In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - X-Men: First Class - 20th Century Fox

As hard as it is to believe every wise teacher was once a student full of questions, every rivalry has its roots and every story has a beginning. The X-Men showcase their beginnings on the big screen in ways nobody thought possible in incredible visual effects, story telling and a brilliant selection of actors that fit perfectly into the characters they will become. 

X at its best, this is a first class movie. 

In the 1960s Charles Xavier (James MaCavoy) is a young scientist and telepath publishing a thesis on Mutation and an activist for their rights as citizens. At the same time Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) is a Holocaust survivor with a vendetta against Nazi Germany for killing his mother just to see the extent of his mutant powers. When the two meet up they form an alliance and friendship with the intent to train them to control their powers. However both have their own personal reasons for bringing the mutants together as an evil mastermind Shaw (Kevin Bacon) is planning to take over the world and start World War 3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The X-Men must now set foot on their first mission to save the world.

Whenever a prequel is planned its script must be looked at over twice as much as a sequel and thrice as much as a remake. To satisfy the many loyal X-men fans the climax of this film had to be what put the butterflies in peoples stomach. Once you hear one of the leading characters say or give away something that has a big connection to the first movie released in the series than the fans will realize “So that's how it all began.” Other hints and elements of the original must also be included from time to time in the movie without giving away too much or distracting the viewers from the present. X-Men First Class doesn't over glamorize the rest of the series with sudden references but rather just hits them on and the hints get bigger the further you go into the story.

While the effects are not as infamous as Transformers 3 or other big epics of the summer, it still showcases their visuals very well without making the movie look overproduced or just using the effects as a way to attract people who just wanna see explosions. There are many scenes in this movie with effects that are very gorgeous and put to good use. Raven is the best example, whenever she is transforming it almost looks like shes gracefully shedding her skin like a snake would. Her make-up is as it was in the past incredible.

The core of this X is the relationship between Charles and Erik or Professor X and Magneto in their golden years.We see both men evolve from best friends with a common goal to rivals with different ideas on where the mutants should stand in the world. Being young adults their characters fight a lot and eventually get into fist fights when their arguments get too personal (or use their superpowers.) Our two leading actors showcase that they both care about each other put Erik's dreams quickly become Charles worst nightmare and so like any best friends it comes down to get source of power that either multiplies or divides their love for each other. Their acting showcases the deadly fact that power and love are a lot like fire, both have incredible strength but can burn more than what you want to burn.

Like Transformers: Dark of the Moon real history plays an important role in this movie. In this case its the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that almost sparked the third world war which may have put today in ruins. I thought incorporating the X-men into this axis point in Modern history was a good idea but I thought they got a bit too close and starting interfering with what really happened. When filmmakers do this they may upset a few people that lived through this. I think the X-men should have played more of a backseat role in this confrontation however that would mean less action. An argument like this locks the conflict in a stalemate.

So X-Men First Class is a first class movie. It has a good choice of actors, a well rounded story, stellar effects, the history and stock footage of JFK was good but i thought they got a bit close with real history. I will say its better than X-Men Origins; Wolverine (2009), and it is defiantly a good example of a strong prequel that leads into a story we all know.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Transformers; Dark of the Moon - Paramount Pictures

Film Critics role out, its time for the review of the third and final member of one the richest and mixed film trilogies of the past four years. Once the world was done with the Spider-man series the Transformers came to the big screen. First one (2007) was pretty good, Revenge of the Fallen (2009) made me bored and almost made me walk out halfway through. The newest and final member so far Dark of the Moon kept me entertained but only enough that I wouldn't walk out of theatre or need a drink from my “magic potion” to keep me further entertained.

Album beats movie any day!

As the war for both Earth and Cybertron continue the Autobots discover the ruins of their old ship the Ark on the dark side of the moon. The discover was first made in the 60s and was the core reason for Apollo 11. With the ancient secrets stowed away in the Ark the Autobots and their enemies the Decepticons have now evolved their war into a very dangerous business transaction for the sake of their home world.

