FILM TOPIC: Spike Jonze's "Her" is NOT a Romance

I’ve gotten used to indie movies getting hyped up by critics and awards buzz, even when they’re not that impressive. But the mounting support for Her is getting out of hand. I don’t care if it wins awards or if every critic under the sun wants to give it five stars. Be my guest. My concern is with what they’re referring to it as: a modern day love story. Excuse me?

Her is the story of a man who falls in love with his Siri-like operating system, Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). He talks with her more than anyone else, goes on dates with her, has cyber sex with her, and even argues with her. It’s a gloomy look at our potential future if human beings continue to physically disconnect from society only to emotionally connect to it through computers. It’s highly respected for this inspired perspective. Fine, I’ll give it that. It noticed what we’ve been noticing for a decade now. But I would hardly call it a love story. And it’s a little alarming that everyone’s agreeing that it is. 

Perhaps, if you saw it through my eyes, you’ll see what I mean. Allow me to tear away the rose-colored glasses that rom-coms tend to fasten to their devoted audiences. The relationship in this film is not mutual. It’s one-sided. Samantha referred to herself as a self-taught, independent, artificial intelligence. But what she learned was how to please her master. Her sole purpose was to keep him happy. In fact, her job was to keep any individual who purchased her version of the OS happy. She learned what they liked and gave it to them. She provided this service to thousands, and even claimed to have fallen in love with not just Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix), but hundreds of men. If she were human, she would be the equivalent of an escort, and her service, The Girlfriend Experience. I’m sincerely miffed as to how anyone can watch this film and think there’s something romantic about a guy manufacturing his idea of the perfect woman and being satisfied with a completely one-sided relationship. A majority of their conversations were focused on him, and the one time she asked something of him, a physical connection through a surrogate, he refused. 

This type of relationship reminded me of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut, Don Jon. In it, a "Jersey Shore"-clone falls for the hottest girl he’s ever seen, coincidentally played by the same actress who voices Samantha. When given the ultimatum to either give up his porn addiction or lose her, he finds himself growing bored of their sex life. The film likens porn to romantic comedies. Both give people false expectations about what real relationships are like, forcing them to ultimately be disappointed with real life. Guys expect acrobatic, dirty sexy, and women expect lifelong romantic overtures. What the guys love most about porn and its storylines, besides how it arouses them, is that once they’ve gotten what they want out of the interaction, they no longer have to participate in the relationship. Porn is one-sided. They can turn it on and off whenever they want. Maybe there isn’t excessive nudity in Her, but it’s basically the same setup. Theodore wasn’t experiencing an advanced emotional connection with a bodiless female personality. He was deluding himself into thinking he didn’t need a real girlfriend, because he could get everything he wanted from the computer he bought.

As I said before, feel free to applaud it for its examination of the modern, emotionally-stunted mind. But, please, please stop calling it a romance. Don’t let men think this situation qualifies as romantic. Otherwise, you’re just apart of the problem the film is trying to highlight.

FILM REVIEW: Man of Steel

It's a bird. It's a plane. No, it's a predictable opening to a Superman review. If you're a Superman superfan, that line is about as intrinsic to the hero and his saga as the Kryptonite that ails him and the Fortress of Solitude that guides him. Both of which are not in this film. This latest reboot isn't a die-hard's version. It's not a throwback to earlier film adaptations. And while some critics and fans might argue that that's a good thing, that doesn't mean it's perfect.

In this reboot, we are first introduced to Kal-El's home planet, Krypton, and his birth parents, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara Lor-Van (Angels and Demons' Ayelet Zurer). We witness its destruction and his father's tireless attempts to save him and their people. And, ultimately, we witness his father's demise at the hands of Superman's most famous alien archnemisis, General Zod (the fear-inducing Michael Shannon of "Boardwalk Empire"). From there, we are thrust into Earth right along with Kal-El (the dashing Henry Cavill of Immortals ). While he wanders the sparsely populated areas of America, we're shown flashbacks of his struggle to blend in and control his volatile powers. It's refreshing to see a less celebratory reaction when he discovers his x-ray vision, ability to burn through things with his eyes, and heightened hearing. Each flashback is juxtaposed to a present day act of heroism. And with each one, we grow closer to the hero he will become. 

That storytelling technique was one of my favorite components of the film. Every time they showed a former bully all grown up, tamed, and in awe of him, it preyed on our inner underdog, which naturally dreams of a day when we will get to rub our worth and popularity in the faces of our own childhood bullies. It also served to make a comparison between his biological parents and his adoptive parents Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), who were essentially mirrors of one another. Both mothers doting and protective. Both fathers heroic and selfless. That scene when Costner raises his hand, stopping Clark from saving him from the approaching tornado and revealing his powers to all the people huddled under the overpass was haunting. As the sound dropped out, like the calm before the storm, your heart dropped with it, but you couldn't look away. Born of a hero and raised by a hero, there seemed to be no other path he could've ever considered.

The lore that we are told of Kal-El's birth, having been the first natural one on his planet for centuries, was simply the beginning of the Messiah comparisons. During his last conversation with Jor-El, his father tells him that he sent him to Earth hoping that being raised by humans would make him feel like half of one, so he would be the bridge that unified the two species, and the Kryptonians could one day flourish again. He thought that Kal-El could show the humans the Kryptonian way of life, to live justly and to always have hope for a better tomorrow. In the Catholic religion, Jesus was sent to Earth, born naturally (although not conceived naturally), for the very same reason. God, his father, wanted him to be the bridge between Earth and the heavens, to deliver his message of hope. And much like Kal-El, Jesus's birth was questioned, his powers feared, and his existence rejected. They would first cast him down before raising him up. And the clincher of that comparison was when Superman floats out of Zod's ship into space's atmosphere with his arms outstretched and his legs pressed together as if crucified on a cross. He is our messiah, our savior, the bringer of hope.

The voiceovers, when we could hear Jor-El but not see him, also helped to solidify the God comparison. Crowe was a good choice—his voice sounds both commanding and wise. He's no James Earl Jones or Morgan Freeman, but not everybody can be black. One aspect I'm glad they brought back from previous incarnations was the flying perspective. I think watching Superman fly without any mechanical or scientific assistance is one of the main things that separates him from other superheroes and, therefore, vital, but I also think that watching his face as he flies is a clever way to bond the audience to him. Watching him smile and laugh as he finds his soaring rhythm brings him down to our level, because if we could fly, that's exactly how we would look. It showed his human side. 

Although, different isn't always bad. I thought the choice to model the Kryptonian space ships, creatures, and gadgets after the structure of several types of bugs, including beetles, was not only aerodynamically logical, but also a smart way of differentiating their technology from ours, since we model our planes after birds. General Zod's initial contact with the human race was also inspired. It's not often that an alien movie includes the entire world. And when they do, they don't always remember that regardless of how universal the English language might seem to be, not everybody chooses to learn it. So the translation of his worldwide transmission was quite warranted. I also appreciated the implied origin story of Superman's costume. It wasn't just something he thought up or that was made specifically for him, but a warrior's uniform on his planet. And the S on his chest wasn't to inspire a moniker that would deem him superior to the inhabitants of his adoptive planet, but a symbol that all of his people wore.

