The Blind Side

Drew's Thoughts:
First of all, it's embarrassing that this film currently has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and there is a bit of Oscar buzz brewing for Sandra Bullock.
Writer/Director John Lee Hancock takes a (true) story with a lot of problematic issues and whitewashes it into oblivion making it into easily digestible Holiday pap that an audience can sit through and feel like they're learning something without having to go through the trouble of, you know, thinking or asking questions.
Here's a story that begins with Michael Oher and ends with him playing for the Baltimore Ravens yet through the whole 128 minutes the film never probes the character in any depth (there are literally only a handful of instances in the film where he says more than four words of dialogue at a time.) Instead you get the story of the sweet, tough talkin' Southern lady who rescued this lovable oaf (who's only apparent skills are his "protective instincts" making him out to be more like a dog than anything) and just wouldn't give up. The movie is just drowning in a frustrating "momma knows best" mentality. Thank heavens she brought this black boy out of the bad, literally all black world and into the good, literally all white world and she can be a good role model for him since his mom is a crack addict and "can't even remember who his father is."
The film occasionally pretends to deal with hypocrisy such as when the private high school football coach wants Michael to be admitted into the school "not be cause of sports, but because we're Christian" and then Bullock sort of calls him on it later in the film. But the film, a complete hypocrisy in itself, totally sidesteps the real issue at play here, that no one in the movie EVER asks Michael if he wants to play football or even if he's good at it. They just assume he does and is because he's a BIG BLACK BOY!
When Michael chooses to play football at Ole Miss (which the family, die-hard Ole Miss alums, has been basically brainwashing him to pick) the NCAA investigates the goings on to make sure that boosters like the family aren't just adopting underprivileged youth and buying them expensive new cars in order to funnel them into their university's football program, and it's a totally legitimate concern. But the woman representing the NCAA, who is black, is shamelessly written as a villain. And when Bullock's character hears this (she is presumed innocent of the charges) she feels bad and says "you know what? I never asked him if he wanted to go to Ole Miss. I just did everything in my power to get him to choose it" she seems to learn her lesson but when she talks to Michael about instead of fucking asking him where HE wants to go to school she TELLS HIM to go to Tennessee (her arch nemesis that she tried to get him to not pick.) I mean what is the fucking lesson here?
The only silver lining is that Carter Burwell did the score so the music was pretty good, though it's his fantastic work on Where the Wild Things Are and especially A Serious Man that will be worth remembering for your Dolphin ballot.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Drew's Thoughts:
This mediocre to lame children's movie is mildly amusing despite told-a-thousand-times jokes due to it's surprisingly great cast featuring the likes of Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Ricky Gervais, Ben Stiller, Hank Azaria, Christopher Guest (pretty funny as Ivan the Terrible) and last year's Dolphin winner Amy Adams. Adams plays Amelia Earhart in the film, looking to Katharine Hepburn for inspiration and giving a fun, confident performance. She's probably not good enough to make it to a supporting actress Dolphin nom, but this is a weak year so you never know.

Bronson

Drew's Thoughts:
I checked out Nicolas Winding Refn's baroque "biopic" of Mickey Peterson a.k.a. Charlie Bronson "Britain's most famous prisoner" (a title he is heartily proud of) because my friend is really into it. It sounded a lot like Chopper, Andrew Dominik's (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) first film, which I like. And it is quite a bit like Chopper but probably inferior to it.
I don't really know too much about Bronson, other than he is/was a favorite of the British tabloids, and you aren't going to really learn that much about him from this film. The film is more concerned with style than communicating "facts" as most biopics tend to do. Considering how rote the "biopic" has become it's somewhat refreshing though light on content. Refn moves the film between "real" events and Bronson, with his bald head and circus strongman mustache, giving a surreal, circa-1900 one-man show of his life to an enthusiastic, packed theatrehouse. Tom Hardy, who plays Bronson, has a profoundly creepy presence in these scenes making them some of the best in the movie. Hardy is sometimes sardonically humorous and other times ferocious and frightening but absolutely manic the whole way through. Refn provides similarly manic direction with lots of bombastic classical music cues and some bold, ornately designed sets.
Really the main reason to see this is Tom Hardy's performance which is something like Christian Bale's magician in The Prestige playing a maniacal mutation of Daniel Plainview, The Joker and Capt. Jack Sparrow. Having seen Hardy in interviews and RocknRolla, he definitely transforms himself into a giant, psychotic, raving asshole. He relinquishes any personal vanity and dives head first into the role.
However, the script is pretty thin, the raucous film barely runs 82 minutes, making the film more of a showcase for the performance and production design rather than any sort of in depth study of the man. Though, there may not be that much depth to the man in the first place. The main thing I learned is that Bronson wants to be famous and for all I know that's the only motivating factor of the real Bronson's slew of violent in-prison tantrums. For some reason mysterious to everyone else, he only seems satisfied when he's wreaking havoc in one way or another.
Tom Hardy is good and could maybe be a dark horse contender for a Best Actor Dolphin nom, but for him to have a real chance to get in there I think Firth or Bridges or one of the other highly anticipated male leads will have to falter. The film will be worth remembering for Art Direction, Sound and maybe Makeup categories though.

