, why did you give it half a star and not zero stars?” Answer: because of the majority of the voice cast. When Jim Carrey was playing one of his subtle characters he was just fine – although his other performances were extremely annoying. It's the others in the voice cast that are impressive. Gary Oldman (Harry Potter), Colin Firth (Love Actually), Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride), Robin Wright Penn (The Princess Bride also) and Bob Hoskins (Hook) are all amazing. The only good reviews I'll give A Christmas Carol will be their talent. The rest is garbage.

If you're thinking of taking the family to a good Christmas flick, cross A Christmas Carol off your list. It's not worth it – especially when you consider the extra two bucks you have to pay per ticket for the 3-D. Go rent Mickey's Christmas Carol instead - it's the only Disney version I recommend.

Photo credit: Walt Disney Studios

This Is It

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated PG for some suggestive choreography and scary images.
- Who's going to like it: Michael Jackson fans and anyone interested in learning how major productions come about

This is it – MJ's last performance, singing and dancing as good as he did at 20

When “The King Of Pop” died on June 25 and newscasts started showing limited rehearsal footage from Michael Jackson's upcoming London production “This Is It,” I knew that someone would exploit those videos and turn them into a feature-length film. What I didn't foresee was that footage being turned into a well-made film documenting something that the never came pass – the “This Is It” show. Fortunately, I was wrong about it being a bad thing.

This Is It is a nearly two-hour documentary showing how “This Is It” was going to be. It begins more than two months before Jackson's death with intimate interviews with several of the back-up dancers shortly after being hired for the job, expressing their gratitude and respect to MJ. But with almost no hesitation, the film shows you what you came to see – MJ doing his thing.

Fan or not, there's no denying the fact that Michael Jackson could perform at age 50 just as well as he could in his prime. While watching it, I had the thought that Michael Jackson must have never gone a day in his life without using his singing voice. A few times throughout the film it shows Jackson singing classic hits in A Capella versions. That man truly mastered his voice. And his dancing skills hadn't diminished at all. From improvised dancing to the well-choreographed group numbers, Michael still had it.

This Is It does not try to prove anything. It's sole purpose is to give you one last Michael Jackson performance. The film features a total of 27 of Jackson's songs, with more than a dozen of them in their full-length. Often times throughout an entire song's performance, it will seamlessly cut between different rehearsals, showing off different costumes. The only problem some might see in this is that not all of the video's have the same quality. Sometimes it will cut to grainy footage, but most of the time it's in beautiful high definition.

After seeing This Is It, I gained an appreciation of Michael Jackson that I didn't have before - not that it doesn't show the odd side of MJ, because it does. I never realized how much Jackson had to do with the writing and preforming of the music itself. He was just as much involved in the visual aspect of “This Is It” as he was the musical aspect of his. He was just as much a director and choreographer as he was a performer. I can now agree with the long-time MJ fans in claiming that he was an extremely talented man, making it a bittersweet experience watching This Is It.

Photo credit: Sony Pictures