Yes, I know the title is cryptic. But I couldn't post the full title of what I wanted to call this post because it would only give away major plot points of the movie. So let's get this out of the way up front. Moon is a fantastic sci-fi movie, a real thinking man's movie. In fact, this is what sci-fi is all about, getting people to think about abstract hypothetical situations. This is what makes this film so powerful. It's not about watching how much stuff you can blow up in space or cool robots, but it's about trying to explore the human condition. The cinematography is beautiful, the music is awesome, and Sam Rockwell does a bang up job acting. Okay, the rest is spoilers. You've been warned. The rest of this review is going to be about dissecting the major themes of Moon.

What I wanted to call this post was "Attack of the Clones." If you've seen the movie, then you know why. But let's face it, putting that in the title would have given too much away. Moon raises a lot of interesting questions to think about. The biggest one of course is, "What does it mean to be human?" After coming to terms with the fact that the two Sams are indeed clones (at first, I thought they were hallucinations), we are left to contemplate the idea of which Sam is real? Gerty says it best when he says that both of these Sams are the real Sam Bell. But are they though? The first Sam we meet (here on out called "Sam A") is a patient and laid back individual. However the new Sam ("Sam B") is a rash and proactive person.

At this point it is clear to see that we are examining the fine points of character growth. Sam A is forced to see the person that he was in the incarnation of Sam B. But the question this raises is if every iteration of Sam has seen the same growth over the course of their three individual year stints? For instance, Sam B is unlike any Sam that has come before him in that he was able to escape from the moon. It's true the circumstances Sam B faced were unlike any of the previous Sams, but he was still able to do something different.

What I'm proposing is a mixture of alternate universe theory and cloning. What I mean is that this is how Sam would have turned out in these different scenarios. Given the extreme different situations between Sam A and Sam B, we see two completely different Sams. The only thing that separates them is time and circumstances. But are both these Sams the real Sam? Absolutely. They've just been dealt a different set of cards. Moon is a collision of what happens if two alternate universes were to collide. What's makes the situation even more complex is that Sam A influences Sam B. But Sam B would not be the person he has become without the impact that Sam A had, which is unique to the circumstances Sam A faced. Damn. Confused yet?

While there are many major ideas to discuss, I think Moon is trying to get at the heart of what it mean to be alive. No matter where we came from, we are always a product of the circumstances that life presents to us. We don't have control over these circumstances, but it is the way that we react that shapes the people we become. In life, it doesn't matter what decision you make. What matters is being able to discern how life would be different if you had made other choices and learn from these non-existent parallel universes. How will you let your Sam A influence you?

This is what I got out of Moon. I know there are others that have seen other things from this movie. Feel free to leave your ideas on what you think about Moon below.

Oh, and I think it goes without saying. 5 out of 5.

I honestly couldn't believe "Sherlock Holmes" was still in theaters. That's pretty remarkable considering that it came out during Christmas. I'm guessing someone in charge of the theatre really likes this movie. I honestly really wanted to watch this movie but I never got around to it. So here I am, fresh out of watching "Sherlock Holmes." Was it worth it or was it just another excuse to film a movie about a bromance?

Let's start with the positives. This is a very pretty movie. The fights are all well choreographed, the shots stunning, and art direction wonderful. Yeah... that's about it. Okay, I should probably stick up for Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. because they do a fantastic job with what they've got to work with. As much as I make fun, the best part of the movie is watching the growing relationship between Holmes and Watson.

Okay... now for the bad part. Let's start with Rachel McAdams. For some reason she sticks out of this movie like a sore thumb. None of her performances are that convincing and she drags down every scene, especially when the scene contains Watson and Holmes. It's like Law and Downey are giving it their all and McAdams is barely trying. You can tell that these are actors on different levels.