District 9

Drew's Thoughts:
The premise of South African summer sci-fi flick District 9 is an interesting one. At some point during the 80s an alien spacecraft essentially "breaks down" over Johannesburg. Long story short, the South African government and society treat the aliens as "illegal aliens" (a-ha moment everyone?) and set up a hooverville to "temporarily" place them in called District 9. The film is shot in a faux-documentary-style about the best it's ever been done, using scholars and news broadcasts to explain the history of District 9 and all the various social issues of the slum over the past 30 years. Once you get past the rich back story, it turns out what is currently happening is a lot less interesting.
It is difficult to pinpoint why I didn't care for this movie. Maybe there's just an inherent problem in telling a fictional story like a documentary (though a number of Christopher Guest movies can prove that wrong), maybe it's the lead's cartoonish performance, and that he amounts to being the only non-peripheral character in the film, maybe it's because the aliens look kinda fake. Maybe it's all those things. The lack of character-development is a big problem, and I'd also say, despite the good premise, the story is pretty thin.
The main dude played by Sharlto Copley gets alien fuel spit in his face which starts turning him into an alien so he goes on the search with other aliens to find more fuel so he can be human again and the aliens can leave (because that's all they've been wanting to do the whole damn time, but they're out of gas apparently). Here the documentary style really does not work, things don't really make all that much sense and the fake "shaky" camera just gets to be really bothersome rather than effective.
I would've been into some kind of "help the aliens escape" action movie, that might be fun, but you are only given one character, and he's a sucky character who I didn't care a stitch about, so the whole movie turns out be a big bore after such an interesting start.
It's pretty rare I ever encourage remakes, but if a more talented filmmaker were to take this premise I could see a cool movie there.

A Serious Man

Colleen's Thoughts:
I was looking very forward to A Serious Man, the latest from the Coen's. Despite not being a huge fan of Burn After Reading I thought since this one has been called autobiographical it might be interesting. Also, many Coen brother movies, have a charm about them that is difficult to describe (Raising Arizona and The Big Lewboski are the ones that come to mind). I crave this charm and despite recent disappoints I go in expecting it.
I have to say I was fairly disappointed. The more I think about it the more I think the film has some redeemable qualities but all and all I just wasn't impressed. It didn't seem like they had much of a story to tell and if you don't have a story why tell it? I think the film failed mainly in the area of entertainment. A good movie should entertain and I was pretty bored halfway through the film. The movie had a very cynical and apathetic tone which isn't always bad but in this movie was quite lame. After an odd and, I must admit, intriguing intro you are introduced to Larry Gopnick. Larry is having what seems like no end to life problems. He is a good guy and tries to do good so you want better things for him. His, kids his wife, his brother, his work all bring different mundane challenges for him. This is about the extent of the film.
Deakins did a fine job with the cinematog. I thought the lead actor Michael Stuhlbarg as Larry Gopnick did a good job with the role and you truly did think he was a good guy even though he was a total putz and somewhat of a wuss.
All and all the film was ok. If you don't know much about Jewish culture you may learn something but that is about the extent of it.

