Packed with the impressive creative power of Oscar-nominated director Bennett Miller (“Capote”) and Oscar-winning screenwriters Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network”) and Steve Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”), the film tries to be unique by focusing on statistics rather than playing the game. It skips the climax we’re used to, and doesn’t hit any of the traditional sport beats.

With this unique approach, it challenges why we watch sports films. Sadly, while it does deliver one of the more intelligent cinematic tributes to baseball since “Field of Dreams,” “Moneyball” mainly fails at being enjoyable, emotional, or even particularly memorable.

Based on Michael Lewis’ book, weary Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is faced with creating a championship team with $39 million against the Yankees’ $125 million.

Things look hopeless until Beane meets Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who tells him that changing the conventions of how teams evaluate players’ potential could save the A’s, Beane attempts to build one of the most unorthodox baseball teams of misfits ever assembled.

Like the “2002 Athletics,” “Moneyball” may be ballsy in its ambition to change the way we view baseball, but it’s also highly erratic in how its main goal succeeds and fails in turn.

When things are running smoothly, the result is undeniably appealing. But when things get rough, it gets almost painful to watch. The film isn’t a bad one, instead it simply underwhelms considering the raw talent and aspiration involved. So many ill-timed, boring, or downright bad moments occur that they hinder us from establishing a genuine emotional core for the characters or the film. From an atrocious musical score that viciously detracts from every scene it’s in to the bland and sluggish variety of filler scenes, that gives the film its “blah” moments.

Even stranger, nothing remotely resembles the memorable Oscar-worthy brilliance of Sorkin’s earlier work. There is no discourse I remember enough to write down. The scenes that remind us why we’re still enjoying ourselves are the ones when Beane is putting his negotiation tactics in overdrive. These scenes are funny, witty, engaging, and not nearly as often as I’d like. Ultimately, “Moneyball” isn’t so much about Billy Beane or the Oakland A’s as it is about the elusive integrity of baseball.

Its moments of greatness occur when it asks tough questions no other baseball movie has asked, like in Beane’s final monologue. Other films may show baseball, but “Moneyball” tries observing baseball’s iconic stature and asking why it means so much to so many. It asks a seemingly simple question: Can the magic of the game be based on statistics rather than intuition?

The question is relevant. If you’re someone whose reverence of the game approaches an understanding impossible to express, “Moneyball” might just be the baseball film you’ve been waiting for.

But for me, the film is oddly never as engrossing as it should be. Since its creation, the term ‘moneyball’ has entered baseball lexicon as an alternative way of viewing baseball. It may not have changed the game, but it has become something worthy of remembrance.

Unfortunately for this film’s creators, their passion just doesn’t pan out as being worthy of the same benefit.

Yet despite that fact, Kenneth Branagh’s “Thor” brings this character to life as one of the best superhero films I’ve seen.

“Thor” first takes place on Asgard, the Norse version of Olympus.

Here lives the powerful alien race known as the Asgardians, which includes the one-eyed king Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and his two sons Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

The muscular Thor is the definition of a fierce warrior, armed with Mjolnir – a hammer which harnesses all the power of the universe.

Loki, on the other hand, relies more on deception and mischief to win his wars.

Thor disobeys a direct order that leads to another full-out war with another alien race.

Odin strips his son of his powers and sends him (along with Mjolnir) in exile to another realm: Earth.

A powerless Thor crashes in New Mexico and is found by a group of scientists led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).

Jane is determined to learn who this strange man is, while – not far from their location – the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D has discovered a massive crater where Mjolnir landed.

It cannot be moved until it is picked up by someone worthy of its power. Meanwhile, taking advantage of Thor’s exile, Loki makes his move on Asgard in order to take over the throne and destroy his brother.

Alongside “Iron Man,” “Thor” is the closest Marvel has ever come to approaching the quality of DC Comics’ Batman.

This claim to fame is the credit of a flawless director, versatile acting, stunning visuals, great battle scenes, and a character-capturing screenplay.

Kenneth Branagh is by far the best director to tackle a Marvel superhero film and he takes on the challenge with his signature understanding of the grand scale of epics and outstanding characterization.

Having directed several iconic Shakespeare adaptations (“Hamlet”), Branagh’s decision to break into the superhero genre with “Thor” makes sense as certain facets of Thor fit with Shakespearean characters and plotting. Branagh brings his Shakespearian background with him and it assuredly shows.

Branagh’s biggest success is his casting. It’s risky to hire unknowns as the stars, but Branagh obviously knew what to look for and he chose well.

By the film’s end, you’ll know Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston.

Hemsworth is an example of picture-perfect casting. There is literally no one else who could embody Thor’s golden locks, crimson cape, warlike arrogance and cocky smirk without looking like a man badly playing dress-up.

Hemsworth radiates authenticity and that helps with the role’s unbelievable challenges.

The same can be said for Hiddleston, who brings a real human dimension to a potentially one-dimensional character.

He’s easily comparable to the great Marvel villains like Alfred Molina’s Doctor Octopus from “Spider-Man 2.”

Outside the latest Batman movies, “Thor” is perhaps the only other superhero film that is breathtakingly flawless in its epic grandeur.

“Thor” does for Marvel what “Batman Begins” did for DC Comics; it raises the bar for what superhero films should be expected to accomplish.

Fans will undoubtedly get more than they ever could have desired or expected, while people unaware of Thor will find themselves wholly entertained.

Suffice it to say that Thor is a superhero that audiences will be happy to see again in a year.

As rare as it is for any sequel to succeed in this regard, it is even more rare for a fourth film – which is why it seems like most franchises are rebooted before they get anywhere near number four.

Wes Craven’s “Scream 4” goes to great lengths to show that there are some grand exceptions to the rule of franchises overstaying their welcome.

Set on the 15th anniversary of the original Woodsboro Murders from “Scream,” Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to her hometown after a national tour of her new book “Out of Darkness,” an autobiography which details her story.

The old group – from Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) to entertainment journalist Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) – still live there, as well as Sidney’s young cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and Jill’s best friend Kirby (Hayden Panettiere).

Upon Sidney’s return, a series of traditionally gruesome murders bring the old gang back into action. But this time, things are different. New decade. New rules. So now, the group must join together to match wits with another psycho killer.

This time, even more so than ever, no one is safe and everyone is suspect.

Like “Shaun of the Dead” and “Zombieland,” this film delivers the scares and the laughs with equal care.

While we do see a story playing out like the original, this film is impressive in adding unpredictable originality to established cliché.

The greatest aspect of “Scream 4” is its ability to challenge every preconception we have. It challenges the main characters and audiences; we don’t know for sure who is safe from a knife to the chest. It challenges traditional gender and occupational horror stereotypes.

The film knows every idea we might have every step of the way and somehow – in a completely unpredictable way – does the exact opposite.

The cast that made the original trilogy such a fun ride returns with some welcomed additions. The three original characters – Sidney, Dewey and Gail – are played with veteran style while several newcomers take the reigns and stand with their heads held high amid the iconic actors they share the screen with.

Like most horrors, don’t expect the film to dig too much in adding additional depth to its many characters. A drawback of the genre is we never really get to care about the characters.

Sidney is the most developed. Since we last saw her, Sidney has become even more haunted by her own inescapable hell, which is portrayed with perfection by Campbell.

No matter what she does, she will always be that girl from Woodsboro who survived. The fame attached to the role has made her careworn and distant.

As we hear from another character, she’s waiting for her story to turn into “Final Destination.”

We get her. We like her. We want her to live. This is a huge kudos to Craven’s storytelling ability.

