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.

“Shutter Island” is a film where the superior acting outweighs the movie itself. Despite the story’s flaws, the cast of the film (especially Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Kingsley) effortlessly carry the film with their obvious grasp of great acting.
The story takes place in 1954 at a mental institution for the criminally insane.
When an inmate (Emily Mortimer) inexplicably breaks out of the inescapable fortress of Shutter Island, two U.S. Federal Marshals (DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo) are called in to investigate the problem.
But the longer they stay, the more they see there’s something disturbing and possibly life-threatening about the prison and its mysterious chief psychiatrist (Kingsley) that could involve a massive conspiracy.
“Shutter Island” is quite an amazing undertaking for director Martin Scorsese.
For a director best known for intense criminal character studies like “Taxi Driver,” here he has created an honest-to-God, unsettling horror film and does it with power and finesse. Everything about it screams film noir, which hasn’t been this effectively done since Christopher Nolan’s “Memento.”
What made Dennis Lehane’s novel a masterpiece is disappointingly absent from the adaptation.
There is just something missing. The source material was brilliant, especially through its use of ambiguity.
Scorsese gives away the plot by almost handing to the audiences a conventionally clear ending he thought they would like, instead of the ending that would have been more fitting to the Scorsese style.
An ambiguous ending with less spoon-fed exposition would have made all the difference.
The cast (also including Michelle Williams, Cleveland’s Ted Levine and Jackie Earl Haley) make up the best part of the film – the acting.
Both DiCaprio and Kingsley are continuously electrifying to watch, especially together. DiCaprio is especially masterful and carries our interest when the story itself drags.
Now make no mistake: this is DiCaprio’s movie. DiCaprio makes this a performance of a lifetime by throwing in everything he’s capable of as a character actor.
It’s like witnessing a master chef at work, flawlessly putting together the perfect blend of ingredients to make a culinary work of art. He seems to go through every emotion, as if checking off each ingredient necessary for an Oscar nomination.
One scene that should get DiCaprio some award recognition comes in a flashback near the end, where DiCaprio comes home and reacts magnificently to a heart-rending tragedy.
Overall, “Shutter Island” offers more than your ordinary horror. It’s a true portrait of depravity and desperation of the human condition disguised as a thriller the average audience can swallow.
While this may be a lower-class Scorsese film, it’s still more enjoyable than most films today.
It’s a well-written classical look at noir horror, filled with energy and excitement. The suspense is breathtakingly effective.
Every scene builds on the mystery and each answer comes with more harrowing questions. The problem is we never get the payoff we’re waiting for.

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.”