Drew's Thoughts:
The Coen brothers' latest is a tale concocted straight out the Book of Job. The film centers on Larry Gopnik, who "tries to always do right", as his life begins to crumble around him in strange and often hilarious ways. Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry and his performance is central to what makes the film work. Stuhlbarg finds the right balance between eccentricity and playing the "straight man." Gopnik's essentially a sweet guy, hard working, moral, always taking on the burden of others (to the point of nearly being a complete wuss) and with each new obstacle he becomes increasingly panicked, wondering why this is happening to him but trying to still deal with it in an upright manner. He looks for answers anywhere and everywhere, visiting three Rabbis in the process, and never receives a satisfactory answer. Or any real answer really.
Though Colleen found the film to be boring, I was quite entertained. A lot of the fun comes from the push/pull between the comic and the dark, tragic elements (take Carter Burwell's creeping, minor-key score, for instance). Seeing Larry get increasingly over his head, scrambling to make sense of it all, was fun and reminded me a bit of the Dude's misadventures, though where the Dude got an ultimately zen-like movie consistent with his demeanor, Larry gets a frantic, less benign film.
This is also one of the weirder Coen brothers' movies. It's not as upfront about the weirdness as, say, Barton Fink but there's the ambiguous opening scene, set in a past century, and strange existential happenings, both central and peripheral to the film, that you might expect to be in a Charlie Kaufman screenplay.
The Coens in their later years have found more and more humor in fatalism, futility and misanthropy and A Serious Man fits right in there. Though the audience is taking pleasure in Larry's disorientation, the Coens disorient the audience (probably taking pleasure in it) by telling their comedy like a mystery--where the audience scrambles to put the pieces together just like Larry. Though I'm not sure if it's one of the best films of the year, it is good. And I'd like to see it again soon, not necessarily to relive favorite moments as is usual with the Coens' work, but just to try to figure the film out a little bit more.
Even if some of the PFA members don't end up being big fans of the film I hope they'll remember, come Dolphin-time, Jess Gonchor's detailed, pitch-perfect circa-1967 Art Direction work and also some of Roderick Jaynes's best editing yet. The film is edited quite tensely for a comedy and there are a number of sequences where the Coens... I mean Jaynes devises some inventive editing.

Bright Star

Drew's Thoughts:
Jane Campion (The Piano) excels at the period piece so I was curious to see this film about the doomed romance of poet John Keats and his "bright star" Fanny Brawne. I liked the film quite a bit more than I expected mainly due to Abbie Cornish who gives the best female performance I've seen this year. She's remarkable as Fanny, giving a very confident, expressive performance. Without her the film could not have achieved as much success as it did. Paul Schneider (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) was also good in his supporting role as Charles Armitage Brown, sporting a credible Scottish accent and a newly expanded waistline. He always has a great presence in movies, but this is the most "demanding" role he's taken and he does a good job adding a bit of humor (and mean-spirited quips) to the film. Ben Whishaw was also good, but I guess he had maybe the less interesting character in my opinion compared to the other two.
I liked that the film wasn't a Keats bio-pic (not that there'd be anything wrong with that) but was a well-written, affecting romance and their relationship drives the film rather than his poetry. The film drags a little 3/4s through when it becomes inevitable that Keats will die and it's just a matter of time. Though I guess that was the reality of it.
Technically the film is quite sound. The costumes were good and the cinematographer Greig Fraser made good use of lighting. The purple wildflowers were beautiful as well.

Colleen's Thoughts:
A fan of Keats (especially "Ode on a Grecian Urn") since high school I was looking forward to the movie Bright Star. I knew before I saw the film that Keats had a very interesting story for a poet of this time, he was poor and in debt (because of his dead father and sick brother) and was not of the aristocratic class. In that day and age just one of those two bad marks would bar you from being a poet people read and cared about. He is the exception to the rule of the famous Romantic poets. However, this movie seems to care very little about any of that. It is all about his passionate love relationship with Fanny and she is clearly who the film centers on. It was a bit melodramatic and heavy but nevertheless a thoroughly enjoyable film. Jane Campion clearly knew what she was doing so there are no glaring mistakes or complaints.
I loved the cinematography and art direction. My friend Val, who saw the movie with us (she got us in for 40 cents each woohoo!) said that the movie looked like a poem. I thought this was a very intelligent comment. A movie about one of the most famous poets in Romanticism should look like a poem. The English country is beautiful (by the way it takes place in Hampstead Heath which as Lizzie, mom, Drew and I know is now a beautiful posh area where lots of rich folk live) However, at this time it is a quiet area outside of the city with lovely flowers and lakes. I liked that the indoors of the houses didn't look too extravagant, even people with money like the one's in the film did not really have all that much to show off. I loved the shots through the windows.
I also LOVED Paul Schneider's (All the Real Girls) performance. I had no idea it was him and I really thought he was a native Scot or Brit. You hated him when you were supposed to and liked him when you were supposed to. I wish that the character of Keats would have been a little bit more fully formed, for instance I really like the scene where he is pacing in the rain and gets mad at Fanny and Mr. Brown but Keats (Whishaw) isn't given many lines or scenes where he can do a lot. I still thought Whishaw was good though. Abbie Cornish also was very good and is def a front runner along with Penelope for this year's best actor. She acted like a young woman passionately in love and I also respected her, sometimes those two are hard to pull off together. I also loved the little red head girl, best child actor of the year so far. And of course, I can't NOT talk about the ADORABLE tuxedo cat that plays such a prominent role in this film. He/She is so cute and would fit perfectly in the Kenny clan. I wanted to take him/her home after the film with me.
All in all this was clearly one of the best Dolphin films this year and will make a strong showing in the Colleen noms.