The genre self-awareness that the first “Scream” is known for is bigger and better here. What makes “Scream 4” so fascinating is that these characters have not only watched all the horror movies we have, but onscreen they’ve also watched three “Stab” films from the original trilogy. They know exactly what we do and think like we do.

Living through a horror movie isn’t quite as easy as it used to be, it seems.

While not as original as “Frailty” or as hilarious as “Zombieland,” “Scream 4” is a fun and intelligent horror that takes advantage of director Wes Craven’s sizable strengths:  suspense, originality and dialogue.

If this is indeed the start of a new trilogy for Woodsboro and the Ghostface Killer, you’ll find me first in line for the sequel.

As it stands, it’s the first horror I’ve seen in theaters that’s actually worth every penny of the admission price.

The story chronicles the bizarre mission of Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal), who we first meet on a Chicago commuter train. He has no idea how he got there. Sitting across from him is Christina (Michelle Monaghan), who’s in the middle of a deep conversation. Yet Stevens doesn’t recognize her. He excuses himself to the train bathroom – where he doesn’t see his face in the mirror. Instead of his own reflection, he sees the face of a man named Sean Fentress. Before Stevens/Fentress can comprehend this revelation, the train explodes and kills everyone aboard.

Stevens comes to in a strange capsule where – via a video com-link with government scientists Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) and Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) – he learns his mission’s details.

The simplified mission is finding the bomber who blew up the commuter train before another bomb kills millions of Chicagoans in six hours.

Stevens’ consciousness is being sent into the now-dead Sean Fentress’ harvested brain, where he relives the last eight minutes of the dead man’s life before the explosion.

Stevens must relive Sean’s last minutes over and over again until he finds the bomber and helps the government stop the impending attack. This program is called the source code.

Of course, Stevens falls in love with Christina. While Rutledge continuously tells him that the source code isn’t time travel and therefore can’t change the past, Stevens is determined to save Christina – even though she’s already dead.

“Source Code” clearly understands and revels in its genre’s required intricacies. The explained scientific logic is surprisingly well-stated enough to allow suspension of disbelief, which obviously takes some serious thinking.

The scientific explanation is on par with “Star Trek” lore in making the impossible seem possible, at least for 93 minutes.

The film also shows the creative journey of a writer/director Jones on his way of becoming a directorial legend. This is Jones’ second film. His debut, 2008’s “Moon,” is one of the most original science fiction films since “Aliens.”

But while “Source Code” may match “Moon” in concept, it assuredly doesn’t in emotion.

One flaw in the newer of the two films is that it has nowhere near the emotional heft or sense of character that made “Moon” such a great film.

It’s strange that Gyllenhaal and Monaghan play such average characters considering Jones created an Oscar-worthy signature role for Sam Rockwell in “Moon.”

But even while being nowhere near as challenging as his debut, Jones does undertake some pretty profound sci-fi ideas.

What makes this film so fascinating is how the ending seems so open-ended. It is either one of the most faulty jumps in logic I’ve ever seen or one of the most ambitious science fiction concepts tackled in years.

This may not be Jones’ finest work, but it is further proof that Jones is a director we’ll be hearing from for many years. His storytelling tenacity is similar to Christopher Nolan (“Inception”) and Quentin Tarantino (“Inglorious Basterds”) in how they all have, in some way, mastered their niche.

While the movie lacks great characters and is possibly too ambitious for mainstream audiences, “Source Code” is the first truly decent film of 2011 in offering a genuinely novel concept full of fresh and archetype thought.

What this new film ends up being is a disturbingly bleak, albeit visually spectacular, character study. The unbridled entertainment the movie ads promote is undermined by the uncomfortable and depressing darkness.

These characters live in a personal hell we find ourselves trapped in for two draining hours.

Our gloomy story starts with a girl we know only as Baby Doll (Emily Browning) – a short-skirted pigtailed blonde who seems to have jumped right out of an adult film – being sent to an insane asylum.

The reason? While trying to stop her sexually abusive father from abusing her younger sister, Baby Doll accidentally murders her sister.

In the asylum, Baby Doll withdraws into her mind and lives out a majority of the movie in a dream-imitating-life reality of a burlesque brothel. In charge of the brothel are Mr. Blue (Oscar Isaac) and Madam Gorski (Carla Gugino). To survive, Babydoll learns to dance exotically for clients.

Her dancing secret is to delve even deeper in her mind into a world she can control.

We never see any of Baby Doll’s spirited stripteases, as we are immediately transported into Baby Doll’s mind as she has one of her controlled dreams.

These dreams are spiritual challenges given to her by an unnamed mentor (Scott Glenn), and include vivid scenes of killing dragons, aerial battles and fighting the undead.

But Baby Doll dreams of more than just imaginative freedom – she wants the real thing. So she plans to escape.

To do this, her mentor says she must find five items: a map, fire, a knife, a key and a mystery item she’ll recognize when she sees it. Her journey for these items are mirrored in both realities.

Baby Doll’s companions on this quest are Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), SweetPea (Abbie Cornish) and Amber (Jamie Chung).

A movie made up entirely of money shots, “Sucker Punch” is a big-budget arthouse experiment that attempts to manipulate the depth of its many scenes, cinematic landscape and symbolic imagery. It also proves that being visually ground-breaking doesn’t mean a film is automatically worth seeing.

The plot and dialogue in the non-action scenes flow with useful – yet uninspired – efficiency.

The area I did find inspiring was the eye-popping visual genius. Here, we are watching a director virtually explode in all his glory, creating a chaotic mishmash of ground-breaking new worlds to explore.

These are the kinds of scenes that make me appreciate attending a theatrical release.

The plot itself is very much darker than many other comic interpretations (even Snyder’s “Watchmen” and “300”), even to the point of having obvious moments of incest and attempted rape.

It’s also a twisted fetish film masquerading as mainstream entertainment. A competently and impressively directed fetish film to be sure, but a fetish film nonetheless.

With strong female characters dressed in classic fetish uniforms, it’s difficult to discern whether the film’s theme is misogynistic or feminist.

Now some people will be perfectly content with the dazzling special effects. Others will have passionate hate for the depressing story and sterile characters. I agree with both sides, but I’m leaning more toward what I didn’t like.

The film’s beginning and ending are such cruel examples of gratuitous and hopeless abuse that it seems to be nothing more than tasteless attempts at bondage titillation.

I might have liked this movie more if the ending had made it all worth something.

Hope. Redemption. Peace. It kind of tries, but the ending chooses to be ‘bold,’ which makes this whole experience meaningless.

Apparently, Snyder was so hell-bent on creating a visually original spectacle that he forgot that we also want to be entertained.

Afterward, I couldn’t stop myself from slumping in exhaustion.

Even though I love Snyder’s direction and visuals, “Sucker Punch” shows far too much of a world I’m entirely uninterested in.

Ultimately, I really wish I hadn’t seen it. I’d be much happier.

The Tony-winning director officially left the production due to creative differences with the show’s longtime co-creators/lyricists U2’s Bono (The Edge) and has been replaced by a new director.

Even after 50 years of being one of the superhero world’s most indelible cultural icons and succeeding in spanning all entertainment forms due to uncountable fans, it appears that even Spider-Man isn’t above just plain bad luck.

“Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” the first attempt at adapting the famous Marvel superhero to the stage, is the most expensive musical ever to hit Broadway.

Unfortunately, according to Variety, the rock musical is quickly becoming one of the biggest critical flops theater has ever seen.

The first performance occurred on Nov. 28 and was met with universal derision from the press due to numerous performance halts, multiple technological faults and nonsensical storytelling. These issues with the production continued with growing frequency and severity throughout the 101 disastrous preview performances.