The biggest problem with this movie is that it seems to be confused about what it is. It wants to have a unique and quirky style, but in trying to achieve that effect it mixes a bunch of things together. You walk away from the film going, "meh," not being impressed with what you saw but at the same time not hating it either. So what are you "Sherlock Holmes?" Funny, quippy mystery? Stylized artistic drama? Anything with definition? That's the issue. If I had to describe the style of this film to someone, I wouldn't really know how. Sometimes it's groundbreaking, in this case, it's not a good thing.

Another problem is with the script and the dialogue. The way that it is written it seems like every line is supposed to zip by (think "Better Off Ted" or "Pushing Daisies"). Unfortunately, it doesn't quite reach the speed that it needs to to be funny or quick. Instead it just feels rushed. Every line sounds like it was written with the intent to sound smart or funny instead of being actual dialogue. Mix that with the fact that almost every other line is Holmes explaining one thing or another and it gets tiresome very quickly.

Like I said, this isn't a bad movie. It's unfortunate that there are so many things holding it back from being truly great. When it boils down to it, I have a hard time recommending it. Maybe watch it on a rainy day? 3 out of 5.

Scorsese has quite the impressive list of movies under his belt at this point. "The Departed," "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator," "Goodfellas," just to name a few. I think we can see a trend in his areas of interest as well. Just sayin'.

So is "Shutter Island" the latest movie to be added to his collection of greats or does it fall completely flat? It all has to do with the payoff. Listening to people walk out of the theatre, it sounded like people either loved it or hated it. Honestly, I think the reason for this disparity has to do with the payoff. If it worked for you, then you loved it and if you didn't, then you hated it.

It's hard to review a movie like this without talking about the twist that basically defines the movie. But I will give it a shot before wading into spoiler territory. "Shutter Island" is a psychological drama about a man investigating the disappearance of a missing inmate on Shutter Island, an insane asylum. The film has a very dark feel to it from the beginning to end but is not as terrifying as many of the trailers make it seem to be.

I don't want to keep talking about plot twists and payoffs, but this is what makes this movie what it is. It's a risky thing to make your whole movie dependent on one moment. Think of the gamble! If it works, it's be best movie of all time and if it doesn't, it just ends up sucking. You've got to carefully craft that moment, to build up to it in an appropriate way that doesn't make your audience feel like they just wasted their time up until that point. I regret to say that I think that the payoff doesn't work in the end. It's not that it doesn't make sense, but I don't know if it justifies the first 2/3rds of the movie. But you should really see it for yourself to make your own opinion. You might love it. I know plenty of people that did. For that reason, I'm giving it a 3 out of 5. 

But now, spoilers.

The biggest question coming out of this film is is he crazy or is he sane? I'm sure that was the goal of Scorsese all along. It's not a bad goal, it gets people to talk about your movie for the rest of the night, trying to deconstruct what they saw on the screen. Personally, I fall into the "crazy" camp. My reasoning has nothing to do with the story itself, but with the editing.

The first 2/3rds of the this film is a train wreck technically. The music doesn't fit most of the time and is exaggerated. The editing is seriously awful. It looks like I edited this film. Cuts are not coherent and choppy at best. Take for example a scene at the beginning where Teddy's partner lights a cigarette and puts it in his mouth and then in the next scene is lighting it again and putting it in his mouth... again. There are inconsistencies like this littered throughout the film.

I know Scorsese is not a bad director, he has made a lot of awesome films. It makes sense to me that the only way to justify the terribleness of the first 2/3rds of this movie was that it was an intentional decision to help accent the fact that he is indeed crazy. But even if that is the case, that is no excuse to make your audience sit through 2 hours of terrible movie. It's just not fair to the audience.

But then again, there are others out there who are totally into the plot twist. If you did, I can understanding loving it and wanting to go back and analyze the whole thing. But for me, I felt like it lacked a sort of emotional genuineness and believability. Thus, my lackluster review. But like I said before, the best thing to do with this movie is to watch it and make the call for yourself.

Hollywood formula: Drinking + Stereotypical Characters + Boobs + Bodily Functions = Box Office Smash. It's true, look it up. The math doesn't fail. Also, it apparently = Golden Globe. But let's be honest, no one takes the Globes seriously. After all, Avatar won best picture (BURN!).