Well Transformers 3, its better than revenge of the fallen but I found it to be second rate compared to the original. The one thing I liked about this movie was that it had incredible visuals that you can really only see in 3D. Unfortunately I didn't see it in 3D, I saw it at the good old Paramount Theatre in Hanover, Ontario. Its was a good old theatre but a movie this gigantic must be seen on a big screen. Back to the visuals; they are epic, they are crisp and the are raw. That is everything you expect to see in a big summer blockbuster, and its clear Michael Bay wasn't cheap when he made this film. All the big important transformers looked good sound good and their action scenes are what made the film almost passable.

However the sad reality is, Transformers 3 didn't pass. There are a number of reasons why it didn't pass my inspection. The first and most obvious is the acting, the lungs of any motion picture. Most of the actors return except for Megan Fox who was fired for comparing director Michael Bay to a certain historical figure who shall remain nameless on this review. In her place we have Victoria Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. She's very pretty but that's about as far as she goes, her character really has no character, she uses her soft breathy voice all the way through the movie and what does it do; nothing really. Her character tries to act smart and tough but her personality really is just an air head and I think she should stick to modelling. But she's not the first model to start out bad with acting, and she wont be the last.

Shia LaBeouf returns as the lead once again, and he hasn't really changed that much. His character Sam has matured a bit more but he still a sapping little suck up who is trying to hit on a girl that is too good for him when he should be more focused on either trying to get a job without worrying about his relationship and helping Optimus save the Universe. I still think his character is very childish and since LaBeouf isn't doing transformers anymore we cant see his character evolve into a mature adult. I just hope his future roles will have a better sense of maturity. Josh Duhamel did OK and didn't change much so I cant really find anything wrong with his performance.

Like Jurassic Park, the special effect characters are the real stars of these movies. The Autobots and Decepticons that play the most serious roles played their parts well with their deep voices and powerful charisma and attitude. We also have a fun and respectable cameo from Buzz Aldrin who I thought showed a good mix of fiction meets history.

This movie was way longer than it should have been. 2 hours and 10 min is more than enough for a movie like this. They went way over the line with jokes, show stoppers and close ups of the female lead from all angels. We focus a bit too much on Sam and his new girlfriend when a bit more should have been spent with the Transformers. At least half the scenes with Sam and his girlfriend didn't seem necessary and could have saved the movie a good 20 min.

So apart from the effects, Transformers 3 isn't a very satisfying finish to the Transformers' series. Dark of the Moon has the fandom, popularity and science to make a good summer blockbuster but not the sense of character and life to be something Id call a motion picture. I would much rather be at home watching re-runs of Beast Wars than having to see this again. But what I really hope for in the future is that they just start over, come up with new ideas and new characters that can really breath out a good story than will leave more than just the loyal fans satisfied.

My Rating: 1.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Kung Fu Panda 2 - Dreamworks Animation

Oh great it's another Dreamworks sequel. Oh wait this is a Dreamworks sequel that I actually liked. I was at first skeptical to see the return of awesomeness knowing past Dreamworks sequels like Shrek the Third (2007) and Madagascar; Escape to Africa (2008), but the return of the lovable Panda Po made me rather pleased with a Dreamworks sequel that's not primarily trying to make money but instead tell a great followup to the 2008 blockbuster Kung Fu Panda. So boys and girls get ready for my review of Kung Fu Panda 2, the return of awesomeness. 

Pure Awesomeness! 

Following his ascension to the legendary Dragon Warrior, Po (Jack Black) is now working with the furious five to defend the Valley of Peace from danger. Po's life is going smoothly until he faces two shocking surprises. An evil peacock named Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) is planning on taking over China by using a weapon that can destroy Kung Fu, and that Po was apparently adopted (that really isn't so surprising). Po along with the Furious Five must journey across China to stop Lord Shen from destroying the noble art of Kung Fu and Po must face the horrors of his cloudy past if he is to attain inner peace and save China.