Taymor, the first female musical director to win a Tony Award (the theater equivalent of an Oscar), had an epic retelling of Spider-Man which would have dealt with profound philosophical concepts and an expansive character study.

Taymor had similarly lofty ambitions in her 1996 Broadway musical for “The Lion King,” where her innovative staging earned her two Tony Awards and critical acclaim.

“She made “The Lion King” different than what we’ve seen before and there was an ecstatic audience for that,” said Karen Gygli, a theater professor in the Tim Russert Department of Communications and Theatre Arts at John Carroll. “There might have been quite an audience for this show, as well. But we’ll never know just how incredible her vision is and that’s a very sad thing.”

According to critics, the biggest unamended problem of the show is how absurd the second act continues to be. When the producers approached Taymor on the subject, she refused to allow the necessary changes to her vision that would have fixed the problems.

“What has happened is sad for Julie [Taymor], but her production just wasn’t matching what the producers wanted,” Gygli said. “A director change is probably good [for the production] because they didn’t share the same view. Since the producers are calling in a script doctor and a new director, it is becoming much more likely that Julie’s original vision will be [heavily] edited.”

Taymor’s replacement is Philip William McKinley, who has directed several successful theater works which includes Hugh Jackman’s acclaimed musical “The Boy from Oz.”

Gygli expects McKinley to deliver an efficient, albeit inspired, show that caters to the average audience. “Julie’s show was a very complex view of Spider-Man,” she said. “McKinley could either find some interesting things to say or just give us a run of the mill story. He’ll most likely give fans exactly what they’re expecting.”

Gygli says we can’t tell what type of show we’re going to get at this point. “I guess we’ll just have to wait until [the June release],” she said.

“The King’s Speech” and “Inception” each won four Oscars, with Director Tom Hooper’s royal biopic taking home four of the bigger awards (with picture, director, actor and original screenplay) and Director Christopher Nolan’s mind-bending masterpiece taking the major technical awards (for visual effects, cinematography, sound mixing and sound editing).

“The Social Network” won three Oscars (adapted screenplay, original score, and film editing).

Sophomore Carson Parish, was disappointed in the ultimate tally, as his favorite film was “The Social Network,” the Facebook film about the frailties of the human condition.

“No other movie of the year was so perfect in virtually every category,” Parish said. “From the screenplay to the performances, they were all executed impeccably.”

Carson was not the only one to believe that Director David Fincher’s widely-acclaimed masterpiece was a shoo-in for the Best Picture Oscar.

While “The Social Network” remains a critical favorite, it is a surprise to see how “The King’s Speech” gained serious momentum with wins in the last few major award ceremonies.

In the end, “The King’s Speech” gained in popularity and resulted in a British triumph for the film.

For sophomore Rachel Halle, the best film of the year was “Inception,” which was followed closely by “Toy Story 3.”

Still, she felt it was a well-deserved decision when “The King’s Speech” walked away with the two most coveted Oscars of the night.

“I was really excited that King’s Speech won,” Halle said. “It’s really a fantastic movie with a great cast.”

While Parish ultimately resigned his expectations to the fact that the royal favorite to nap Best Picture, he was still surprised when “The King’s Speech” also won Best Director Oscar over David Fincher’s work.

“The Academy loves movies about royalty, so it’s reasonable that the king won Best Picture,” he said. “However, there is absolutely no way that Tom Hooper’s film was better directed than Fincher’s– or any movie of the year, for that matter.”

Both Halle and Parish agree that this year was pretty straight-forward when it comes to the expected winners coming out on top. On the whole, there weren’t too many surprises.

A slight surprise, yet still expected result, was Melissa Leo receiving her Supporting Actress Oscar for “The Fighter.”

Her shameless self-promoted consideration campaigns made many people’s predictions switch from her performance, to that of spunky 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld for “True Grit.”

Yet her transgressions didn’t matter, as Leo still walked up to the stage and managed to squeak out an excited speech which included the first f-bomb uttered in the Oscar’s 83-year history.

“True Grit” went home with none of its 10 nominations, while “Black Swan” only nabbed one out of five for Natalie Portman’s stirring performance.

Beyond the original snub of being refused a Best Director and Best Editing nomination, Christopher Nolan left without getting the much-deserved chance of standing on stage to accept an Oscar.

“Inception,” while winning four awards, was still denied two of the awards it was expected to win with Nolan’s labyrinthine screenplay and Hans Zimmer’s rousing musical score.

“The King’s Speech” is an honorable pick for Best Original Screenplay,” Parish said. “Again, it’s the Academy, so we get royalty and safe picks over innovation and creativity.”

The greatest triumphs for Parish came from “The Social Network” scribe Aaron Sorkin having his hands on an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay and “Inception” winning the Oscar for Best Visual Effects.

“It’s nice to see a movie that uses old-fashioned innovation over CGI,” he said.

For Halle, the most deserving awards went to Colin Firth and Natalie Portman finishing up their national sweeps in winning Best Actor and Best Actress.

“Portman in ‘Black Swan’ had to do things we’ve never seen and I think that’s what got her the Oscar,” she said.

As to why “Black Swan” may have not received the attention it deserved, Halle believes it has more to do with people just not getting the intricacies of the art of ballet.

“If you don’t understand how ballet works, you won’t understand or appreciate how well-written this film is,” she said.

For Parish, the acting Oscars were also spot-on.

“Firth really was incredible, Portman deserved it, Bale [as much as it pains me to say it] definitely earned it and I thought Leo was great,” he said.

“I did kind of hope that Jesse Eisenberg would win Best Actor, but I realize that Firth truly was the better performance, so I was cool with it.”

Ultimately, both Parish and Halle were happy with the final result.

“2010 was just a great year for movies,” Halle said, “and I really thought that the ‘King’s Speech’ deserved everything it got.”

No matter how hard he tries, director Jaume Collet-Serra (“Orphan”) just can’t recreate the simplistic gravitas of the 2008 Liam Neeson action vehicle “Taken.”

The movie’s failing flaw? Not answering its own questions.

Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) awakens from a coma he has been in for four days in Berlin after a violent car crash to shockingly discover that no one – not even his wife (January Jones) – recognizes him and that a mysterious man (Aidan Quinn) has completely assumed his identity.

This man knows everything about Martin’s life, down to the smallest detail. He has a passport, other identification, and even family photos.

Finding himself being endlessly chased by unstoppable assassins, Martin gets the help of an illegal taxi driver (Diane Kruger) and a shrewd detective (Bruno Ganz) as he tries to discover the truth of who he truly is.

Now some movies are made merely to entertain. For example, movies like “The A-Team” aren’t made to be great cinematic triumphs.

They’re made to give us a fun way of spending a couple hours.

But “Unknown” doesn’t pull that off. It’s gets bogged down by its own ambition, providing too many questions that remain unanswered.

Yet the movie does have a few engrossing moments.

The action is always solid, albeit offering nothing new, and the acting – especially from Neeson and Ganz – despite being given bland roles, is superior.

The most explosive scene of the film is surprisingly one that doesn’t contain explosions.

It is a seemingly simple scene with two men talking who realize that they are enemies, yet their tone remains forever polite, their conversation ever cordial.

Their samurai-like respect for each other comes to a head at the last moment.

The scene flows with the dignity of the famous Pacino/DeNiro diner scene from “Heat;”  either man ever says a menacing word or makes a threatening move, but we can’t help but watch with  captivation as if we were watching a much better film.

