Reviews

Eastwood has established his film directing style solely on high tension, character progressing dramas that either brings up a question which involves the right of moral obligation or gives a conventional meaning that looks deeper into the human soul. In basically almost all of his films it continues on the exploration of human behavior which we can never fully answer, but can come closer to a better understanding of it. Eastwood hasn't done anything like this film. Everyone questions it, but what happens when you die? There is no proved fact, only theories and beliefs, Eastwood has taken a jump here on actually dealing with the supernatural, and in all of his previous films which solely base on humanity and problems of our own dimension, and Eastwood is reaching out. That can be good and bad at the same time.

Morgan's script is a very low-key art-house type of drama which is totally new territory for Eastwood. This script is designed for a slow and meaningful story that utterly is focusing on beauty of life than anything else. Eastwood's hits the mark with it and doesn't miss, he has a clear understanding of this story, but it just is sort of awkward. He is out of his element with this one and he is forcing the combination of this low-key drama with the attributes of his own style. Performances were okay, Damon who is the main headliner of this film, doesn't deliver an Oscar worthy performance, but he doesn't deliver a bad one either, he just plainly meets expectations.

There are many parts where performances (including Damon's) that are very stiff and unemotional. Its either they were rushing through shooting or messed up in editing, but whatever the case is, at times very awkward performances show up and take a scene totally out of its own balance. I think if Eastwood wanted to take more of a super-natural thriller than a low key super-natural drama; he should have chosen another script, the story is very nice and all, but it focuses more on the beauty of storytelling and its comparison to life in a metaphorical manner than it is exploring it. Eastwood takes this and does a good job with it, sort of getting by, but quite frankly it just didn't fit in with his film-making style and it can run sort of an awkward course at times. But overall, the story still maintains its focus on the beauty of life and is extremely unique.

This film falls under the category of Physiological Horror. While avoiding any type of excessive blood and overly done dramatized scenes, these type of films (mainly referring to Paranormal Activity) will set a camera down and fast-forward through the night, maybe go to normal play for a minute, nothing will happen, keep fast forwarding go to a minute, nothing happens, keeps going, and then goes to normal in still in all complete silence, a door slams. These types of films can bring anyone on the edge of their seats and have revived us from the mainstream horror category.

Although in my opinion, something like "Paranormal Activity" is something that really can only happen once. There isn't, and obviously shouldn't be anything new. This is another go around that moviegoers are going to take which are going to involve the same fun scares, just in different situations and environments. To my surprise, this film manages to maintain that low key course and avoids over doing it. Although, the biggest disappointment, for me at least, was as it built tension, it just wasn't the same as the original. There are still little things happening randomly like the last that built tension but overall, it doesn't truly get terrifying until it reaches the 60 minute mark and it uses the rest of the time (about 25 minutes) to unleash for its climax, which was unlike its predecessor which slowly built more on the creepiness but could hold the same fear throughout the film.

In respects, some could say the original is better, or that the sequel was better. This sequel/prequel acknowledged the expectations that were given to them, and came up and gave a good comparison to the original. For me, I would give the original more of an edge, but this film shouldn't be looked down upon, and it should definitely meet expectations. For this time around, Paranormal Activity 2 maintains the essence that it brought one year ago, offers the same scary but yet enjoyable entertainment, and connects these two stories in a very chilling way.

I give it a

B

Critics Average: C Critics Liking Percentage: 67%

Bruce Willis, at the age of fifty-five, who is fifteen years off from the new official retirement age, and certainly doesn't look old… takes on the burden of trying to carry on the wit that these characters are trying to do. Main problem. This movie thinks that it's a lot cooler than it actually is. It suffers from major reality pot hole glitches, but I guess that isn't much of a problem for an action movie, but whatever the case is, this movies tries to flow really fast and it's easy to keep up with it, but when you think about it, there is just a lot of stuff that quite frankly doesn't make sense. The Emmy award winning Parker who has made her career mainly off "Weeds" and "The West Wing" plays the girl that is kind of tagging along with the crew that are hardened by all the killings that they have done. Apparently she is like pure gold to Bruce, and the group is recognizing that there is a weak spot apparently in their leader. I didn't buy it. He is trying to maintain a witty cool the entire time and it didn't really work itself out that he is a caring and compassionate guy; he seems more interested in saving the girl and being the hero. The characters contrast each other so much, that it doesn't really give a variety at all; it just gives a polar opposite in situations, which instead of bringing worth more wit, it sort of just makes things unrealistic and sort of awkward.