Of course, there are still plenty of things I either didn't get, found annoying, or thought were illogical. For example, the cape. I still don't get the cape. I know it's part of the iconic costume, but I will never get the cape. What is it for? He flies either way. And while we're on the topic of the hero's appearance, what was up with his teeth? Do British people not have dentists? Do Germans? General Zod's second in command, Faora-Ul (Antje Traue), also had quite the set of chompers. Gorgeous woman. Fucked up teeth. And, lastly, I realize we want to stress Superman's humanity, but did he have to have the hairiest chest of any of his predecessors. It was like he was competing with Wolverine, who is...a fucking wolverine. I'm not saying don't have a hairy chest. I'm just saying tufts of it shouldn't peek out at the top of your costume. The third most obvious visual eye sore was the product placement. I get it. This movie was expensive—$225 million to be exact. But I don't think we needed to know that Lois Lane uses a Nikon, that bullies end up serving mouthwatering pancakes at IHOP, or that Clark Kent's mom works at Sears. And, while sure, the American flag isn't a product, it sure as hell seemed like one given how many times it was on screen. It reminded me of the Facebook sidebar that suggests people you might want to be friends with. I imagine other countries viewing this movie are declining just the same.

I'm not complaining just to be a killjoy. If I really wanted to get nit-picky, I'd mention the fact that Clark's dad is supposed to be 46 when he dies, according to his tombstone. Pfft. Costner, who is 58, looks maybe 65—maybe, on a good airbrushing day. And the studio's decision to make General Swanwick (Harry Lennix from "Dollhouse") fake swear at the end with "F-ing" to keep their PG-13 rating was ridiculous. Realistically, he would've cursed during that tense moment. But if he's not going to actually curse, then don't bother. That's like serving gluten-free cake. Why? Just eat anything else. But I'm not being nit-picky. I was simply easing you into the preposterousness of a few other elements. 

For example, why in God's name would you freeze criminals and send them to a black hole for a few life cycles, 1) knowing that when your planet inevitably explodes, they will be freed and 2) in the end, you die and they live? What?! Leave them on the planet that's dying. You go somewhere else. You had so much time to evacuate. You have got to be kidding me. In the same vein of stupidity, Zod, if your plan was to rebuild the Kryptonian community with the fetuses that survived for thousands of years in a well-hidden space ship, why the F (see how annoying that is?) would you take that ship to battle? If the ship is destroyed, the babies die. In the wise words of Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler, Really? My biggest gripe though is with the CGI movements of the Kryptonians. They moved like The Hulk. The Hulk is a giant ogre. He's clunky and massive. Superman should be graceful. He and his fellow Kryptonians shouldn't land like hammers and fight like wrestlers. I mean, they don't need to know karate, but I felt like I was watching "The Flinstones" and Bamm-Bamm was throwing a fit. And last, but not least, I will let the lack of a Fortress of Solitude or Kryptonite slide, since I'm sure we'll eventually encounter these things in sequels, but I'm a little bummed we weren't introduced to Jimmy Olsen.

Now, there was internet speculation that the intern Jenny (newcomer Rebecca Buller), who got trapped mid-attack and was vigilantly saved by her boss Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) and reporter Steve Lombard (Michael Kelly of "House of Cards" and "People of Interest"), was Jimmy's replacement. But luckily, after someone obsessively enhanced her ID and read that her last name was Jurwich, that theory was debunked. Look, as much as I love girl power, the brotherly bond between Clark and Jimmy is far more important. He has to feel like he has a family in Metropolis, now that all of his people are dead and he's so far from both his homes.

Speaking of vital bonds, after the second viewing of this film, I decided that in spite of a serious lack of courting, I will accept the love story between Clark and Lois (the bravado-bearing Amy Adams). At first, I only understood why she liked him. Who wouldn't she? He's handsome, heroic, selfless, and he treats her with the respect that most men don't. What I struggled with was why he would fall for her. Flashbacks to his childhood give glimpses of his crush on Lana Lang, but he's met plenty of women since then in his travels. Why would he fall for this one? Then I realized it was because she's the only one who ever publicly accepted him without fear of judgement, and publicly stood up for him without fear of consequence. She embodies the reason the human race deserves to be saved. She is both the acceptance he has craved all his life and the hope he was destined to deliver. So fine. Fall. Fall hard. But the next movie better be chocked full of Clark and Lois moments now that they work together at The Daily Planet, while he rocks those extremely "covert" spectacles, because otherwise it'll become a superficial romance.

I also look forward to the possibility that they will introduce Lex Luthor next time, because, let's be honest, some tycoon is going to swoop in and rebuild Metropolis after that insane demolition scene that was passed off as an aerial duel. I'm also interested in finding out if the government were so bold as to search the wreckage for fetuses to dissect or alien technology to steal. I also wonder if Faora-Ul, who is said to be one of Superman's most formidable comic book enemies, actually died during that black hole suck, given her propensity for survival. But mostly, I look forward to finding out the most baffling question of all: Is Superman a virgin? Come on. After his implication that the best has yet to come when they took a much-needed kiss break, you were thinking the exact same thing.

FILM REVIEW: Tina Fey & Paul Rudd's "Admission"

Admission is a romantic dramedy about a Princeton admissions officer who is contacted by a passionate teacher, hellbent on not only getting his student into Princeton, but also reuniting him with his biological mother...her.

With Tina Fey and Paul Rudd at the helm, adorable goofiness was bound to ensue, of which they both delivered. But what I found most noteworthy was the tone, which reminded me so much of Judd Apatow's This is Forty. In the trailers of both these films, the audience is led to believe they're in for 90% comedy / 10% drama, but that's not what's delivered. This is Forty suffered from the same tone issues that Apatow's previous film Funny People did. The balance of humor and drama were so unexpectedly disproportionate for a screenwriter known for films like The 40-Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Pineapple Express that the audience left shell-shocked with emotion when they actually came for a raucous good time. Admission, however, gets it right, with a fluid balance of comedy and drama injected into each scene.  

Rudd has a knack for this particular juggling act, but after 7 years on the loopy "30 Rock" and 12 years on the unhinged "Saturday Night Live," Fey has yet to truly prove she can handle a dramatic moment. Sure there were a few in Mean Girls, Baby Mama, and Date Night, but those were definitely 90-10 dramedies. Admission is more of a 60-40 dramedy. And it turns out Fey can bring you to tears almost as easily as she can get a laugh out of you.

That said, the film is at best a rental. No need to run to theaters to see it. My advice to junior and senior high school students, especially ones who want to go to the top Ivy schools, is to definitely not watch this before you get your admission responses. Once you learn what is allegedly the process that one must endure to apply and the system the admissions officers use in order to determine your worthiness, your brain will probably melt. For everybody else, who is either already in college or glad to be done with it, you'll discover a sweet story about parenthood and the different ways it can go wrong no matter how much you try to do right. Special recognition go to Michael Sheen, who plays Fey's boring British pushover of a long-term boyfriend, and Nat Wolff, who is surprisingly captivating for a kid who once starred in a Nickelodeon series called "The Naked Brothers Band."

FILM REVIEW: Melissa McCarthy and Jason Bateman's "Identity Thief"

At first glance, Identity Thief looks like it would be as zany and over-the-top as such road trip box office stinkers as All About Steve and Due Date. But I'm happy to report that it was surprisingly good. Granted, I went in with very low expectations, so that probably helped a bit. But I was rooting for Melissa McCarthy, and hoping to see if she could carry a film on her own. The thing is while she may be the lead actress on the CBS sitcom "Mike & Molly," she has two enormous factors set against her.