That’s the power of the scene’s subtlety – and it makes the one great scene the film offers.

Neeson has always had a ridiculously-mesmerizing screen presence, and that is obvious in “Unknown” as well.

He’s got a panache that is a joy to watch. Without a doubt, Neeson is the bright and shining center of why “Unknown” may still be worth seeing. I just can’t get sick of him. Ever.

Jones of “Mad Men” fame and Kruger of the “National Treasure” series are nowhere near as fascinating here as they deserve to be.

They seem more like eye candy than anything else. While that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s not what one would expect from actresses of their caliber.

But the great casting aside from Neeson is the indelible Ganz, who nails every scene he gets and brings about some of the best moments in the film.

Now the film is gripping to a point. Then it shoots itself in the foot. It doesn’t take long into the third act to realize how few answers we’re actually going to get. Why did someone do that? Why is anyone fighting to the death in the first place?

Soon, none of the characters’ motivation makes any sense.

Aside from that, the answers we do get are much too tidy. I don’t like my exposition being fed to me in a baby bottle.

Screenwriters Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cornwell assuredly gave it their best shot by trying to follow the writing of “Taken,” but instead all we are given is a tacked-on ending which fails to answer many of the major issues.

It’s like the writers just got bored with it all and decided to just finish the script the night before it was due. This has to be the weakest ending I’ve seen since “Knowing.”

Suspension of disbelief is an important element to a story like this. A great movie can quickly turn into a notorious one if the ending just doesn’t take (e.g. “Knowing”). Now “Unknown” can be included as failing to deliver on such an intriguing premise.

Ultimately, “Unknown” is a movie that was a couple screenplay drafts short of ironing out all the kinks and becoming great.

And while I’m all for just sitting back and watching Liam Neeson being awesome, the setup promised much more and we deserved much more.

While Director Ivan Reitman’s “No Strings Attached” is typical of what you expected – it is a surprisingly entertaining comedy.

“People aren’t meant to be together, together,” teen Emma tells teen Adam when they first meet each other. 

Fifteen years later, Adam (Ashton Kutcher) and Emma (Natalie Portman) meet again. 

Emma is a doctor who doesn’t believe in lasting love or relationships. Adam is an assistant screenwriter for a “Glee”-like show who has just lost his girlfriend to his druggie movie star father (Kevin Kline). 

In pure distaste for past relationships, Adam and Emma decide to go into an intimacy-only relationship which consists of late-night calls and nooners. 

But when Adam begins to want something more, Emma must evolve from her fear of love and choose what’s important to her.

Believe it or not, the film isn’t as raunchy as it sounds. Actually, it’s endearing. As you’d expect from the trailer, the film is quite sexual. 

Yes, the word “sex” is mentioned close to 80 times. Yes, the film is about a man and a woman who decide that they want to skip the pains of relationships and go right to the       “good stuff.” But these scenes aren’t what the film is about.

Reitman (“Ghostbusters” and “Kindergarten Cop”) doesn’t seem to be at the top of his game here but never falls into the trap of tastelessness that many comedy directors fall prey to.

While the film is at times hilarious, it is not “When Harry Met Sally” hilarious. It misses the intricacies of the real relationship humor of those films. 

It’s likable enough, yet it doesn’t have a plot or characters with enough depth to make it anything special. 

The two stars are an unusual pairing. Right off her Golden Globe award-winning stint in “Black Swan,” Natalie Portman here takes a turn that makes loyal fans scratch their heads in bewilderment. This may seem like a film worthy of Kutcher, but not her. 

Even worse, both actors are better than the cardboard cutout roles given to them by the writers. 

They don’t have personalities. 

Heck, they don’t even have character traits. They just exist to move the plot along.

We understand Adam is likable and that Emma is a workaholic. That’s about it. 

Still, while it may not contain the vivid characterization or witty banter of “When Harry Met Sally,” it is definitely more amiable than 75 percent of the romantic comedies I’ve seen over the years. 

Even so, it can’t escape its limited and unsurprising genre.

But then, I doubt anyone will see this film expecting it to offer groundbreaking emotional truths about love. 

What it does offer is a relatively enjoyable comedy about two people who think they can enjoy the fruits of a relationship without any of the accompanied responsibility.

“No Strings Attached” is not a great comedy. It won’t be remembered in a couple years. 

But still, it’s good in that it is not idiotic or juvenile about the topic of love and relationships.

While it makes sense that the first movie to actually take that comparison head-on would come from both “The Hangover” director and one of its main actors, “Due Date” fails to be as memorable, as quotable, or as enduring.

Directed by Todd Phillips, “Due Date” is a “Plains, Trains, and Automobiles” -channeling the road trip/buddy comedy themes that should get credit for how it gets most of its laughs by situational character quirks rather than overused punchlines.

Peter (Robert Downey Jr.) is an expectant father who is on a mad dash to make it to Los Angeles for the birth of his first child.

Unfortunately, he crosses paths with Ethan (Zach Galifianakis), an aspiring actor who often gets caught in bad situations – from saying words like “bomb” and “terrorist” on a plane to picking up a gun and “accidentally” shooting someone.

With nowhere else to turn and now on a “no-fly” list because of Ethan, Peter has no choice but to catch a ride with Ethan to LA.

But when things just keep getting worse  the question is no longer whether Peter will get to his wife on time, but also whether or not he’ll kill his current companion before they get there.

There are quite a few laughs to be had here. Most of them are merely extended scenes of what we’ve already seen from the flawlessly comedic trailers. But there are some aspects not in the trailers that got a good laugh, from a true to life moment where Downey’s character indignantly said he’s never taken drugs, to a scene where a dog is doing something dogs shouldn’t do.

The best humor is circumstantial – from an unorthodox jail break to a drugged-up visit at the Mexican border to Peter arguing with a tin can. It’s all about how these characters interact.

Downey Jr. and Galifianakis are a riot together, channeling the timeless characteristics that make up charismatic pairings like Steve Martin/John Candy and Bud Abbott/Lou Costello.

Peter is by far the most no-nonsense straight guy ever, with Ethan taking the role as most annoying character ever.

His insane sense of logic never ceases to amaze, molding a character that is completely unexpected.

“Due Date” is a pretty consistent comedy, with very few flat scenes.

Less dirty and juvenile than most “hard-R” comedies, (meaning those comedies that contain lots of profanity, sexual content and other mature themes), it knows a little bit more than most comedies on what its trying to do, which makes it at times funnier than it deserves to be.

The one issue I have is how unlikable these two characters are. Usually I don’t have a problem with unlikable characters, but these guys go overboard in making the audience unable to connect with them.

We might feel for Downey’s Peter a bit more than he deserves, but he’s such a jerk that it’s surprising he has a wife waiting for him at all.

As for Galifianakis’ Ethan, he never finds that delicate balance between the lovable simpleton that Steve Carell nailed in “Dinner for Schmucks” and the downright irritant that David Spade has made a career in playing.

While they are always capable of making us laugh and even making us care, they never get us to like them.

Where comedies are concerned and what we expect from them, “Due Date” delivers in the promised laughs.

Director Clint Eastwood is undoubtedly one of our greatest filmmakers today, having created cinematic and emotional masterpieces like “Mystic River” and “Million Dollar Baby.” 

The screenplay is written by Oscar/Emmy-nominated Peter Morgan. His credits include some of the greatest political dramas like “Frost/Nixon” and “The Queen.”

This should have been a sure thing. Sadly, not only is “Hereafter” not one of the year’s best films, but frankly I can’t think of a movie outside Nicolas Cage’s “Knowing” that disappointed me quite as much. 