I've heard a lot of great things about The Hangover. I've heard that it was the funniest movie of the Summer, that it was a genuinely good movie, and that I'd have a blast watching it. Perhaps it was the anticipation, but it did not live up to any of the hype. The Hangover is not a bad movie, but it certainly isn't everything that it was made out to be.

First up, the movie takes way too long to get to the funny parts. There is too much time spent in the set-up of the actual premise of the movie that I started to get bored. I get it, three of you are best friends and one of you is an outsider. One is the suave debonair gent, one is the timid whipped boyfriend, one is the mentally challenged guy, and the other is the well intentioned groom. Awesome, just don't spend what feels like forever establishing these roles. I get it. Honestly.

There are some legitimate laugh out loud moments here. I think the funniest parts of the movie were the parts that weren't trying that hard to be funny. The parts that were trying to be funny? Those were a bit obnoxious. The best part though is watching Ed Helms sing a song about a tiger and Mike Tyson on a piano. It was awesome.

It has all the crudeness one would expect out of a comedy like this. I'm not opposed to crudeness in film, but I am opposed a little bit when it's there just for the sake of being crude. If you're going to do it, at least make it have a point or make it funny.

The one thing I will say about this movie is that the directing is fantastic. The shots are actually very stunning and well done. I didn't expect to admire the cinematography in a movie like this, but there is some serious good work being done here. So kudos to the team for that.

The Hangover is not the ridiculously funny comedy that everyone is making it out to be. Sure, it's got some funny parts, but it's not drop dead funny. Hopefully they can improve and get things right for The Hangover 2. Chances aren't likely though since people loved the first one. 3 out of 5.

It's that time of the year. Yes, Oscar season. Next week we'll do the annual guessing game, but for now, let's talk specifics. I've been making it my mission to watch as many of the best picture nominations as I can (and 8 so far makes for a pretty good start). The latest romp down best picture lane has been The Hurt Locker. This movie had one big hurdle to get over for me. It's a war movie. It's not that I don't enjoy a good war movie (like We Were Soldiers), but I find that it can be hard to walk the balance between the gruesomeness of war, actual character development beyond heroism, and just plain violence for the sake of violence. So how does The Hurt Locker do in trying to find the balance?

First, The Hurt Locker is visually stunning. From the opening sequence to the end, there are shots that will make you long to be in the desert. There are cool stylistic shots that don't detract from the overall story and everything is shown with a purpose. Never before has war looked so good.

Never before has war also looked so human. One of the biggest strengths about this film is the depth of all the characters and the relationships between them. The movie may start out as your traditional suspense/action movie, but it gets into much, much more. Watching James (Jeremy Renner) go from cocky EOD to humble and caring human being is a wonderful arc. Here's one great example. Amidst all of the bomb defusing, James develops a growing relationship with one of the local kids who sells pirated DVD's to support his family. They talk, laugh, and play soccer together. This is the type of scene you wouldn't find in your normal war movie.

It is this human element that The Hurt Locker gets so right. War movies are often guilty of having the strong and brave hero or unstoppable force, but in this film, the people are just regular people. Even though James has credentials of defusing over 800 bombs in his life, he is portrayed as someone who is just like anyone else. He's got flaws, he has struggles, but it doesn't stop him from doing his job.

While we're taking about Renner, it should stand to mention that he did a bang up job in this movie. For real, his performance of William James was great. Gritty and realistic, strong yet supportive, deep and complex, it's everything a character should be. But not only does he play it well, but he makes you believe it.

There are a lot of things this movie brings up for discussion. How human can someone actually be in war? When does it get to the point where your humanity detracts from being the best you can be at doing your job in the military? What are the lasting effects of thinking you could die every day? How attached can someone get to somebody else knowing that they could die right before your eyes? The questions could go on and on, but there is definitely enough fodder to chew on.

The Hurt Locker is a smart war movie for this generation. I highly recommend you go check it out. 5 out of 5.