Julie and Julia

Drew's Thoughts:
The bright side of the latest piece of crap by Nora Ephron (You've Got Mail, Hanging Up) is that a funny Meryl Streep performance is intercut throughout it. There really isn't much reason to watch this other than to see Streep, unless maybe if you're into cooking or if you are looking to punish yourself with watching the demonically annoying "Julie" part of the story. Probably the less said about the movie the better.
In this wintry state of potential Best Actress nominees I think Streep is guaranteed a nomination at the next Dolphins. She is good in this and fun to watch but it's definitely not Sister Aloysius-level so I don't anticipate her claiming a Dolphin the second year in a row. Still, she got me to watch the whole movie and, well, if she doesn't deserve a nomination for that then I don't know what she would deserve one for.

Colleen's Thoughts:
This was not a good movie. There isn't much more to say; Drew said what needed to be said. I will say that I thought the Julia Child's part was actually quite fascinating. Streep was good of course. They should have just made a biopic of Julia Child. The movie did inspire me to try and make something new, I made chocolate cream pie and it turned out quite well. I also loved seeing Paris, so Julia in Paris was fun for me to watch.
I think we can all agree that if Drew doesn't like Amy Adams in a movie than it must be a bad performance and it was, although she didn't have much to work with. Her character was a total brat. She acted like her life was a living hell because she worked for the government and had to live in Queens of all places. BooHoo I have to live in urban New york! A good smack in the head and change of perspective probably would have done her a lot better than cooking 524 (or so) recipes in 365 days.

Antichrist

Drew's Thoughts:
As the unofficial PFA president I sometimes take it upon myself to test out a movie to see if it's worth recommending to the Dolphin voting body. Also it was the night before Halloween and I felt like watching a horror movie.
Lars von Trier's (Dogville, Dancer in the Dark) bitterly divisive film Antichrist debuted at Cannes earlier in the year to cries of outrage over it's graphic, brutal imagery. Von Trier's infamous cinematic philosophy "a film should be like a pebble in your shoe" has morphed into something more akin to "a film should be like a rusty, 19th century handdrill boring a hole into your shin."
The film centers around a Seattle couple whose young toddler crawls out the window to his death while the couple is having sex. The woman played by Charlotte Gainsbourg (the film only has two characters--neither has a name) is emotionally and mentally devastated and goes in and out of consciousness in a month-long hospital stay. Her husband played by Willem Dafoe is a psychologist, and seems more interested in treating her like a grief-stricken patient than a grief-stricken wife. Upon his advice that facing the pain head-on is best, the couple set out to Eden, their cabin out in the remote wilderness as he attempts to get her to follow his bullshit therapeutic "tests" (including drawing a triangle on piece of paper). As the movie goes along there's all sorts of strange surreal nature imagery (including a fox that hisses "chaos reigns") and pseudo-symbolism as it becomes increasingly apparent the woman is seriously fucked up in the head though the man doesn't realize it until she completely and violently snaps. What follows from there is all the controversial stuff, seriously brutal, graphic violent images that you can't unsee. Stuff that made my body twinge with pain while watching it. Pretty horrifying stuff.
Though many critics have a love it or hate it attitude, I'm pretty in the middle on it. The film succeeds on an experiential level; the actors, especially Gainsbourg, give entirely fearless performances which is commendable, Anthony Dod Mantle's (Slumdog Millionaire) strange, warped cinematography is cool, and it's just an intense experience overall. Where the film fails though is in all the intellectual/philosophical content. It hints at philosophical/historical references of witchcraft (which the woman was researching for an abandoned thesis) but it's all so thin and underdeveloped it was pretty pointless throwing it in there. Not having a sturdy philosophical base harms the film. If von Trier had just left it as a story of a woman rapidly deteriorating mentally and her husband who is too up his own ass to help her then it may have worked better devoid of the worthless subtext.
In closing, considering I am the biggest von Trier fan in the PFA and my reaction was fairly middle of the road I'd probably recommend the PFA not watch this movie. That time would be better spent watching Dogville or Dancer in the Dark.