The first factor is her age. At the moment Hollywood is dominated by the fresh young faces of Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway, and Olivia Wilde. And the second factor was crassly addressed in 2010 by Marie Claire TV blogger Maura Lynch, who ignorantly expressed her disgust of having to watch what she considered morbidly obese actors on TV, and just yesterday by New York Observer critic Rex Reed, who made unnecessarily crude comments in his review of this film. While her fans—fat and thin—may be supportive, at the end of the day, there are more skinny (and getting skinnier by the minute) actresses in Hollywood than there are overweight ones. And the ones that are overweight are often secretly plotting ways to get skinnier (see Sarah Rue, comedian Monique, and Jennifer Hudson for reference). McCarthy herself has actually dropped a lot of weight since her "Gilmore Girls" days. And one imagines up-and-comer Rebel Wilson, a self-proclaimed fatty, isn't far behind. However, in spite of these factors, after seeing this film, I am confident that McCarthy could in fact do what's perceived in current pop culture as the impossible: make it big while being big.

The world first took notice of McCarthy ten years after the fans of "Gilmore Girls" did. It wasn't until 2010 when her series debuted and she stole scenes in The Back-Up Plan, Life as We Know It, and Bridesmaids that she became a household name. Critics branded her as the female Zach Galifianakis....which worried me. Galifianakis was in the aforementioned Due Date with the notoriously funny Robert Downey, Jr. All the ingredients for hilarity were in the mix, but the results were abysmal. He hasn't actually been able to successfully carry a film or costar in one since he stole every scene in The Hangover—four years ago. The sequel wasn't even that funny. If it wasn't for the dorky genius of HBO's recently cancelled sleuth comedy "Bored to Death," he'd be all but forgotten. So naturally, I worried that McCarthy could suffer the same fate if she signed up for a slew of roles where she'd run her chubby-awkward-loon routine into the ground.

Alas, not only did McCarthy choose a three-dimensional character who wasn't a caricature of crazy but someone capable of displaying hilarious lunacy in one scene, crafty vindictive manipulation in another, and heartbreaking loneliness in the next, but she also set up a pretty sweet lineup of films in her future. You've probably already seen trailers for her summer buddy cop comedy The Heat with Sandra Bullock, where she plays an untamed version of her Bridesmaids character, tomboyish and tough as nails. But you'll probably be surprised to learn that she and her husband, Ben Falcone, who you'll remember as the sky marshal in Bridesmaids, are co-directing and -writing her next project Tammy, which she'll co-star in with Shirley MacLaine. It's another road trip comedy. This time involving a recently fired and jilted woman who decides to hit the road with her foul-mouthed, alcoholic grandmother. Cue the inappropriateness. Choosing to take the reigns of her career creatively is a smart move. That's actually the problem with most comedians and comedic actors. They're the funniest when they write their own stuff. Kristen Wiig and Andy Samberg learned that, and hopefully Galifianakis and even Dane Cook will learn it soon.

If you need proof that McCarthy deserves to go further in her career and to not be stunted by her appearance, then you have to watch Identity Thief. She plays a con artist with many personalities in her back pocket for duping people. Watch her go in and out of character during a con. You'll see more than just her pudgy face. You'll see that she's three times the actress's of today in more ways than one.

FILM TOPIC: The Merits of Looper's Villain Origin Story

Looper is the new Joseph Gordon-Levitt-Bruce Willis, futuristic, action film that's got critics believing Willis has returned to form (just in time for Die Hard 5), JGL has grown into a formidable character-actor, and Emily Blunt can do in 20 minutes of supporting screentime what most actresses her age (and older) can't do in a film they're starring in. Needless to say, it'll be one of the most memorable movies of the year. But while many viewers will walk away impressed by certain perspective shots, gory scenes, and tough-as-nails bravado, I'll be marveling at the underlying premise that hopefully doesn’t go unnoticed.

Looper isn’t just a film about time travel or life-altering moral choices or harsh Darwinist realities. It's also a member of a rare subgenre known as the villain's origin story.

This summer audiences have been inundated with superhero films, from Avengers to The Dark Knight. The hero’s journey and ascension is a very popular type of tale, even when there isn’t a cape involved, inspiring such iconic characters from Bourne to Bond. But rarely do we see what drives a villain to become what they are, the breaking point that makes them go down the wrong path.

You may not even realize it, but you’ve actually enjoyed a few villainous upbringings. There was The Godfather trilogy, where we watched a young Michael Corleone go from a protégé to a contender, christened in blood. There was Star Wars, Episodes I through III, that showed a young, rambunctious Anakin Skywalker before he became the darkest Sith Lord of them all, Darth Vader, and before he experienced the losses that led him to accept evil into his heart. And then there was the long, winding tale of how a boy named Tom Riddle became a twisted sorcerer who no one dared name in Harry Potter. Most interestingly, J.K. Rowling ventured not only to tell the story of how a boy managed to outsmart and overcome the most powerful wizard there ever was with the simplest of gifts, love, but also to show that both Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort had very similar childhoods, capable of the same power, but drawn to different paths. She showed what happens when such a person chooses good and when they choose evil—when they choose to be fueled by hate versus love.

I prefer the villain’s origin story because what drives a person to do wrong is far more interesting to me than what drives them to do right. There are only but a few possibilities for the latter. I know, from church homilies and after-school specials, all the pluses of being a hero and all the consequences of being a villain, so it confuses me as to why someone would choose to do evil. I want to know what could possibly blacken their hearts so much that they would forgo their humanity for a fleeting sense of victory. Cause, let's face it, the hero always wins in the end.

Corleone was born into evil. It was his birthright and the only way he knew how to live—how to survive. Anakin turned evil, because nearly everyone he loved kept being taken away from him. He felt the need to have absolute control to stop the pain. What better way to stop evil from hurting you than to join it and dominate it? And Tom Riddle gave into dark magic, because he never felt the love that every child deserves, and he was never accepted for who he was. His story is like a supernatural cautionary tale about bullying. Push the wrong kid too far and there’s no telling what they’ll do. Or what they’ll become.

For that reason I was very intrigued by Looper’s subplot about a future terrorist known as The Rainmaker. Willis’s character goes back in time to kill him before he can grow up to become the type of monster that telekinetically kills thousands of people without remorse. While I naturally wondered if I would have the balls to kill a child, let alone kill two others that unfortunately fit his description, I was more focused on why this kid grows up to be The Rainmaker. His powers are stronger than any telekinetic person in his time, of which there are many. His power is ignited by fear and anger and love, which is something he shares with both Skywalker and Potter. But if he had a mentor or a protector, like Obi-Wan Kenobi or Professor Dumbledore, and they lived long enough to guide him down the right path, would he then become good?

Director and writer Rian Johnson did the smart thing in showing the viewer two possible outcomes to the final showdown. Not because it assuaged viewers who wanted a happy ending, but because it showed you exactly what could’ve went wrong. It was important that it was made perfectly clear what the turning point was for this unstoppable force of evil. It was important to see that his motive wasn’t frivolous or unfounded. He was completely justified—excessive, but justified. Greater men have done worse for lesser reasons.

It was also interesting that both versions of Joe, present (JGL) and future (Willis), were not in the least bit heroic. They were selfish and driven by self-preservation for a vast majority of the film. What young Joe did towards the end was the most heroic act he’d ever done in his entire life, but what he did at the very end was what finally crowned him the hero. And, ironically, in order to do that, he had to save the villain. We’re often shown stories of best friends (Smallville’s Clark and Luther) and brothers (Thor’s Thor and Loki) turning on each other in spite of their love for each other, and the hero sacrificing himself in hopes of saving their villainous loved one. But rarely do you see a hero with very little connection to the villain commit such an act. He had to have an enormous amount of faith that this villain was worth saving—that one day he’d become the hero he had the potential of being.