Eastwood and Morgan have dealt with just as much emotional material before, but with grander success. It’s bizarre how horribly they misfire here.

 The story is about three people and how they’ve been affected by death. 

George, played laboriously by Matt Damon, is a factory worker and genuine psychic who’s hiding from his powers and hating what he can do. The second character, Marie (Cecile de France), is a French TV journalist and recent tsunami survivor whose near-death experience drives her to discover what happened to her. 

The third character is Marcus (George McLaren), the younger of two pubescent twins trying to create his own identity after his brother’s accidental death.

We can usually trust Eastwood to tackle such tough topics in a refreshingly unapologetic way, as he did with “Changeling.” But here, he makes missteps severe enough that the movie never recovers.

The biggest mistake that it is downright boring, which is practically criminal considering the premise’s potential.

While some films can hide their inaction with exceptional dialogue and compelling characterization, “Hereafter” doesn’t have dialogue or characters consistently interesting enough to keep audiences engaged.

The dialogue doesn’t have any brilliant standout moments like we’d expect.

Even worse, “Hereafter” never goes anywhere. It just floats around, confused, until it finally ends. 

When you’ve passed the hour mark and nothing has happened, there’s obviously something wrong. Now, some critics may say they love this relaxed pacing because it lets the movie breathe. 

But I say it drags. It drags because Morgan and Eastwood never take the risks necessary for this bold of a story.

While I did enjoy Damon’s storyline the best and thought Marcus had a strong emotional arc, I found Marie’s tale (excluding an outstandingly realistic tsunami opening sequence) to be boring and unnecessary. The movie would have flowed better if focused on the twins and George. George’s storyline was worthy of a movie all its own. 

Damon is by far the best thing this movie offers, capturing the tortured soul of a man who can’t escape what he is. 

However, Damon isn’t nearly enough to save this mess. Ultimately, Morgan and Eastwood aren’t willing to do what their premise promises and consequently leave us with nothing except thoughts of what could have been. 

“Hereafter” could have been something as hauntingly beautiful and powerful as “American Beauty.” 

It could have offered a riveting and heartfelt look into mortality and death in a way “The Lovely Bones” failed to do. 

It could have been flawlessly inflective in just sitting back with its audience and exploring the possibility of an afterlife. 

But because of a convoluted plot, boring pace, and lack of basic storytelling, Eastwood’s latest is frustratingly forgettable.

Machete (Danny Trejo) is a Hispanic ex-federale hired by a mysterious stranger named Benz (Jeff Fahey) to kill a U.S. Senator (Robert DeNiro) who plans to harshly deal with illegal immigrants by personally shooting them when they try crossing the border. But during the hit, Machete is double-crossed by Benz (who really works for the Senator) and set up so he could take the fall as a terrorist. In revenge, Machete joins forces with his brother Padre Benito (Cheech Marin) and fellow renegade Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) to take vengeance on Benz and stop the Senator from enacting his plans for the country.

Other roles include Lindsay Lohan (Benz’s druggie daughter), Jessica Alba (a U.S. Immigration officer), Don Johnson (an immigrant-killing vigilante), and Steven Seagal (a vicious druglord).

Rodriguez is a great filmmaker in this film, with moments of a wry sense of humor and an eye for what the traditional action audience wants.

The humor comes from moments like Machete using a man’s intestines to swing from a building, Machete taking advantage of the stereotype that no one ever checks the gardener, and evil minions discussing the plot’s absurdity.

The action, which is nearly as constant and unapologetic as “Rambo,” speaks for itself from just watching the trailer. Composer John Debney’s expressive, pounding score further cements the style.

Trejo, styling himself as the Latino version of Rambo, has literally crashed his way into the exclusive roster of great action stars with his explosive Machete character.

At 68 years-old, it is about time Trejo be awarded a starring role. He brings to life an action star hearkening back to the raw 70’s exploitative films just as Michael Jai White did in 2009’s “Black Dynamite.”

Trejo is the Hispanic Jean-Claude Van Damme – but seemingly doesn’t take himself nearly as seriously (example, the soon-to-be-famous catchphrase “Machete…don’t… text”).

Besides Trejo, it’s Michelle Rodriguez and Jeff Fahey that glow. Rodriguez is at her coolest and sexiest here, showing she can act when she wants to.

Fahey, one of the great later additions to the “Lost” television series, is the best villain of the film and easily outshines DeNiro (who has little to do with the movie until the end).

All the other actor’s performances are adequate, but they do more reacting than acting. And they do that especially well – particularly Don Johnson in his deep-toned villainy.

The misfires of the film (the reasons why it lost a streak for me) were the anti-climatic and clumsy finale, the distracting and annoying Lindsay Lohan appearance, and the tone that at times doesn’t seem to know exactly what it wants to do.

In addition, the scenes do not flow together. It doesn’t feel like the all-out action flick it has been marketed to be. Action buffs will quickly grow tired of the talking sequences (even though I did not).

The only complaint I have for the character Machete is that he feels limited by how his actions are directed by the people around him.

I would have liked to see Machete unleashed like he was in the fantastic opening sequence.

But when the film itself loses steam and begins to fall victim to its own self-parody, Trejo brings it all back together when he comes on screen in all his gory glory.

With a stellar performance by Trejo, explosive action scenes, the awesome first sequence, and some great cinematography, “Machete” is old-school pulp fiction.

I just hope that, for the inevitable sequel, Rodriguez actually focuses on a less-restrained Machete who’s willing to go all out on villains unfortunate enough to cross his path.

However, thanks to the charismatic Robert Downey Jr. and $550 million in box office returns, Iron Man shot up from a C-list supporting character in “The Avengers” to an A-list superhero superstar.  As of now, “Iron Man 2” – which will be released on May 7 – is one of the most anticipated films of 2010.

Iron Man was created by Stan Lee (creator of other Marvel classics like “Spider-Man,” “X-Men,” “Fantastic Four,”  “Hulk,” and “Daredevil”) and made its first appearance into the world of comics in issue  number 39 of “Tales of Suspense” in April of 1963.

He became a lasting member of the superhero team the Avengers (primarily consisting of Captain America, Hulk and Thor), but was frequently outshone by his more well-known group members.

Although he has always remained a superhero character at least most comic book readers will be aware of, Iron Man has never been leading man material.

But all that changed when a supposed has-been, washed-up actor by the name of Robert Downey Jr. took the reigns and created something spectacular.

But what is it about this character that made him such a huge hit with movie audiences everywhere?

Cedric Jackson, a freshman, said that he had known very little of Iron Man prior to the film’s trailer release. But when he saw the film, he said it “blew him away.”

Jackson believes the biggest reason for the film’s and the character’s  success lies in the power of the star. “It was all Robert Downey,” he said. “I had never heard of Downey before the film, but now its hard to come across someone who hasn’t heard of him. He’s universally known for making that role his own.”

Jackson doesn’t believe the film would have been anywhere near as successful if Downey hadn’t starred. “He’s such a huge part of the franchise’s appeal,” he said. “I know I wouldn’t have liked it as much.”

Jackson’s thoughts on this seem to be the norm. Katherine O’Brien, a sophomore, said “‘Iron Man’ without Downey’s Tony Stark would be like ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ without Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow.”

“It wouldn’t have been nearly as good as the actual film without Downey’s personality,” she said. “Downey did a great job and I couldn’t imagine the film being done better without him.”

O’Brien said the decision to allow Downey to let his charismatic personality leak into the Tony Stark character was the best decision made with the “Iron Man” film.