Mary and Max

Drew's Thoughts:
Mary and Max is based on a true story, and I think making an animated film based on a true story is a really interesting (and possibly original?) concept. I'm guessing there was a large degree of poetic license taken in telling this "true story" but the emotions and characters still feel very real.
The thing I commend about this film, and it's Oscar-winning writer/director Adam Elliot, is it doesn't pander to kids. It's not even a movie kids should really be watching. It's not that the film takes pleasure in making animated characters curse and act "adult" or something like that (the content is probably about a PG-13) but it tells a story that will resonate with, most likely, only teenagers and adults.
The premise is very simple; by chance, a young Australian girl, Mary, and an obese New Yorker in his 40s, Max, become pen pals. They share their collective love of chocolate and Noblets cartoons and confide in each other about their equally lonely, friendless existences.
The story ends up focusing more on Max which is a wise move because I felt his character had a little more depth (and he's much older meaning he has a lot more experiences to share) and also he is voiced fabulously by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The story moves in unexpected ways (maybe due to it being based on truth?) which is a credit to the film. The premise seems like it could wear thin but Mary and Max develop such a real relationship and their characters are developed so well, that the film gets by just fine on it's writing and more importantly on how genuine it is.
It seems like maybe through animation a filmmaker can avoid the audience's preconceived notions of the kind of people the characters are. I know I might be grossed out if I saw a 350 pound man stuffing his face with chocolate hotdogs, but when I see an animated version? Not so much. Instead though, you feel really sympathetic for both Mary and Max, and they each go to some surprisingly dark places in the film. Ultimately, the film is pretty touching which is always rare with animated films (not necessarily because they're animated though).
I've heard rumors of a Best Animated Film category at the Dolphins this year and I'd say at this point Mary and Max is definitely the one to beat. I wouldn't be surprised if it reached outside the animated category for noms though. It's a competitive category but Mary and Max could possibly get an Original Screenplay nom and maybe Score as well but that's another tough category. One category I feel Mary and Max should not be forgotten in, and maybe should even win, is Best Sound. The sound design in the film is phenomenal and really contributes to its "realness." When Max is sitting in his apartment typing you hear noise from the streets leaking in, for instance; the film takes great pains to create a true world, a strange world but a true one and sound is a big part of it. And of course this being animated there's no on location sound recording, it's all created specifically by the sound designer for the film.

Colleen's Thoughts:
At the very beginning of the Mary and Max screening I would say the word which best described how I felt about the movie was worried. The narrator says “poo” within the first few minutes and I was very concerned that this might be a movie which, to my horror, relished in its own quirkiness. I was wrong.
Somewhere during this film I became extremely emotionally attached to the characters. Since Drew and I discuss films together after seeing them he said a lot that we both talked about and thus some of my opinions were already voiced by Drew. For example, I think it was an amazing idea to make this true(ish) story in animation. I am startled by real life Max-like people on the bus or walking to school practically everyday. Quite frankly, if in the movie I saw a human Max collecting toe nails in a jar and eating chocolate hot dogs I would cringe!
Instead, Max is a lovable character (shout out to Phil) and the depth of his and Mary’s “outsiders” friendship is really touching. Also, I am a fan of anyone who has a life goal of having an endless supply of chocolate. Although, Max is out there, the script and the voicing make the characters incredibly relatable. I wish Mary’s climactic dramatic scene would have been executed better (the song during it is AWFUL). I think what the film does best is it develops a relationship between these two people that is truly humane and genuine. When there is a snag in their relationship you feel for them. I think the ending of this movie is incredibly satisfying and tears were running down my cheeks. Mary and Max is different, engaging and truly heartwarming.