I would understand if viewers were disappointed in not knowing what becomes of this child—to see if Joe’s sacrifice was worth it. But I’m not. Sure, it would be interesting to see more potential turning points, to see if something else eventually redirects him towards darkness, to see if his mother’s love is all he really needed. But I think that’s another story. For another time.

What I hope is that this film inspires other auteurs to tell more villain origin stories. I would've loved to have seen an entire film about Heath Ledger slash Christopher Nolan's version of The Joker, but my most recent favorite was Michael Fassbender's pre-genocidal Magneto in X-Men: First Class. What's in store so far is the Psycho A&E prequel series that Freddie Highmore just signed on to, the story of the Wicked Witch of the West in 2014's Wicked, and the as yet unscheduled Deadpool adaptation. 

FILM: The Pros and Cons of The Dark Knight Rises

I, much like many people who frequently read entertainment news, was truly pissed off when the inconsiderate and, at this point in his career, indifferent David Letterman ruined the ending of The Dark Knight Rises. I was even more pissed off when coworkers on the other side of my cubicle had THE LOUDEST conversation about the ending of the movie. And I pretty much exceeded my pissed limit when I heard that a complete lunatic who called himself the Joker murdered and wounded eager Batman fans at a midnight screening, tainting the film's history for all time and forever linking the pain of hundreds of people to a comic book icon that's never going away, ensuring that they will be consistently haunted by that horrifying night forever.

Many of my friends said it made them not want to watch the film, either out of fear of going to a theater in the event that there should be a copycat shooter, or out of respect, for this is a time of mourning and not entertainment. I was a little wary myself. There were as many cops in Times Square this weekend as there were vendors, and when the lights went down, I did feel an overwhelming amount of dread--that kind of fear that washes over you when you know a horror movie is about to start and you're not sure if it'll be a slowburn that eases you into the gore or a shock-and-awe that gets right to it. If it wasn't for the guy who wouldn't shut up next to me, making peanut gallery commentary throughout the whole film, and the fact that I had to pee half way through the movie, I would've remained that agitated and distracted the entire time. But I actually think that this unforeseen tragedy made the film resonate more with me--as horrible as that sounds. We know that the world is filled with real horrors and life is filled with more losses than wins, but we don't always remember, because for most of us, as long as we have food, shelter, a job, good health, and family, the world seems just. It isn't until we're reminded, by one tragedy or another, that tyrants and terrorists live among us, and are shown a story, real or fictional, of good triumphing over evil that we remember what winning actually looks like. I can't tell you how proud I was to watch a city, torn apart by fanatical ideals, rise up and fight.

So I'll admit that that night has truly affected how I judge The Dark Knight Rises. It may have put it on a pedestal for me, and raised it above all other comic book films of the year. But that doesn't mean it was perfect. Check out the pros and cons:

*MAJOR SPOILER ALERT*

CONS
• Why don't we just get it out of the way: Yes, sometimes you could not understand what Bane was saying, especially during his first fight with Batman. I think the problem is we don't realize how accustomed we are to reading lips as we listen, so when that option is taken away, it diminishes our ability to hear. I'll definitely have to watch it again with subtitles, which is a testament to the script really because unlike most villains, Bane actually had interesting things to say. It wasn't just filler.
• I realize that Michael Caine is a seasoned actor and he deserves a little more than a few one-liners, but I feel like his role this time around as the voice of reason was a bit bloated. Granted, in past times, the love interest and the commissioner would help Alfred talk some sense into Bruce/Batman, and this time around Alfred was on his own, but it seemed a little unnatural to me. I always felt like Alfred always had Batman's back. It never occurred to me that he is probably the only person in the city who loves Bruce Wayne more than he loves Batman, and would do anything to save him from himself. As a result, I didn't feel the weight of the moment when he admitted to burning Rachel's (Maggie Gyllenhaal) letter in the last film, leading him to believe that she would've chosen him over Harvey Dent, and plummeting him into a depression that made him resign from the world.

• While I'm happy for Blake, that he got to become a detective for all his diligent work, you don't become a detective just because the commissioner wants you to be one. You take a test!
• I'm not saying that women have trouble with electronics. What I'm saying is that anyone who rides the Batman motorcycle would need a little tutorial. It doesn't look in the least bit self-explanatory. It's like the IKEA of motorcycles. So Catwoman just hopping on and figuring it all out in a matter of seconds is bullshit.
•  When Blake sends out orphans to alert nearby residents that it's time to evacuate the city, all I could think was, Who the fuck's gonna believe a bunch of kids?
•  While I think Marion Cotillard, the Oscar winner, has a lovely voice. I do not think her American?/British? accent was that great. There was a little French peeking through. She needs to work on her enunciation.
• I am not a doctor. If I took a biology exam today, I would fail so bad that the only check would go near my name. But seriously, vertebrae breaks, fuses back together on its own in a few weeks, and you can walk just fine? Seriously? That's a thing? Are you telling me that we're wasting our money on hospital bills and we should all just take a couple naps and we'll be fine? Come on? Let's be serious. It's going to take a little more than will power to get you to climb a wall, let alone walk.
• Does metal survive nuclear bombs? Not quite sure how they recovered the Bat plane for a diagnostic of functionality if it exploded. Feel free to explain in the comments.
• I always thought of Robin as a sidekick not a solo hero, so it's weird that the baton was passed to Blake in Batman's absence. Not to mention, Joseph Gordon Levitt's not exactly a brawny dude and may look a lot dorkier than Spiderman in spandex or even an armored suit.
• And the biggest con of them all is the fact that the movie could've ended SO much sooner had Batman just shot Bane in the fucking head. Thousands of lives, two football teams, and hundreds of cops would've been saved had he done that from the beginning.

PROS
• I thought Anne Hathaway was actually pretty good as Catwoman. She was definitely copying that old-school femme fatale that used to use cigarette holders, hourglass dresses, and billowing fedoras, like Faye Dunaway. I actually thought before seeing the film that Charlize Theron would've been a better Catwoman, because I was basing my idea of Catwoman on what Michelle Pfeiffer did in 1992's Batman Returns. I thought she was going to be playfully evil. But this was not a driven-to-insanity, sadistic sexpot with a desire to maim and kill. This Catwoman is retaliating after decades of abuse and has her survival instinct at its max. Most of all, she was designed to be redeemable, a sort of sidekick. With that in mind, Hathaway did a great job. She effortlessly jumped between faux damsel in distress and cunning thief.
• While it's true that some of what Bane said was inaudible, I still liked that he had such a refined accent for such a meathead. I actually thought it was hilarious. It was just hard to laugh because he kept murdering people.