“It was a great character development quality that added to the movie as a whole,” she said. “Plus, I have to admit Robert Downey is pretty good-looking.”

Keith Aspery, a senior, said that his attraction to the film came from the unique dichotomy between the man and the hero of Iron Man.

“Tony Stark, in comparison to other heroic characters, radiates with the type of attractive personality that isn’t presented as well in other superhero films,” Aspery said.

“Peter Parker is a nerd in school that no one likes.”

“Bruce Wayne is your average boring billionaire playboy, but Tony Stark is a much cooler character to watch and to learn about. He’s got much more of an individual personality. The best quality about his character is that he isn’t only interesting when he’s in the suit.”

O’Brien said she had heard a little about the character while growing up from her older brother who read comic books.

“But I really didn’t know anything substantial until I saw the film,” she said. She had been “very surprised” as to how much she had liked the movie when she first saw it.

O’Brien said the most interesting thing about the film is how different Tony Stark is from all the other superhero characters out there.

The main idea being that Stark wasn’t transformed into a superhero like Peter Parker (who was bitten by a spider) or Batman (who became vengeful by witnessing his parents’ murders): Stark became a hero by his own choice.

And above that, he’s charismatic regardless of if he’s in a metal suit or a leather jacket. “He isn’t limited to being interesting and dynamic only while in costume,” O’Brien said.

“The film brought a fresh face to the superhero genre that brought to the table something new and unique to the already-repetitious world of superheroes,” Aspery said.

“Considering how well Iron Man was accepted by audiences and critics alike and the explosive box-office results, it makes perfect sense that the studio would continue the epic story of the charismatic businessman-turned-hero. He has such a story yet to be told.”

A Golden Raspberry Award is often referred to by the media as a Razzie. 

Bullock was recently told by the Razzie Awards that there was a mistake in her getting the Razzie. 

However, it doesn’t mean she will return her title as a Razzie winner. 

The Razzie Awards still think “All About Steve” was terrible, but they realized they gave Bullock the wrong trophy. 

Instead of receiving the traditional $4.79 replica of the original 30-year-old statue, somehow Bullock was accidentally given the a original trophy. 

It took the Razzie Awards over a month and a half to recognize their prized possession was missing. 

According to Eonline.com, Bullock said she will return the original trophy without a problem in return for her facsimile. 

“We will be returning the Razzie to [its proper owners] shortly,” she told Eonline.com in an interview. 

Bullock, along with fellow Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry, made cinematic history with actually coming to the Razzie Awards and personally accepting their prospective wins with charm and charisma. 

Berry won her Razzie for the critically-bombed 2005 film “Catwoman.” 

During the ceremony, Bullock’s joke of the night came in her acceptance speech, when she said “All About Steve” really wasn’t that bad of a film, and that the voters must have made an uninformed decision. 

“Something tells me you all didn’t watch the film,” she said in a mockingly  serious tone. To make amends, Bullock brought with her to the award ceremony a cart full of hundreds of “All About Steve” DVDs to be given to the audience. 

“This is the deal I’m going to make you,” Bullock said. 

“Seeing how when I said I would show up, I miraculously won. I will show up next year if you promise to watch the movie – and I mean really watch it – and really consider if it was really and truly the worst performance. If you’re willing to watch it, then I will come back next year and give back the Razzie.”

But Bullock never let the concept of her winning a Razzie affect her. 

Instead, she considers it helpful in not letting her Oscar go to her head. 

“It’s the best equalizer,” she said during her Oscar acceptance speech. Both awards help her not “get too full of [herself].” 

There is no word as to whether or not Razzie voters will actually accede to Bullock’s request with seriousness. 

Currently, Bullock holds the rank of being the only actor or actress in history to have won both a Razzie and an Oscar the same weekend. 

Why pass up such a prestigious position?

Currently clocking in at a $2.7 billion worldwide gross, 2009’s sci-fi smash hit “Avatar” single-handedly proved to audiences and Hollywood itself that 3D films could be both popular and bankable.

Since December of last year, there has been an exponential rise in 3D films on the roster to be released in the near future, including much-anticipated popular franchise sequels “Toy Story 3,” “Tron Legacy,” and “Shrek Ever After.”

But with this added cinematic luxury comes the consequence of radically higher ticket prices, with at least an extra $5 put on the final price.

But “Avatar” was at least able to show there are films out there which audiences are willing to pay the extra money for 3D viewing.

It appears that films like “Avatar,” “Alice in Wonderland” and “Clash of the Titans” are the most bankable 3D offerings.

Sophomore Nathan Noga thinks that epic movies hold more of a specific appeal in 3D than in 2D.

“3D is by definition more of an interactive experience than your normal film,” he said. “Take Avatar, a film with great visual effects. Adding 3D to those effects make the already-awesome special effects mind-blowing.”

Noga, who has seen “Avatar” both in 2D and 3D, said he prefers the 3D version.

“It’s without a doubt a better experience with how it stimulates your senses,” he said. “Avatar showed that movies are getting much more appealing visually and that makes it much easier for 3D to amplify those appealing attributes.”

The box office money matches Noga’s thoughts.

“Alice in Wonderland,” for example, has earned nearly $750 million at the box office.

“Clash of the Titans” made over $100 million in its first week of release, even though the film itself was critically slammed and received only a 29 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a Web site dedicated to movie reviews, trailers and news.

Now this is not to say that 3D is necessary for all films.

There is an obvious attraction by viewers to see films in 3D.

That much is shown by Rottentomatoes.com, which states that 3D films account for a full third of all box office revenue since the release of “Avatar.”

According to the Rotten Tomatoes Web site, “Clash of the Titans,” “Avatar,” “How to Train Your Dragon” and “Alice in Wonderland” account for $1.2 billion of all domestic ticket sales (which fully amount to over $3.5 billion).

In 2009, total box office revenue was $10.6 billion, according to an article posted on thefreelibrary.com.

Noga considers the rise in public interest and acceptance of 3D films to come from the better-looking films that sometimes surpass the at times, been-there-done-that storylines.

“Avatar’s plot wasn’t that original, to be honest,” he said. “So I think a lot of people went to see it and loved it because of the 3D effects combined with the phenomenal visual effects.”

Owen Coughlin, a freshman, agrees. “The big reason (for 3D’s popularity) is the success of Avatar,” he said. “The effects were just incredible and opened the door for a lot of movies to try and grab a piece of that success.”

And apparently, Hollywood studios recognize the potential goldmine of making ‘okay’ movies much more bankable.

“3D enhances special effects so much that it can make fairly boring movies look much more interesting,” said Coughlin.

Vicente Davila, a senior, said he’s unsure as to whether the 3D technology is really that awesome.

“Sure, with Avatar the storyline and graphics were amazing,” he said. “Personally, I enjoyed the 3D part. But now its being overdone and has become an overrated part of movies. The original experience was good, but after a while it begins to wear down on your eyes and your enjoyment. There’s only so long that your eyes can deal with that kind of thing. It’s kind of like a sensory overload.”

So ultimately, what kind of future are we looking at for theaters? So how long can we expect 3D to last as being such a prominent aspect of cinematic theater culture?

Are we just watching a cool fad come and go right before our eyes or are we witnessing the beginning of a massive business model change in the industry?

Davila sees 3D as being this decade’s big trend. “In the 60s, they had rock,” he said. “70s was disco, 80s was rap, 90s was pop, and now in 2010 we’ve got 3D.”

Each decade comes with a trend and it seems 3D is determined to take this one’s vacant spot.