The Hurt Locker

Drew's Thoughts:
Director Kathryn Bigelow should probably get some special prize for making the first good film about the US's misadventures in the Middle East this past decade. After so many failures I doubted it was even possible until a good 10 or 15 years from now. That said, The Hurt Locker is good movie not a great one. Though it still manages to be one of the better war pictures I've seen, nowhere close to Paths of Glory or The Deer Hunter but still leaps and bounds above the usual Windtalkers/We Were Soldiers fare.
The story focuses on a small team focused on disarming I.E.D.s a.k.a. bombs. After the previous team leader dies, Jeremy Renner (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) joins as the new leader. Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty play the other two soldiers on the team. The acting in the film is generally pretty good, Renner suits his character embodying a thirst for the madness of war and a put-on informality. Anthony Mackie is nicely understated, finding working with Renner a constant source of frustration. Guy Pearce is also great in his much-too-small role.
The Hurt Locker mostly avoids politics, wisely I think. The film becomes a matter of experience instead of an agenda; furthermore, it deals with the madness of war without being satirical. Renner’s character is talented at his work but far too unprofessional in the wake of such serious circumstances, which continually discomforts Mackie’s character. What’s interesting though, is one doesn’t really get a sense if war has changed Renner into a madman or if he’s there because of a desire for, or addiction to, danger that existed far before he joined the military.
Bigelow's real talent exhibited in the film is her masterful control of intensity. What’s great about The Hurt Locker is the characters don’t necessary act like they’re in extraordinary situations. Even though nearly everyday they’re on the brink of death, it becomes routine. Bigelow and the actors create a sense of naturalness, everydayness, in the midst of terrifying situations. When Renner has difficulty disarming a bomb he expresses his frustration in a fit of swearing, the way someone might if they lock their keys in their car. The important thing is Bigelow never goes too far to show this naturalness. It just is.
In spite of this acclimation to danger, the soldiers are scared and Bigelow directs each military operation with an engaging and tightly wound tenseness—rattling the viewer by a slow application of pressure rather than loud explosions.
The film is at its weakest when it’s not focusing on military operations. A subplot involving one of the soldiers and a military psychiatrist (played by Christian Camargo, who is seriously the bastard child of James Woods and Marc Anthony) is pretty worthless and unnecessary but fortunately only amounts to two short scenes. Furthermore, there's a sequence later in the film that intends to develop Renner's character's hysteria but it ends up pushing the limits of believability that the film did such a good job creating elsewhere.
This year looks to be a fairly weak one cinematically and though it’s far from classic material, The Hurt Locker is a good, worthwhile picture and I imagine it could be one of the main contenders for the Dolphins, at least in the technical and director categories.

Donna's Thoughts:
Before watching this film I didn’t know what the title meant. I now know that sergeants on duty in Iraq speak of explosions as sending you to the “hurt locker”. Sergeant William James played by Jeremy Renner, Sergeant Jt Sanborn played by Anthony Mackie and Sergeant Owen Eldridge played by Ben Geraghty are a team assigned to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (E.O.D.) Jeremy is the staff sergeant and plays the role extremely well. In 2005 he starred in Neo Ned which received many awards at festivals. His performance in Hurt Locker makes me want to look Neo Ned up. He also starred in The Assas. of Jesse James riding along Affleck and Pitt. I believe he could be nominated for an academy but the subject of the film doesn’t lend itself to a wide audience.
The screen writer Mark Boal was inspired by real events. Watching Sergeant William James remove a bomb purposely placed in a dead body of a boy, a friend who would ask him to play soccer made me look away from the screen.
Anthony Mackie’s performance was okay. Being trained at the Julliard School of Drama and acting in 8 Mile and Million Dollar Baby. I judge his performance in Hurt Locker as mediocre. He was outshined by Ben Geraghty who starred in Bobby a few years back. Ben‘s character is a sergeant not liking being a part of Sergeant William James’ life.
The film has a good beginning. I especially liked the part of a single suicidal bomber who has changed his mind and begs Sergeant William James to dismantle the bomb. The bomb has several padlocks attached to a metal frame around the man’s body and of a course time is running out.
There is some footage of the mother of Sergeant William James’s baby back home that I feel adds another dimension to the story. I would recommend the film, however, many of my friends don’t have the stomach for real war.