• I really liked how there were several twists. For example, I was initially wary of Miranda because she spontaneously showed up to the Wayne mansion when it was pouring rain without an umbrella. Because rich people never check the weather or have umbrellas, right? I chalked it up to a desperate attempt to make a sexy scene happen--something Bale isn't actually adept at. Sexy has never been a switch he's flipped. Intimidating? Yeah. Wise? Definitely. Brave? Of course. Sexy? Meh. But then she started getting really pushy about the clean energy project, so I chalked that up to her being an eager eco-activist. But something about her makeup and the way she sauntered made me still quite wary. What clinched it for me in realizing she was in fact Talia Al Ghul, the hidden daughter of Bruce's former mentor Ra's al Ghul, were two things: 1) The young boy in the tale of the prison escape looked super familiar. And I couldn't quite put my finger on it until after the big reveal, making me realize that that kid looked super familiar because it was the adorable Joey King (Ramona and Beezus), who is actually a girl, despite her name. I kept thinking, Does she have a brother? 2) When Batman went to go save Miranda, she was wearing clothing that is specific to the region of where Ra's al Ghul trained, which was a little random, and therefore, telling. Of course, I was so busy watching Bane get his ass kicked that I forgot she was in the room, so I was still surprised when she attacked Batman.
• One of the most impressive twists, however, was how they established throughout the entire film that the mercenaries who followed Bane's orders were willing kamikazes. And then at the end, when it's revealed that Talia is actually the leader, we see that Bane is nothing but a kamikaze as well, just as willing to die for his master as his men were for him.
• The cement laced with explosives was a genius villainous plot. You would never see that coming. One of the least nefarious group of people in the city are construction workers. They may seem douchey or dirty, but never homicidal.
• I was not only psyched to see Liam Neeson return as Ra's Al Ghul for a short hallucination sequence, but for Cillian Murphy to reprise his role as that complete lunatic Scarecrow.
• Speaking of which, I loved the scene where he placed judgement on the commissioner, asking Death or Exile (exile being a walk across an unstable frozen river that had water so cold it kills the judged in minutes)? When the commissioner admirably chose Death, Scarecrow responded, "Death...by Exile." Hilariously cruel.
• I loved seeing so many familiar actors pop up throughout the film. From memory, I recall Juno Temple from Atonement, who plays Catwoman's assistant; Josh Stewart from "No Ordinary Family" and "Criminal Minds," who plays Bane's right-hand man; the unsung Winklevoss twin of The Social Network Josh Pence, who plays a young Ra's Al Ghul; Daniel Sunjata from "Grey's Anatomy" and "Rescue Me," who played a special forces captain sent to help by the government; Desmond Harrington from "Dexter" and "Gossip Girl," who played a cop who had the tough task of carrying out preposterous orders to keep the people in the city even though a nuclear bomb was going to go off; Reggie Lee from "Grimm," who was trapped under the city with hundreds of other cops and acted as the messenger to the outside world; Will Estes from "Blue Bloods," who played a rookie cop who has a funny moment with Batman; Rob Brown from Finding Forrester, who plays a SWAT leader at the Stock Exchange takeover; Thomas Lennon from "Reno 911!," who plays the doctor who tells Bruce that his body is deteriorating; and Christopher Judge, a formidable mercenary who goes up against Blake, and who looked so much like that bald-headed alien in "Stargate SG-1"...because he was in fact that bald-headed alien from "Stargate SG-1."
• While it's true that the initial ending, Batman dying, was ruined for me, it kind of wasn't. Yes, he died. But technically he didn't. Batman the hero will never return, but Bruce Wayne gets to move on with his life. Clean slate. No billions. No Batmobile. No burden. He saved the city using the autopilot on his kickass plane that resembled a hornet kind of, and ran away with Catwoman/Selina, using the very software she was so desperate to acquire to develop brand new untraceable identities. That was an awesome way to get both a poetic ending and a victorious one.
•  Last, but not least, I love the wrap-up at the end. Fox realizes that the autopilot was fixed on the plane, so Batman must've survived. Alfred gets his wish, looks across a European cafe, and sees Bruce in his happily ever after with Selina, and gives him a very reserved head nod of approval and affection. And Blake claims his inheritance and it's revealed that his real name is Robin, then we see him swing into the bat cave, his new lair.

Side note: There have been rumblings that there will be a Catwoman origin story. I think that whatever the story is it should take place after this film. If you think about it, her moral arc, which is supposed to occur in the origin story, already happened in this film. Plus, we already know how it "ends," so anyone she should meet before this is inconsequential. However, it's perfectly plausible that she and Batman won't work out romantically. She did after all deliver him to Bane and they both have trust issues and a difference of opinion when it comes to what constitutes right and wrong. It's not exactly a match made in heaven.

FILM REVIEW: Channing Tatum & Rachel McAdams' "The Vow"

I went to see this film under the misguided belief that it was written by Nicholas Sparks. You know, the guy who wrote that other sappy love story that Rachel McAdams starred in. It was an honest mistake. First off, it's about a man (Channing Tatum) who has to get his wife to fall in love with him again after a car accident wipes their relationship from her memories. Come on! That's so The Notebook. Plus, I mixed it up with the upcoming Zac Efron romance The Lucky One, which is also kind of about a guy who falls in love with a girl who doesn't know him as well as he knows her.

Regardless, I arrived with the full expectation of balling my eyes out during the classic climactic begging-to-be-loved scene, and nonjudgmentally accepting the unrealistic levels of romance vibrating between two people who allegedly can't breathe without each other. I checked all of my cynical American criticism at the ticket booth and entered the fairyland where this love can only exist. And somehow I ended up not liking it because it wasn't romantic enough. Go figure.

Rest assured there was plenty of kissing, flirting, sweet romantic gestures and moments. The writers—all four of them—really tried to emphasize how effortless their love was, showing you quirky instances of commitment, from Paige choosing to inhale Leo's fart to Leo pretending he understood her sculpture, and having Leo tell us parts of their love story that we didn't get to see. They showed you his fight for a love that seemed genuinely lost. And every time you thought there was no hope, he restored it. But the film didn't just endeavor to tell the story of how two people fell in love twice, but also how a young woman needed to go back—and resolve everything she ran away from before she met her true love—in order to move forward. And in putting as much emphasis on that secondary plot, they sacrificed the impact of the first.

Yes, it's more logical and responsible for her character to resolve her family issues before recommitting to a man again, but I didnt sign up for a family drama or a coming of age story. I signed up for a romance. SPOILER! I'm glad she fell in love with him again and that he got a second chance to be with her—especially since this is a true story—but I think the fact that she never remembers their love or all the memories and inside jokes they had takes the wind out of their love story's sails. He will always love her more than she loves him, because he got a 5-year head start. It just seems unfair to him—and a little to us. The audience hoped for a happy ending and they got one. But it was like someone offered us a billion dollars but in the end only gave us a millon—still a lot, just not as good.

FILM REVIEW: New Years' Eve

The problem with the continued creation of these type of movies is that the writers have forgotten: It's not quantity. It's quality. This film had enough well-known actors to play a drinking game with. It is by far the worst romance anthology yet.

Yes, it will make you sentimental and teary-eyed for there is death, birth, heartbreak, and heart-mending, but none of the love stories had that memorable WOW factor that really made you envy their love life, which as we all know is the most common result of watching a good rom-com.

Excluding odes to cities, like New York, I Love You and Paris Je T'aime, the most popular romance anthologies are Love Actually, He's Just Not That Into You, and Valentine's Day. The first is heralded as a classic, and rewatched by millions every year around Christmas time. And the last two were critically bashed for not being able to recapture its beautiful stories of love and loss. But, viewers were able to find at least one good love story in all three.