Kung Fu Panda 2 was a very fun movie. It had an excellent cast of characters, a good story, and animation that is triple that of its predecessor. If you compare Dreamworks to Pixar, Pixar almost always wins with sequels, especially after Toy Story 3 received a Best Picture nomination last year. But Dreamworks has matured a bit now with How to train your Dragon (2010) and now Kung Fu Panda 2. Kung Fu Panda 2 is not at all like the lesser Shrek sequels because its not trying to rip off or reference anything that really has nothing to do with the theme of the film, instead most if not all the references and ideas of this movie have something to do with Chinese culture or jack Blacks lovable sense of humour.

Like I said before the animation for this sequel is thrice what the first Kung Fu Panda was. There are many detailed explosions in this movie most of which come from fireworks. In the past an explosion or an instant in animation that has a lot of detail was very hard to pull off but Dreamworks is able to take every advantage they can to show a film that has no reason to be cheap or lazy with their animation. Its not just the 3D that's good in this movie but it also implies good hand drawn animation. A prime example is shown through the opening sequence with Chinese puppetry, which in itself has good detail and beauty.

Most of the cast is back and in my humble opinion Jack Black has more emotion as Po than he had before. He's faced with an even bigger challenge than becoming a Kung Fu Master, attaining inner peace when he is under the great pressure of his origins. We mostly know Jack Black as the funny guy but he does have a sensitive and serious side seen before but is still able to stay lovable and childlike in whatever situation he is in if you don't count King Kong (2005).

We also see that Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) and the Furious Five, especially Tigress (Angelina Jolie) have learned to be more at peace with themselves, show more emotion or have learned to lighten up a bit more compered to the last film. Tigress especially is shown to be more lighthearted and caring towards Po. This is shown several times throughout the film when she has a heart to heart talk with Po and later comforts and protects him from facing Lord Shen. Hoffman and the rest of the furious five play their roles just as well as they did before but add either more tranquility to their performance or more humour which doesn't harm the movie at all.

Our villain Lord Shen is played by Gary Oldman and I thought he made an excellent cold villain with a burning hatred deep in his feathered heart. He was animated far beyond what I expected Dreamworks or even Pixar to accomplish in. My only complaint about Kung Fu Panda 2 is that I thought they could have spent a bit more time with Dustin Hoffmans character to see how well he really is recovering from his problems in the last film.

So Kung Fu Panda 2 is defiantly a worth while sequel. It's a strong follow up to the original with the same lovable characters from the original and some fresh new characters that can be praised just as much. Animations good, story is good and overall its the best sequel Dreamworks has ever made and I hope that they keep making their sequels like this because that could very well make them equal to that of Pixar or more in the future.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks.  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - Walt Disney Pictures

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the day you will always remember as the day Kevin Murphy reviewed the reboot/fourquel/spin-off Pirates of the Caribbean; On Stranger Tides. Jack Sparrow is back, and this time theirs a lot more Jack than their was before. Will and Liz are not around anymore and now Jacks got a whole new crew as he sets of on his weirdest, drunkest and most slapstick voyage yet. But that doesn't mean at all that I liked it. 

Jack's back and badder than ever. 

After stealing the map that leads to the fountain of youth Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), is hired by King George II (Richard Griffiths) to act as a guide for his “old friend” Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) to find the fountain before the rivalling Spanish Empire find it. Along the way Jack runs into and teams up with on of his ex-lovers Angelica, who is the daughter of the most ruthless pirate in history Blackbeard. Jack gets ready for his most action packed adventure yet, as he sets sail for waters unknown.

In 2007, It was announced that the series had come to and end, but later on we learned that Jack was back. So Jack is back, but not many others are back, The only two characters that really remain from the previous trilogy are Mr. Gibbs and Barbossa who are still played wonderfully by Kevin McNally and Geoffrey Rush. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly are not around anymore and frankly I'm glad because we've seen all we've need from those two love birds. Yet I'm pretty sad that we are left without the wonderful and lovable comic relief that is Pintel and Ragetti.

On the other hand we have some new faces and new challenges for our anti-hero, Jack. The new female lead is played by Penelope Cruz, and she is a much more feisty and more fiery leading female with a real sense of fun, action and adventure that was just all talk for the lovely but sometimes boring Ms. Swan. We also have a new and typical pure-hearted hero Philip Swift (sounds like a Prince Charming name to me) who is a man of god and enslaved to Blackbeard. He's a tad boring and what I really didn't like about him was that it seemed like he was too much of a replacement for Will Turner. They could have made him a bit more original if the character didn't have as a large a sense of pride as Will did.