Joe's Thoughts:
I was very excited to see the Hurt Locker after my man Colbert kindly invited director/producer Kathryn Bigelow onto his show, in which she discussed her new film, "The Hurt Locker". The film opens with the discussion of how sometimes war can be used as a drug by the soldiers who take part in it. The film does a great job of taking one story and proving its point. But what i really appriciate about this film is that its not trying to make a statement about the iraq war, which i thought it might, it simply focuses on it's story at hand. Which revolves around a young man who needs danger and loves the idea of having many lifes including his own in one hand, and a ticking time bomb in the other.
The film keeps you totally on edge the entire film, as it goes from one adrenline rush to another, which i think is another great tool used by the film. As the lead character is going from one needed rush to another, the audience is as well. Which leads to the movie getting its message across. But what the movie also does really well is showing how this addiction does not mean this characer is evil, as we see him getting the caprie sun and having fun with the dvd kid, Even though this man was putting so many people at risk for a selfish need he was a caring a loving character and not one dementional at all. And its hard to hate him beucase while he is taking uneeded risks, he is diffusing bombs and in a way saving lifes.
The direction from Bigelow is impressive as we defentily feel like all the soldiers who surround the crazy lead, and the script is pretty good as well. I was also really impressed with the acting from three members: Jeremy Renner, gives a great preformence as the big headed sarg who needs his war fix, he was perfect for the role and may get some dolphin love. The African American Anthony Mackie was also very good at playing the frightened but strong soldier, look for him at the joes in the supporting actor category. And of course our beloved Guy Pearce puts on a show, but then dies in two minutes, one may think the movie might go on a downward spiral with the death of guy but thankfully this isnt the case.
With all this praise there is however one big flaw within this film, as before mentioned the movie goes from one adrenline rush to another as its trying to make its statement clear, but to me it almost makes its statement too clear, as the movie beings to get somewhat repetative, there are variation to some of the bomb defusing scenes, and there is the sniper scene and the scene in the back allies in the dark, but to me still to much repetition keeps the film from being very great, but still is a very very solid film.

Star Trek

Colleen's Thoughts:
You don’t need to be anywhere close to a Trekie to enjoy the new Star Trek movie that came out this spring. The plot of this Star Trek is that all the members of the original Start Trek show are just being recruited into Star Fleet. You get a glimpse at their pasts and learn how they became involved in the exploration of the final frontier. The word “entertaining” best describes this film. The dialogue isn’t fantastic and often cheesy and Chris Pine, who plays Kirk, does get on my nerves, but I found myself smiling throughout the film. The actor playing Spock, Zachary Quinto, did a great job with the character and it was fun to see the original Spock, Leonard Nimroy, in the movie. Also, Simon Pegg went all out with the few scenes he was in. (Unfortunately for Pegg he was sharing his scenes with weird “e-wok-esque/jar jar binks” creatures which were just silly). I don’t think it will make a strong showing at the Dolphins this year, but all in all it was a fun film. Star Trek is a good movie to lift your spirits and distract you from school or work.

Drew's Thoughts:
I'd describe my Trekkie status as not disliking Star Trek but not necessarily liking it either. It always seemed like an interesting premise/concept but the execution of the various TV series and movies left much to be desired in my opinion. Thus, my reaction to the news of J.J. Abrams's reboot of the series was pretty apathetic. Based on Colleen's review though, I figured it would be worth watching.
J.J. Abrams doesn't use much subtlety in telling the story but he manages to hit all the proper points to excite and engage the audience. Though the plot and dialogue are laden with cliches, the film manages not to get bogged down in them.
By far the worst element at work was the acting, the worst offender being Karl Urban as the doctor. He moves through every scene with his brow permanently furrowed and an unchanging scowl plastered across his face. Every word he speaks is steeped in a hilariously misguided "cynical" tone. Bogart he most definitely is not. Urban's performance had the makings of a great, campy performance if, you know, he actually realized how bad he was. Unfortunately, the best performance (Simon Pegg as Scotty) gets a scant amount of screen time.
The best element is the set design, which opts for a minimal amount of CGI. Obviously there's a fair amount of CGI in the film but it seems that the design department was consciously looking to the past, creating something more akin to Alien than the new Avatar-style bullshit.
Star Trek is not one the year's best films and though it's no Dark Knight, it's probably the best popcorn movie you'll get this year.

Joe's Thoughts:
I watched the first half of this movie, and don't have any immediate plans for watching the second half.