My favorite in Love Actually is about the little boy who learned how to play the drums to get his crush to notice him. In HJNTIY, it was the story of how a womanizing bar manager took on the task of teaching a clueless young woman how to tell when a guy's interested and how to keep him interested, all the while falling for her himself. And in Valentine's Day it was the story about the scandalized football player who came out of the closet on national television to win his boyfriend back, a boyfriend whose identity was revealed to much surprise at the end. These were all stories worth telling.

New Years' Eve, however, felt manufactured. Add 20 established actors, make sure they are of all ages and races, stir in mystery and obstacles, and then sprinkle on a little wonder and holiday spirit. Boom! A movie. Uh. No. That's not how it works. First off, you've got to cut the dead weight. Three stories. That's it. Not eight. Three. Five tops! Who should get cut? Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele ("Glee"). I tried to get into their whole trapped-in-an-elevator-console-me-because-I-got-dumped-on-New-Years'-once schtick, but Michele is incapable of turning down her bubbly meter. She sings when she speaks. It's incredibly distracting. Plus, they barely had any chemistry and there wasn't enough time to muster any either. Next to go are Seth Meyers ("SNL") and Jessica Biel. Love them separately, but not even a little bit together. They played a married couple who were trying to beat Til Schweiger (Inglorious Basterds) and Sarah Paulson (Martha Marcy May Marlene) in a competition for the first baby of the new year in order to win $25,000. Not only was Schweiger a terrible comedic actor, but the comedic talent of both Meyers and Biel were wasted on baby humor.

Feel free to also cut Katherine Heigl and Jon Bon Jovi. Let's be honest, Heigl doesn't need any more romances added to her resume, but that's not why she deserves to get the boot. It's the age difference, and the incredulity of her storyline. Tell me, if someone proposed to you, bought an apartment with you, and then abandoned you to go on tour without any notice, would you forgive him after he apologizes three times, claiming to NOW be ready to commit, and you smack him twice? Um, no. It would take longer than half a day for you to forgive him after an entire year of waiting to tattoo your hand across his face. And cutting them would also be appreciated so that poor Sofia Vergara could stop playing a caricature of her "Modern Family" character Gloria, the sensual Hispanic woman who says words funny and misunderstands the simplest things. She's better than that. And for that matter so is rapper Ludacris, who continues to get pointless cameos in rom-coms ever since No Strings Attached.

While we're on the topic of age difference, incredulity, and being "better" than something, Mrs. Sarah Jessica Parker (Broderick), how dare you play opposite...um, wait it's supposed to be a surprise so...opposite someone obviously younger than you? They would've been better off pairing Jovi with SJP and Heigl with...that other guy, because at least then there would be a grain of believability. Also, I know she's at an age of motherhood, but why is every mom she plays a frazzled, clingy bore? And last but not least, Josh Duhamel. Ohhhh Duhamelly. His storyline of meeting some hot chick he met a year ago at midnight would've been WAY more appealing if perhaps she seemed just as enthusiastic, which she would've been if this were real life. Because in real life, if a girl meets someone who looks like Josh Duhamel in a pizzeria at midnight, she doesn't 1) abandon him there when he goes to the bathroom 2) not write her name on the note she leaves or 3) show no enthusiasm to see him whatsoever all of New Years' Eve. Way to keep the (second) mystery alive with poor writing.

The only stories worth keeping I believe covered all the bases of love quite well. Abigail Breslin and Jake T. Austin ("Wizards of Waverly Place") represented young love, first kisses, and instantaneous heartbreak. Robert DeNiro and Hilary Swank represented family love as he deteriorated from cancer in the hospital. Halle Berry, his nurse, and rapper Common (Just Wright), her soldier boyfriend, represented enduring, long-distance love. And Michelle Pfeiffer and Zac Efron represented self-love, learning to not take any day for granted and live it like it's your last.

Pfeiffer and Efron were actually my favorite and if their storyline were a movie on its own, I'd watch it. I've never seen Efron be that uninhibited before, like he wasn't afraid to make an ass out of himself, which he in fact did. Several times. It was hilarious. Especially during the end credits when he danced douchely. And Pfeiffer really shed her vanity, diving into a different cat lady persona altogether. She, DeNiro, and Berry clearly didn't get the memo on only having to tap into a quarter of their talent for their 10 minutes onscreen, because they delivered performances that certainly earned them their hefty paychecks.

Ok so look, if you want to go watch this movie because you love rom-coms, then be my guest. One more couldn't hurt. If you love the holiday and the spirit for which it is celebrated, you're not only going to enjoy this movie, but you'll tear up during Swank's speech about the ball dropping. But if you think that 20+ actors equals a romantic cornucopia, you're going to be seriously disappointed. It's more like a label-less buffet in a sketchy deli with mystery meat and gray fruit, topped off with a faint odor of dead cat.

FILM REVIEW: Chris Evans's "Captain America"

Captain America is actually one of the superheroes that's never really interested me. I've always felt like he was a plant—a government propaganda tool meant to encourage young, impressionable wanderers to put on a patriotic costume of their own. And in this time of war, when we're fighting not for the liberties of an oppressed people, but for the resources of another nation, I find the 5-10 minute montage of newly transformed Captain America, promoting enlistment and "serving" one's country, to be especially off-putting.

Running at 124 minutes, it begins to feel like the longest Uncle Sam commercial in history. Photos don't have to flit across the screen rapidly like the Marvel title sequence for it to feel like brainwashing. The three acts function at a slow burn pace: introducing an eager American, proudly stating he's from Brooklyn (twice!), who wants to stop the bullies of the world, mocking the idea of people who are more men of words than men of action when it comes to war, and then taking down a faceless villain who is after an energy source, much like the ever-changing figurehead of the Taliban forces.

By the end of it, you're impressed that Captain America doesn't so much become bigger and better than his fellow soldiers, but just as good. When he reunites with his captured best friend he explains that his change in size is because "he joined the army," suggesting that if you're a scrawny pushover all you have to do to become a hero is join the army. And even though they try to make it seem like the girl liked the pre-transformation Steve Rogers just as much as the post-, they also suggest that if you want to "get the girl," join the army.

The final nail in the coffin of the viewer's free will is (SPOILER) the Captain's final self-sacrificing act. Sure, in any other film this would've seemed noble and necessary. Unfortunately, the entire set up was nonsensical. He decides to steer the plane filled with city-labeled bombs—heavy-handed much?—downwards onto an icy surface and crash-land. But if he can steer, then why doesn't he just turn the plane around and fly in circles until another plane can come, disarm the bombs, and rescue him? Or even as my friend suggested, why didn't he just land on the icy plane, which went on for miles? The kamikaze mentality felt almost as orchestrated as the "Up yours!" scene in Independence Day—the difference being that that self-sacrificing act was completely necessary and the key to their victory.

Don't get me wrong. I am a proud American and I have no problem with the government searching for unorthodox means to encourage recruitment, especially if it leads to the guarantee of our safety and the rescuing of our captured soldiers. Earlier this year I commended Battle: Los Angeles for doing just that—for illustrating the determination of our courageous forces in the face of resource-sucking outsiders. But I don't like when they hide their propaganda in the threads of a superhero costume. It seems underhanded and manipulative.

Both films share more than just that plot point—the most interesting being the notion that the best soldier is one that automatically regenerates like a machine, always ready for the next fight. In BLA, the moment feels caked in honor, but in CA, it just feels unsettling, like he's a toy soldier getting his strings tugged. It'll be interesting to see how this glorified marionette functions having been reborn in our era, and whether his patriotic beliefs hold up within these politically tumultuous times.