We also have a new villain and this one is apparently even more blood thirsty, power hungry and ruthless than old Davy Jones was. The new bad guy is one that many people have read about centuries before the Pirates of the Caribbean was built at Disneyland; Blackbeard the pirate. What makes this guy so evil is that he is in fact mortal. He has not achieved eternal life like other villains in the series but instead is on a hunt for it and will go to incredible lengths to avoid the horrors of death. Ian McShane plays his part wonderfully as a man who literally has no compassion for any living thing but himself and his trophy ship. I haven't seen a Disney villain this obsessed or hell bent as the Horned King from the Black Cauldron (1985). Ian McShane I salute you as a superb antagonist.

Apart from acting, the choreography for the movie was really good. Once again Johnny Depp proves to great with a sword and getting from one sticky situation to another without it looking old or tasteless. He always presents himself with a new challenge. New members of the cast also catch on pretty well to the demands of the series with the stunts and safety of doing a movie like this. Penelope Cruz for one proved to be a highly skilled with all her weapons, especially against old Jack.

So I would say that this Pirates is OK, it can be on par with the first one, and its plot isn't as confusing as Dead Man's Chest or At Worlds End. Blackbeard's violent nature means I wont recommend this movie for young children but for most teens age 14 and over id say its acceptable and non-pirates fans may be bored by it. Some of the old characters I liked are not round anymore and have been replaced with rather lacklustre or suck – up actors, but some of the new characters i thought stole the show. But Its still did like it. Its good but its no perfect. So this is the day you will always remember as the day Kevin Murphy gave an OK review to Pirates of the Caribbean; On Stranger Tides.

My Rating: 2.5/4 Shamrocks.

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Rio - Twentieth Century Fox/Blue Sky Studios

From the creators of Ice Age comes not another Ice Age sequel, or short film about that squirrel that I can't stand, but something new, fresh and original that I loved and I think kids and adults will enjoy as well. “Rio” is the newest project from Blue Sky Studios, and I gotta say I was not disappointed like I was walking out of the past two Ice Age films.

A Hit!

A macaw named Blu (Jesse Eisenberg) that has lived most of his life in Minnesota learns from an Ornithologist that he is the last male of his kind and a female has been found living in Rio De Janeiro. Blu's owner Linda reluctantly agrees to take him to Brazil so he can mate with the female named Jewel. Jewel does not take much of a liking to Blu and has an evan lower liking towards humans since they are primarily responsible for causing their species endangerment. Things get worse for the two when they are kidnapped by poachers and chained together. Luckily the two birds manage to escape and with the help of Birds from around the city the two starts to understand how each other feels.

Rio, much like the city its named after was a very fun and exciting film. It had great animation, good story telling and a good selection of actors. As stated before at the beginning of this review this movie was made by Blue Sky Studios who also produced the Ice Age trilogy, Robots (2004), and Horton hears a who (2008). The first Ice Age was good because it was original but afterwards Blue Sky studios looked like it was running out of original ideas and the animation was looking a bit cheap. Rio I thought was a good reboot to their company and actually saved it with its good animation, and story.

The main character Blu voiced by Jesse Eisenberg, who is now most notable for his role as Mark Zuckerberg in the social network (2010). Comparing the macaw he voices to the father of Facebook he played the two shares the fact that they are nerds who are trying their absolute hardest to do what they want to do with their life. Blu is obviously a nerd who has the worst social skills with his own species. His female counterpart is voiced by Anne Hathaway who i hourly enjoyed because she has a really fiery personality and her negative attitude towards humans given Blu all the more reason to win her over since he greatly trusts humans. Their opposite personalities make for great chemistry.