Despite its top notch cast, "Red" suffers mainly from a script that brushes over to many pot holes and develops characters that do not entirely click with each other, a lot of people will probably have a good time at it. It's not a terrible movie; it's much more of a slower paced action movie and has some good acting. It isn't your everyday ordinary action thriller film due to its embracing of charm and wit. Whatever the case, you'd have a better time renting it than paying ten bucks for it.

It is risky business making a sequel on movie, especially one that had major success and inspired people. There is a lot to live up to, and the extreme pressure of not ruining the name of the franchise. This movie has a strong premise and comes out ready to take on something that could actually end up being more successful than the first movie but it strays on one problem. This film weaves through repairing relationships and greed. What doesn't work though is that it is focusing on is now Gecko's weakness of wanting to repair his life instead of being so ambitious then he was before. He later grows into his ambition again I do admit, but he still is plagued by love. This film spends way to much time at first on a new subject than the last film was based on. Gecko is so far OUT of the action that it takes awhile towards the end where we get a little bit of him actually being in the action again. Along with skimming the service on Gecko, this film spends a lot of time emphasizing on Gecko's quest to make his relationship right, but it just skims the service and their really isn't any depth that makes this the least interesting. The script is very hollow and my advise would be that if they cut back on the Act I and went for more of the rest of the movie after, this film COULD have been a better, but they still would have to fix up a lot of flaws. Overall, this movie is okay, it certainly doesn't offer what the original "Wall Street", I could never really tell what this movie was trying to prove but whatever the case is, there are a lot of gaps that had some potential but are strained back and focused on staying out of the action of Wall Street.

Matt Reeves, who is most famous for his monster film "Cloverfield", took on the task of adapting and directing this film. Two years ago, film festivals were in love with the Swedish Horror film "Let the Right One In" and it was almost a given that it was needed to be made American. In our culture vampires have kind of turned into more of romantic figures and a lot of times represent sexuality. This film goes back to basics and makes this vampire what I think they are sup post to be, which is completely scary and messed up. What is very impressive is that Reeves takes this and in a way, his changes actually enhance the story and kind of makes it better and more entertaining. Kodi Smith-McPhee who was spectacular in last year's "The Road" and Chloe Moretz who received most of her fame as Hit-Girl in this year's "Kick-Ass" carry this film and both of these kids bring a type of eeriness; these kids both knew exactly how their characters were sup post to be and they hit it spot on. This gory, terrifying, and dark film turns into some type of odd entertainment and represents why people would even want to see a horror film; it has a strong story and an even stronger scare. Instead of going over the top Reeves bends this movie into a tension roller-coaster more than anything. Very rarely can a foreign film be successfully adapted and made a success in America, but Reeves made something that can stand a distance from the original, but still he true to its origin. It is a great movie for the Halloween season, it will most likely refresh people who are used to "American Vampires" and give them a real vampire movie

Flincher and Sorkin seriously made a great team here, Flincher provides great filming and takes a real focus on Zuckerberg's internal struggle on decision making. Sorkin went over expectations and brings a three-way point of view story telling making it all into one and at the same time making it flow as very smoothly. This film can easily draw audiences in by presenting a simple plot that people are familiar with and showing one of the greatest events that there is in story making. And that is the rise to power. Eisenberg does a great job of showing his struggle with power, backstabbing, and moral obligation. It runs a very intelligent course and provides the audience to make its own decisions between right and wrong. "The Facebook Movie" has a deep perspective into this complex story and is perhaps one of the greatest accounts on a true event story of our time. This will certainly be mentioned later in the year during the awards season, but I believe that even beyond the awards season, it will not be the last time we hear about the brilliant story telling of The Social Network.