Coughlin, on the other hand, sees 3D as just a fad just like any other fad. “This isn’t the first time 3D has been big,” he said.

Davila’s thoughts are a bit different “As long as they don’t overkill 3D, the industry should be okay,” he said.

Sony Pictures officially announced on Jan. 11, that the studio was pulling out of its plans to make “Spider-Man 4,” along with firing most of the original cast and crew from the previous films.

According to Sony, audiences will see Spider-Man as he is in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics: deep in high school angst. 

The main reasons behind the film’s cancellation were director Sam Raimi’s dislike of the idea for the screenplay and his inability to come up with a decent story by the film’s release deadline of May 2011. 

According to Deadline Hollywood, Raimi was “very vocal inside Sony that he hated [the screenplay].” Raimi then told Sony he couldn’t meet their date of release. “I can’t go forward creatively,” he said.

Once he gave the word, Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios decided to start the whole franchise over instead of trying to hire a new director.  The new film, to be released  

in the summer of 2012, is set to be written by Jamie Vanderbilt (screenwriter of David Fincher’s “Zodiac”) and expected to have an entirely new group of actors. 

“I am kind of disappointed because I don’t think anyone can play Spider-Man other than Tobey Maguire, who has been doing it for three movies,” said sophomore Jack Kirwin.  “But if the reboot is as good as the past movies, I wouldn’t care too much.” 

According to the official Sony press release, when the next Spider-Man hits theaters, Peter Parker is going back to high school.

Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they are “moving forward with a plot that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.” 

“I was anticipating the fourth film by Raimi, but I’m hoping the new film will reboot the franchise for the better,” said Kirwin. 

Spider-Man would not be the first superhero to get such a drastic cinematic makeover.  

The Batman franchise endured a similar reboot with Christopher Nolan’s 2005 “Batman Begins.” 

The highly successful sequel, “The Dark Knight” would not have existed if Warner Bros. had gone on with the series after 1997’s disastrous “Batman and Robin.”

After the horrific box office failure of “Batman and Robin,” the continuation of director Joel Schumacher’s vision was promptly cancelled.

The new film was created to make way for a reboot which would go back to the first years of the dark knight. 

As of now, there is no official statement for the development of  Spider-Man’s new cast. 

Rumors are running rampant for casting options, which definitely include popular teenage actors like Taylor Lautner, Kellan Lutz, Ed Westwick, Zac Efron, Daniel Radcliffe, Robert Pattinson, Michael Cera and Anton Yelchin. 

“What I like about the Spider-Man franchise is how it did not  have big names cheapening it,” said freshman Matthew Smith. 

“It was not about seeing the movie because it stars Johnny Depp or Zac Efron. Now they are just name-dropping,” he said. 

This will be one of the first times a complete overhaul has been enacted for a financially successful series. 

The previous three films were international blockbusters, whose combined worldwide gross was   nearly $2.5 billion, according to movie web site, Box Office Mojo. 

Even the third film, which was universally panned by critics and audiences, still managed to rake in nearly $900 million worldwide, making it the 15th highest-grossing film of all time. 

Still, casting of this saga’s reboot remains a prominent concern for fans of Spider-Man, with many worried about who will play the lead role.

“With the wrong choice [in casting the new film], the saga could lose the entire fan base, the people who would actually watch all of these films,” said Smith. 

“The success or failure of the this popular series reboot will fringe on the male lead who they pick to play Spider-Man,” he said.

The director and writer of “Donnie Darko,” Richard Kelly, didn’t live up to his own standards as he took on the challenge of the latest sci-fi thriller, “The Box.” The first third of the film seems to confirm that the audience is watching a very original suspense thriller that is based on easy-to-follow principles.

That feeling isn’t permanent. The movie consists of a traditional middle-class married couple with Arthur, played by James Marsden and Norma, played by Cameron Diaz.

Then there is the mysterious scarred stranger, played by Frank Langella, who arrives at their door and gives them a box – a “button unit” as the stranger calls it– that has a bright red button on top.

Here’s the moral dilemma: if they press the button, they will receive one million dollars, but somewhere in the world someone they don’t know, will die. They have 24 hours to choose. At the end of the day the stranger will come and pick up the box to deliver it to the next person.

This scene leads to the best line in the film: the stranger said, “I guarantee that the people I give it to next will be people you don’t know.”

While there are genius moments of either plot realization or camera shots, it just isn’t enough to make the whole story believable – especially with the part of the story they won’t tell us.

Cameron Diaz, who is more known for her romantic comedies such as “There’s Something about Mary” or “What Happens in Vegas,” shows that she can take on much more demanding roles than movie audiences have given her credit for. She is especially convincing as a mother and wife, panicking over the fate of her family. Even with her Southern accent, Diaz still manages to help carry the film.

James Marsden also gives an absorbing performance. He is enjoyable to watch near the end and never feels like he’s selling himself short in the genre.

Frank Langella, Oscar-nominee for his role as Richard Nixon in 2008’s “Frost/Nixon,” is the only truly innovative thing about the film. His sinister role as the scarred Arlington Steward could be considered too one-dimensional for some viewer’s tastes, but I saw a much more subtle performance that more fully radiated evil from the man.

 “I’m not a monster,” he said at one point. “I’m just a man with a job to do.”

This casualness is what makes him so terrifying as the movie progresses. Unfortunately, these spectacular performances did nothing to save the film’s ending. I can understand how it could be looked at as meaningful and ironic, but I didn’t think it was well done.

Kelly tries to make this film speak to us in some profound way at the end. It’s a movie that is obviously trying to bloat itself into cultural importance, but ultimately succeeds in being nothing more than a shoddy attempt at a mainstream art film.

“The Box” opened in theaters across the country last Friday and has made over seven million dollars since its release.

“The Vampire’s Assistant” revolves around an ordinary 16-year-old boy named Darren Shan (Chris Massoglia), who, when we first meet him, seems to be living a life that is too structured and ordinary.

Eventually, Darren and his best friend Steve (Josh Hutcherson) – a boy obsessed with vampires who also hates the idea of living a “normal” life – hear of a strange event that is coming to town: The Cirque du Freak.

The Cirque du Freak turns out to be a literal circus, which has traveled the world for over 500 years, full of strange oddities; including a bearded lady (Salma Hayek) and a gigantic ringmaster (Ken Watanabe).

But when the strange Larten Crepsley (John C. Reilly) comes to the stage, Steve recognizes him as a vampire he once read about from the 1800s.

This recognition sparks the rest of the film, as Darren is ultimately chosen by Crepsley to become a vampire’s assistant and has to choose a side in a quickly-approaching war between the vampires and the vicious and merciless Vampaneze.

But as if this was not enough for Darren, he must also fake his own death, fall in love, learn the secrets of being part-vampire, and decide just who his real friends are in this strange new world of the supernatural. The film, based on the popular book series by Darren Shaun, is surprisingly fresh and engaging.

It was the most entertaining vampire movie since “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and it didn’t even try to rely on steamy, overboard romances like “New Moon” and “True Blood” or excessive blood and guts – both traits that have seemingly become conventional with most vampire-oriented cinema.

The most enjoyable element of this movie was the casting. Instead of selling out and hiring an A-list cast to carry the film, director Paul Weitz chose to bring many character actors.

These actors will doubtlessly be familiar to most audience members for their many supporting roles – including John C. Reilly, Ray Stevenson, Willem Defoe and Ken Watanabe.

John C. Reilly is entertaining to watch as Larten Crepsley, the menacing-yet-sardonic vampire who wants to stay neutral amid the inevitability of a war between the vampires and the vampaneze.