The other characters I thought were good but to me I thought it was the leads that made the film enjoyable. George Lopez who voices a bit of a knock off of Too Can Sam and Zazu was enjoyable but near the end of the movie I got tired of him because he was getting boring much like all George Lopez characters. Will.I.AM and Jamie Foxx are also it the movie, playing rapping birds who are just so annoying and unnecessary, this is a movie about Brazil, not about rapping in the streets of LA. But I do have to compliment on the fact that the movie has a great deal of diversity in its actors.

Birds have been animated before in film but I found Rio to showcase birds relatively well through flight. When the birds fly they fly just like they would in real life, but this is mostly when their flying, otherwise when they are on the ground they act more cartoonish. But this is Blue Sky Studios and you do expect cartoons from the creators of Ice Age.

Finally this movie really does capture Brazil. From its rainforests to the streets of Rio for Carnival. The source of this is because the director is from Brazil and he gives this movie a sense of home flavour from his point of view. If this film were directed by a non-brazilian it would seem like its from a tourist point of view. The film evan explores into the darker areas of the country with the slum neighbourhoods and the desperation of an anti-hero.

Rio, wouldn't be my #1 favourite movie I've seen but I found it to be colourful, musical, fun and entertaining. Kids will love it, adults will like it, Brazilians will certainly like much more ethan the Simpsons episode “Blame it on Lisa.” Go see Rio and it will be a most enjoyable evening.

My Rating 3/4 Shamrocks.

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Arthur - Warner Bros.

What does the word remake mean? It means a piece of work that was made a long time ago has been upgraded with different materials to suit todays standards. The tale of Arthur was the story of a billionaire playboy from the 1980s with a good sense of humour but a bad sense of morals. Dudley Moore one of the United Kingdoms funniest comedians portrayed this lovable idiot Arthur in 1981, which he received an oscar nomination for the roll. 30 years have passed and Dudley Moore's classic character has been reincarnated into a little accident tI like to call Russell Brand.

Arthur is a billionaire play boy who has no sense of self discipline or common intelligence and can't do anything without the help of his nanny and surrogate mother figure (Helen Mirren). When his real mother blackmails him into the engagement to a wealthy but bitter eyries (Jennifer Garner) Arthur decides to prove himself as a common human being by doing what everyone else is supposed to do once they turn 13 (he's 30) get a job. As time goes by Arthur meets and falls for a local leaving Arthur with the life that was handed to him on a golden platter and a life he can carve out on his own.

Booze and Babies are a dangerous combination. Wait let me re-phrase that Booze and thirty year olds who wont wake up and feel the coffee. There are three types of movies I hate; 1) Remakes that are second or third rate compared to the original, 2) Pointless sequels that never needed to be made. 3) Movies that make references to better movies in an attempt to be either stupid or make a quick buck (Friedburg and Seltzer Im watching you). The new Arthur is #1, It was immature childish, bold and boring, and It was one of the few times I actually wanted to walk out halfway through a movie, before I thought of how my rival Jesse would think of me if I took the cowards way out and walk out halfway through, so i stayed and much to my dismay HATED this movie.

I feel as though I am wasting my time writing a review about a movie I hated so I will make this one quick. Russell Brand was awful in this movie; everything I ever loved about Dudley Moore has been choked out as leftovers for this piece of mouldy uneatable bread. Jennifer Garner on the other hand I found to be a queen of all dominatrixes and although she did scare me a bit like any good villain should do I still thought she bored me to death because she never gives up and doesn't come up with any new dastardly plans.

The only thing I really liked about this movie was the great Helen Mirren. She has a very dry sense of humour that manages to keep this movie from hitting a complete rock bottom. If it wasn't for her I would have died watching this movie do to its sheer boredom.

If you wanna see this cheap unnecessary remake thats your call to make, but please watch the original first, it will be much more enjoyable.

My Rating: 1/4 Shamrocks.  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Source Code - Summit Entertainment

What happens when you combine thomas the tank engine with terrorist plans and a touch of some very bizarre time travel? You get Source Code, the high tech train ride that has you on the edge of your seat from when you get your ticket to when you get off at your station. I found this movie to be a mind bending adventure from start to finish and was not disappointed when I walked out while the credits rolled.