While the film failed to impress, Chris Evans didn't disappoint. He balanced "brave" and "modest" very well and succeeded in honing the proper physique to fill out the costume. But aside from all the selflessness and eagerness to fight, you don't really get to know anything about Steve Rogers, so I think his character was lacking in that, making the film fail to be a true origin story. Even the less profitable Green Lantern had a fleshed out personality.

The scene-stealers of the film were Tommy Lee Jones (Colonel Chester Phillips) and Dominic Cooper (Howard Stark)—Jones for his wry sense of humor and Cooper for his chameleon-like ability to disappear into roles. Sure, Papa Stark is groomed like a 50s circus magician, but what's important is that there are no remnants of History Boys-Cooper or Mamma Mia-Cooper to be seen. Very few members of his generation can disappear like that. For him it doesn't seem to be about vanity but immersion.

Nonetheless, what usually makes-or-breaks a superhero film is the caliber of the hero and the villain. Hugo Weaving (Red Skull) was sufficiently creepy and deranged, but all I kept thinking while watching the film was: "That's the guy from The Matrix." He's good at being evil, but I kept wishing it was someone else less distracting, less high-profile. Alas, the best Nazi villain to date is still Christoph Waltz (Ingloriuous Basterds), and the best villain of the year is still Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class).

Perhaps he would've been less distracting if his face didn't look like a matte, lip-less mold, instead of a skinless man. He looked like Voldemort's less high-maintenance, less reptilian brother—half, of course. They should've also put put more money in the Captain's running sequences. You could tell in some instances that it was a CGI figure running and leaping through the streets—reminded me of The Hulk. And don't get me started on his pre-experiment body that had such a long neck he looked like Stretch Armstrong's bastard kid. Besides the ultra cool fan-like propeller planes, I think my favorite construction was the R2D2-like laser gun mounted on the top of the Red Skull's plane. For a minute there I thought I was watching Star Wars. The cinematography, however, was beautiful—very comic book-like.

I'd recommend this film to comic book adaptation lovers who treat each superhero's origin story like a collector's item, and are dying for a new shiny toy for the shelf. But for lovers of plot and intrigue, I suggest you read the Cliff's Notes version of the Captain's life story and just wait for The Avengers.

FILM REVIEW: Friends with Benefits

There is a widely accepted and proven theory that men and women can not be friends. Nature and hormones and loads of other psychological reasons prevent it from happening. The obvious solution to that problem is to introduce sex into the friendship so that it's not always floating through their minds. Genius right? Negatory. One or both parties are bound to "catch feelings" and the relationship becomes a ticking emo-bomb. Nonetheless, generation after generation has attempted this form of limited commitment, and this film is a romanticized account of how it goes down.

The premise, however, is not the main attraction. No, Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman already ran that into the ground this January in No Strings Attached. This film's allure is its cast. Unlike Kutcher & Portman, Timberlake & Kunis actually have chemistry and impressive comic timing. They're quick-witted and charming. They have things in common. They compliment each other perfectly. You not only root for them, you wish you were them. You wish that you could find a fuckbuddy who turns out to be your soulmate. Someone who gets that you have abandonment issues because of your flaky parents, has patience with your Alzheimer's-afflicted dad and boundaries-challenged hippie mom, and is as fun to hang with as they are fun to sleep with.

Now go, hopeless romantic viewer. Consider each eligible friend for the position. And remember to use a condom. It's all fun and games until your illegitimate child has explosive diarrhea.

FILM REVIEW: Horrible Bosses

Three frustrated dudes decide to take a page out of Alfred Hitchcock's murder handbook and take out each other's bosses. Justification? Nick's (Jason Bateman) boss Dave (Kevin Spacey) overworks him and steals his promotion. Kurt (Jason Sudeikis from Going the Distance) has to endure the authority of his belated boss's son Bobby (Colin Farrell), who does coke and discriminates against everyone, even the handicapped. And Dale (Charlie Day from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia") is sexually harassed and blackmailed by his insatiable and often naked boss Julia (Jennifer Aniston).

As you can imagine, stupidity ensues given that they're not professional murderers and they can't even successfully hire an assassin consultant. Day shines the most, but mainly because at this point audiences are accustomed to Bateman and SNL alum Sudeikis cracking them up. His frantic squirrel routine with a voice that sounds like a cross between Bobcat Goldthwait and Al Pacino make for a pretty hilarious spectacle. He'll usurp Zach Galifianakis as the go-to sidekick this year.

Ultimately, if you loved the male bonding hi-jinks of The Hangover and the workplace bashing of Office Space, you'll love this.

FILM REVIEW: Larry Crowne

In this rom-com, Tom Hanks plays the title character, a Navy veteran turned big-box store employee, who gets downsized for not having a college degree. He logically enrolls into college, determined to get his job back. Along the way, he meets a cast of characters that becomes the family, you get the sense, he never had. He then proceeds to regress, not only academically, but romantically.

He takes two classes: Speech and Economics. In Economics, he meets Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw from "Undercovers"), a spontaneous and mischievous girl who inspires him to save money on gas with a moped, dress more modern with clothes from her clothing storage, and have more confidence in himself. These are things he needs for Speech class, which is taught by the depressed, alcoholic, and unenthusiastic Professor Mercedes Tainot whose marriage is on its last legs. That doesn't exactly describe anyone's dream girl, but slap Julia Robert's name on all that baggage and suddenly she's The One. Slowly but surely she not only teaches him and his classmates how to address an audience, but he teaches her how to love her job again.

There's nothing wrong with this cast: Oscar nominees, promising newcomers, and acting veterans. There's believable, tangible chemistry amidst this unorthodox family. The romantic leads are even easy to root for. But the fact is this story doesn't quite have the urgency or the energy required to make it an exciting, must-see, love story.

FILM REVIEW: Monte Carlo

In this teen rom-com, Grace (Selena Gomez from "Wizards of Waverly Place"), a high school graduate, take her dream trip to Paris with her best friend Emma (Katie Cassidy from "Gossip Girl" and "Melrose Place") and her estranged step sister Meg (Leighton Meester from "Gossip Girl"). She expects it to be the kind of adventure she's seen in movies and magazines, but once they get left behind by their rushed low-budget tour group and she's mistaken for Cordelia Winthrop Scott, a British heiress, she gets more than she's bargained for. Eager to salvage what's left of her trip with the luxuries her mistaken identity has provided her with—from a fully loaded suite to a glamorous wardrobe—she has to pretend to be interested in Theo (Pierre Boulanger), an equally rich guy, who finds her doppelganger to be vapid, selfish, and unbearable. Gomez achieves what Hilary Duff attempted in The Lizzie McGuire Movie, delivering a pretty believable British accent and bitchy demeanor.

But Grace is not the only one who's having her very own Eat Pray Love experience. Emma, a failed model-turned-waitress, is tired of her boyfriend Owen (Cory Monteith from "Glee") trying to plan her future for her. And Meg, who's avoided enjoying any part of college (or life) ever since her mother died, is enjoying her freedom from responsibilities, rules, and schedules, and becomes enamored with Riley (Luke Bracey from "Home and Away"), a nomadic Aussie surfer.

The film becomes as much of a search for love as it is a search for one's self. And if that sounds too heavy for you, you can rest assured there are plenty of evasive hi-jinks, embarrassing moments, and goofy declarations of love.