He just wants to live in peace and not get involved – which ultimately makes the character even more appealing as we see his transformation into a heroic character.

Crepsley is definitely the best character in the film, with all the quirks and instances of a delightful sense of humor.

One of the biggest aspects that made this film a success came from the explosive and epic musical score composed by Stephen Trask. Never before have I seen a film that so perfectly influences its audience with just its score. 

The film ends with the expectation that there will be a sequel.

It could be interesting to see how the characters develop additional layers and if the series will fully transcend into a “Twilight”-like phenomenon. It has all the components, but it needs time to mature.

The upcoming romantic drama “New York, I Love You,” which will be widely-released on Oct. 16, is one of them. 

A film that has been called  “great” by some critics, it could become an instant classic alongside “The Godfather,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Gone with the Wind” and “Casablanca.” 

This movie has the ability to combine all the major components of film-making in a irresistible artistic film cleverly disguised as a typical romantic chick-flick. 

New York has been considered a melting pot of ethnic backgrounds. It has a special place in the hearts of Americans. It’s a place of wonder, excitement and magic. This film could capture the essence of New York and the love the city holds. 

“It’s appealing in how it has different directors and different point of views that bring something new and fresh to the table,” said Brandon Wilhelm, a JCU senior.

The film – directed by nearly a dozen directors, including Brett Ratner and first-timer Natalie Portman – is about the people that live in New York. 

The film itself is no ordinary film, but rather a collection of shorts. Eleven shorts with each segment only about 10 minutes long. 

“The beauty of this kind of project is you’re bound to find something in it that will appeal to you in some way,” said Wilhelm.

Pietro Shakarian, sophomore at JCU and president of the Carroll Cinema Society feels that it will do well among the college demographic.

“I believe the average college student would want to see a picture like this because it’s unconventional, it’s different, and it’s definitely something that isn’t done often,” said Shakarian. 

Together, all these shorts will tie into a common theme and stand as a true tribute to the greatness and wonder of one of America’s most engaging and wonderful cities. 

The film is in part a sequel to the 2006 film “Paris, je t’aime” (meaning “Paris, I Love You”), a film which takes the same collection-of-shorts approach to storytelling and also boasts of Hollywood talent, including the Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Natalie Portman, Emily Mortimer, Elijah Wood, Olga Kurlyenko, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Nick Nolte, Steve Buscemi and Juliette Binoche. 

Sticking with this tried-and-true technique, “New York, I Love You” has a stellar ensemble cast, including Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Orlando Bloom, Ethan Hawke, Robin Wright Penn, Christina Ricci and Bradley Cooper. 

The film has already done well among critics. 

It premiered at the 2008 Toronto International Film Festival to rave reviews and has an IMDB approval rating of 8.2 out of 10. 

Considering the film’s unique cinematic approach and seemingly artsy trailer, the unorthodox approach to filming the movie has aroused a fresh  sigh of relief response from critics.

“Some people might call these types of films art films, [but] I would call them revolutionary,” said Shakarian.

The film’s early successes at the Toronto Film Festival and the high approval ratings from critics thus far are a good omen. 

Everything changes when he meets a homeless man on the streets of L.A. Nathaniel Ayers used to be a promising musician who at 19 attended The Juilliard School of music. But then his promising future was dashed when he became schizophrenic.

Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Foxx stumble in their portrayals as Nathaniel Ayers and Steve Lopez

He left Juilliard after his second year and wandered to L.A., where he lived and played music on the streets. After Lopez sees Ayers’ musical talent and hears his story, he realizes that he’s found the inspiration he’s been looking for.

Thus begins the journey that would ultimately change both men in ways they never imagined.

Judging from past films, Foxx and Downey could be considered two of today’s best actors. They both make their characters stand out, by going the distance and receiving critical acclaim.

One of the best scenes involved a surprising and shocking fight between Ayers and Lopez. This was the only sign of an Oscar performance in Foxx. He was mesmerizing. Another great scene involves Lopez giving a monologue that is a great credit to Downey’s versatility.

Other than that, there aren’t many signs of brilliance for either star.

Unfortunately, the screenplay makes Downey’s character extremely dry and dull. In fact, if it wasn’t for Downey’s acting, it would be much easier to discern how lifeless the character really is.

However, Downey does bring Lopez to life, mostly by the use of his eyes, showing us the character’s complexity and depth.

He brings his Tony Stark, Downey’s character in “Iron Man,” charm to the part with his delivery of rapid-fire, dry-but-hilarious dialogue. Jamie Foxx’s portrayal is an enigma. From his past films, Foxx has already shown his acting capability.

Unlike Tom Hanks’ Forrest Gump or Dustin Hoffman’s Raymond Babbitt, Foxx’s character is not so easy to assess. Ayers’ random dialogue and lack of expression makes it really hard to like the character or disagree with his portrayal.

Although “The Soloist” has several very admirable performances and strongly written scenes, the film doesn’t come together with the weak screenplay.

The way in which the film was put together was poorly done. It drags in all the wrong places. It feels way too long and it’s not even two hours. Its editing is choppy.

Its story line feels too much like a bunch of random events rather than a narrowly-crafted film.

“The Soloist” is much too unsystematic, and gives a sad attempt at an ending.

“The Soloist,” scheduled for release on April 27, is the incredible true story of Lopez (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his most heartfelt column and book subject, Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx).

In a recent phone interview, journalist Steve Lopez talked about his latest experience with ‘The Soloist’

Ayers is a schizophrenic with an extreme talent for music who was born and raised in Cleveland.

“It’s been pretty surreal,” said Lopez in a conference interview. “Seeing Robert Downey calling himself Steve Lopez is a little bit strange.”

Lopez was approached by producers Gary Foster and Russ Krasnoff three years ago with the intention of making a film about Ayers and himself.

Lopez said he had concerns about letting Hollywood tell the story. He was worried that issues would be simplified or the story would be changed.

However, “They made the movie they said they were going to make,” said Lopez.

Lopez said he was very pleased with how themes of friendship, the redemptive power of music, and the simple power of human connection were illustrated in the finished film.

“The film is by necessity a reduction, but the film is true to all the essential themes,” commented Lopez.

He said the film stays true to framing the relationships, the issues and his conflicts.

Lopez was not part of the casting process. “I knew that my job was to write the columns, write the book, and trust the people at Dreamworks to make the movie that they said they wanted to make,” he said.

“I know they went through a lot of people, and I think we couldn’t have been luckier than to end up with Robert Downey,” Lopez said. “I feel great about the way it turned out.”

Lopez loved Downey’s portrayal. He spoke to Downey before filming and told him he trusted the actor’s instincts and depth. “I wanted him to just use his great talents and skills to make something original,” Lopez said.

Lopez was amazed at what Downey was able to do with the part.

“Each time that I see the movie, I see new and different ways in which he captured some essence of me,” said Lopez. “This, I think, is the genius of Robert Downey. I think it’s just an amazing acting performance. ”

Lopez and Cleveland native Ayers first met each other in 2005.

While walking through Los Angeles, Lopez saw a homeless man sitting near a statue of Beethoven.

In the man’s hands was a violin, an instrument he was able to play with professional skill.

Lopez discovered that the Julliard School accepted Ayers at the age of 19. One of the top music schools, Ayers only made it through his third year after developing schizophrenia.

“Here’s the striking image of a guy whose story needed to be told,” he said. Inspired by the homeless man’s story, Lopez featured Ayers in his next column.

To Lopez, that man playing a two-stringed violin near the statue of Beethoven remains “the most inspirational experience of [his] life.”