A decorated army pilot who served in Afghanistan awakens to find himself on a train heading for Chicago that is going to blow. After the blow Captain Colter Stevens wakes up inside a bitter cold chamber to find himself under there service of Source Code; a project that allows him to enter the last eight minuets of someone else's mind to prevent the accident. As he keeps going back to the 8 min he keeps learning more and that prepares him for the final confrontation.

It defiantly is an action and science fiction fusion that is in a class by itself. When these two genres meet, the action almost always overtakes the science causing the smart people in the audience to walk out expecting a movie with brains when what they got was explosions going off for two hours without a good enough explanation. Source Code, is actually a much better blend of the two because it is able to balance itself out without becoming overproduced or turning into a dull lifeless science documentary starring my old science teacher from high school.

The theme of Source Code is repetition. Most of the time whenever repetition happens in fiction and sometimes non-fiction it wears itself out and people loose attention/interest very quickly. With a movie like this they do repeat themselves bu they do it in a way that it doesnt become boring or cheesy. Whenever they do it in this movie they showcase it so that the main character played by Jake Gyllenhaal is given a new motivation in the mystery ever time he makes a mistake and has to go back.

Speaking Jake Gyllenhaal, I really like him as an action star. He is very smart, young and full of energy. His intelligence makes him very gifted in crafting together something smart and suspenseful for the audience to see without turning it into a boring two hour Tom Cruise movie.

My only complaint about source code was that I found it to go a bit under the line for an action/science fiction film when it came to the length. An action movie usually runs for at least two hours (more or less) and I thought they could have added a bit more to the story but I still thought it was a good enough movie.

Source Code is a great movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. I enjoyed it, my fellow critics enjoyed it, my friends enjoyed it, my dad enjoyed. So see it its a really good action film.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Sucker Punch - Warner Bros.

Hot babes with ammunition. Is this how I wanted to spend my tuesday night when all my homework was finished. Maybe on a friday night at a club down in Clifton Hills, but for tuesday cheap nights at the movies, sure why not. Sucker Punch, from the high head that brought us 300. It's about girls trapped in the harsh prison that calls itself a mans world or reality as some extremists would put it. Did I hate Sucker Punch; No. Did I love Sucker Punch; No. While some of my rival critics have disliked it to a high degree I on the other hand went into this movie with high hopes but came out neutrally.

A girl with no name known only as baby doll played by Emily Browning is sent to a mental institute for girls by her tyrannical step-father so he can get all her money after the death of her mother. The asylum is run by a corrupt business man who exploits the girls in the institute to wealthily and vile fat cats, for extra money. When her therapist tells her to that her mind can escape to its own world she meets a mysterious man in her mind who tells her of 5 things that will allow her to escape her physical prison, Baby Doll teams up with her cell mates to escape their living atrocity that is reality.

Coming out of this movie from a mans point of view you get the feeling that they are being very sexist towards men, when the movie was in itself directed by a man. This man Zach Snyder seems to be a metaphor for a very overproduced movie that has no end to its pointlessness and no beginning for its raw confusion to start with. Pretty much all of the females characters in this movie didn't really convince me as characters until or before a moment of severer crisis, the prime example being the lead female. Our collection of male characters on the other hand I found to be far too brutal and dark for a PG13 movie and their attitude (especially from the main antagonist) is far more suited for something like a NC17 movie. I found this battle of the sexes to be a very dull and unconvincing war with no clear winner in sight.

The first fantasy scene of the movie made my brain feel very numb and once it was finished I was like “how much more is my mind going to rot, I gotta find a good book.” So although my mind did rot at each of these fantasy sequences they did get progressively better. The best one being with a ferocious dragon who I wouldn't want to mess with.

On the positive side their were a few things i did like about it. Item 1: It has incredible visual effects such as the dragon I mentioned in the last paragraph, but the problem is they seem to rely on this a bit too much in favour of a visually appealing film instead of a film with a good story. On the subject of man vs woman this is the showcase of the film and thats how it goes from start to finish and the movie plays the message of man vs woman good but it seems to play it a bit too well for fiction. Perhaps my favourite character in this movie is the one man who is on the side of good. He's smart, funny and a great deal of help to anyone in need in the movie and his wisdom is what saves this movie from getting less than a 1/4 shamrocks.