FILM REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Sam Witwicky has come a long way—and yet not far enough. He's survived high school, college, oh and two alien wars. And what does he have to show for it? A useless college degree, three alien robot pets, and an interchangeable hot girlfriend (from Megan Fox's Mikaela to model-turned-actress Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's Carly). He's as unimpressed with himself as we are. He thinks he should be out there with the Autobots, working for the government, running covert operations, and kicking some ass—alien or human. But instead, he's a glorified intern while his girlfriend gets paid bank by her doting and obnoxious boss Dylan (Patrick Dempsey from "Grey's Anatomy").

But why is that? Did he not major in the right course? Did the government not officially recruit him and give him a number of career path options or even army training? I mean, maybe the first time he saved the world from the Decepticons was a fluke, but after the second time I think it's pretty obvious that he should be considered an expert in alien invasion and evasion, because if anyone could do it, they wouldn't need his help every time.

Luckily, Sam gets to prove his worth, not only to the government but himself for the third time when a sneaky Decepticon assassinates two of his coworkers and attacks him. He stumbles into a conspiracy involving Dylan and proceeds to do what he does best:  
Step 1: Frantically uncover the evil robot leader's agenda.
Step 2: Successfully escape their first assault.  
Step 3: Give up hope.
Step 4: Regain hope, gather allies and go on a death-defying mission.  
Step 5: Almost die a million times while giant robots fight to the death all around him.
Predictable, but still very enjoyable.

My favorite scene was when the building was devoured by the blender-like robot known as Shockwave as they slid down into its mouth. It was like watching a futuristic Jurassic Park. I also tend to love any scene where the armed forces perform real life maneuvers, like jumping out of a plane and gliding through the sky, like flying squirrels, into a war zone. My favorite new component was the weaponized arm attachment created for Sam that gives him a fighting chance against a machine. As for his other new accessory, I think Whiteley did pretty well for a first-time actress. She managed to not be as robotic as her metallic costars, and she she functioned well as the eye candy. Although, there wasn't enough time to make her as likable as Mikaela. Of all the Transformers, this is my second favorite, but with each one, the action and visuals get better and better.

FILM REVIEW: Cameron Diaz's "Bad Teacher"

Ever since Bridesmaids hit theaters critics have been batting around the question of whether women can be funny without being inappropriate, a.k.a. behaving like men. Some of them believe that real women don't speak frankly about sex, have explosive diarrhea, or act drunk-and-disorderly on a plane. As a result, leading ladies have long been the eye candy in films. The only roles given to conventionally unattractive women are those of supporting characters, ugly best friends, drug addicts, or murderers—and sometimes even the murderess is smoking hot. We've put such an emphasis on beauty-before-talent that we actually award beautiful actresses who uglify themselves for a role, impressed with their "bravery." So every time there's a comedy where a girl does something other than look pretty, act nice, or act neurotic, some critics claim that the screenwriter is simply desperate for a laugh. It's the equivalent of a comedian sprinkling in a few F-bombs to make a joke funnier. Menxploitation?

By those strict standards, Cameron Diaz's character could be deemed "unrealistic." She's a manipulative, narcissistic, alcoholic, pill-popping pothead who shirks her teaching responsibilities, steals funding from the school, believes in corporal punishment, and whores herself out for money. This role could've very well been played by a dude—and kind of already was. Cameron's the Bad Teacher, but Billy Bob Thornton was Bad Santa. Regardless, film is supposed to reflect society as it is and as it should be with exposés and PSAs, so whether guys want to hear it or not, there does exist a girl on this planet who behaves exactly like Cameron's character. Hell, Paris Hilton is a pretty close clone, apart from the child abuse and stealing—that we know of. And I think Cameron does a great job of not playing her too over-the-top or "masculine," and delivering every searing put-down with no remnants of her signature sweetness (There's Something About Mary, Charlie's Angels, and Knight & Day). Of course, this isn't the first time Cameron's played an "unconventional" female character. While The Sweetest Thing wasn't exactly a hit, it pushed the envelope with oral sex jokes and gross bathroom humor just enough to seem funny without being crass. And Bad Teacher does the same by adding a life lesson.

During one of Elizabeth Halsey's very few teaching moments, she has a mini-epiphany when she realizes the same thing Cameron's character learned in The Sweetest Thing: She's too old to keep having superficial relationships and behaving like a self-absorbed bitch. Granted, she could've learned that lesson quicker if she just listened to her co-worker Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch from Take Me Home Tonight and Dinner for Schmucks), who correctly predicted that the children would one day teach her. Of course, I wouldn't blame Elizabeth for ignoring Amy's advice, because she was a complete lunatic. She is what some critics refer to as a more realistic portrayal of the female populace: an obsessive, neurotic, rule-enforcing, clingy, overly friendly sociopath. Lucy did a great job of not only setting an example of what a real teacher should behave like, but of making us hate her goody-two-shoes act just as much as Elizabeth did. No matter how many movies she showed instead of teaching or how many times she blew off the class kiss-ass Loretta McCready (Kaitlyn Dever from "Justified"), we always sided with Elizabeth. We weren't sympathizing with her because she got dumped by a rich, Opera-obsessed mama's boy or because she had such low self-esteem and such a warped sense of self that she thought a boob job would fix her problems. We sided with her because everybody has met that girl. The one who acts like your boss but isn't. The one who secretly competes with you for everything. The one who gives you backhanded compliments and talks shit about you when you're not around. That girl was my frenemy in middle school. Nobody's going to root for that bitch, because to us she's the phony.

That's why what happens between Amy and Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake) seems well-deserved. Although, I must admit they were a match made in heaven, because they were both lame with a capital L-O-S-E-R. He was like what everyone imagines Mr. Roger's was like when he was in his 20s, except I'm almost positive Mr. Rogers wouldn't dry hump someone in a cheap motel on a school field trip. And in being her male phony equivalent—and decently playing against type—Justin left the door open for the unlikely Prince Charming to be Jason Segel's character Russell Gettis. (I personally think critics should make just as much of a fuss about all of our big screen Prince Charmings going from Jon Hamm to Chris O'Dowd—still awesome, just not as dreamy.) I was surprised by Cameron & Segel's chemistry, and comical sparring rhythm. She mostly reacted to his advances and playful judgments, but he was exactly what her character needed: someone sweetly confident who wouldn't put up with her shit. And Segel has mastered the art of playing sweetly confident on CBS's "How I Met Your Mother." I was just surprised that he would click with Cameron on more than just their height. Lovable lugs are the new Romeos of the summer. You just want to mount them and get bakedbake cookies after.

After seeing the trailer, I thought Segel would be the scene stealer of the film—although I'm sure most people had their money on Justin—but it turns out Phyllis Smith ("The Office") was the supporting actor who got the most laughs. Her awkward desire to become best friends with "the popular girl," and her hesitant interest in being rebellious were some of the best scenes of the film. I also thought Thomas Lennon would outdo his previous scene-stealing roles (I Love You Man and 17 Again), but this time he was just pathetic. The child actors weren't really of note either—no Chloe Moretz's, Elle Fanning's, Joel Courtney's, or Riley Griffith's here—but they weren't really given the best material to work with. Noah Munck tried to expand his "iCarly"-Gibby schtick, Dever aimed to show her softer side, and Matthew J. Evans successfully weirded me out with his horrible poems and unfortunate name: Garrett Tiara.

All in all, the film is only worth a rental. Unless of course you need to watch Cameron wash a car (and herself) for about 2 minutes on a giant screen. Then again, you could do it in slow motion and with rewind if you rent it.