So a movie like Sucker Punch is not a horrible movie in my opinion, its ok. My main rival in movie reviewing on the other hand hated Sucker Punch with a capital H, but I was a bit for merciful with it by giving it a small chance to prove itself. To me it didn't prove itself but I still thought it was satisfying to rent from the video store but not enough to see on the big screen and defiantly not enough to see in Digital 3D. Its worth a trip to the video store that all i have left to say.

My Rating: 1.5/4 Shamrocks.  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Limitless - Relativity Media

Bradley Cooper looks like he came out of nowhere with the 2009 blockbuster hit the Hangover. True he was in a lot of movies before that but a movie like the Hangover is what really caught peoples attention. And now we are introduced to something as divine and abstract as Limitless. The tale of a man who tries a new type of drug that makes him feel like he is on top of the world only for him to go so high, he hits rock bottom.

A struggling writer Eddie (Bradley Cooper) is having a hard time focusing by not meeting his deadlines for his novel and missing out on rent. When his ex-brother in-law presents him with a new type of drug that lets him access every corner of his brain. At first this is really good for him as be becomes smarter and richer at the same time. However the side effects quickly kick in and it appears to be more than Eddie can handle.

For decades now we have seen movies, tv shows and read books about the cautions of doing drugs and the dangers of over using them. Sometimes its too much of a good thing and it backfires on you at some point in the future or its too much of a bad thing and it back fires on you from day one. To me you have to watch this movie all the way through to decide whether trying this drug or not good or bad for a person. Personally I don't do drugs and the only drug I evan bother to try is alcohol when Im relaxing. Eddie our centre of attention proves this drug is bad but the only way to really prove if something is bad is to do it yourself and acknowledge what you've done.

Bradley Cooper makes a really convincing addict, so much that If you watched one of those reality shows on A&E you would have a hard time telling which is real and which is fake. I actually found his performance so convincing that it makes some of the drug jokes on Family Guy look evan more cartoonish and childish than they actually are. Apart from Cooper the supporting cast consists of the poised, profound and powerful Robert DeNiro. As always DeNiro comes off as a smooth talking professional in whatever he does; from loan sharking to stiller stalking. This makes him very convincing character in Limitless as he himself both helps and destroys Eddie as the drug sinks deeper into him.

The movie is a bit too fast paced and at the same time you feel as though it will never end. At about one hundred minuets into the movie I was just hoping for it to end so I could get home, write my review and then go to bed so I could wake up, cook some eggs for breakfast and then off to class. Despite this I still liked Limitless for its intensity, action and message for too much of something. Its not my favourite movie of the year but its still enjoyable enough to see on the big screen.

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks.  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Red Riding Hood - Warner Bros.

In todays modern world there are two types of fairy tales; there are the ones that were read to us at bedtime every night by our parents, featuring lovable characters that little kids would love. The other is the one teenage girls can't get enough of, the one featuring hot young bad guys/anti heros fighting Wight some other guy to win the heart of the either not so pretty or pretty dumb heroine. Can you guess which one Red Riding Hood is? If you guessed the first one you are correct; A hundred years ago. The new Red Riding Hood is another pale, dry and childish teenage girl dream that makes me evan more anticipated for something much better.

In the retelling of the famous folk tale young Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) is constantly stalked by the mysterious “Big Bad Wolf” who plagues the town. In every attempt to capture and kill the wolf he is always able to escape and take at least one taste of human blood. However the presence of Valerie gives the witch hunter Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) the idea of unmasking the wolf as she does not scream in terror in the wolfs presence.

I am not a teenage girl and Im glad Im not because evan if i was i wouldn't enjoy this movie because Im too smart and too manly for it. Red Riding Hood is a disgrace to our childhoods because it takes every good and care free memory of all those stories we loved and warps them into a teenage girl fantasy about sex, darkness and more winey unlovable teenage sappiness. The reason they made this movie seems to be very clear. Its not about going to visit grandma and getting attacked by a wolf. Its about getting the ultimate thrill with the bad guy which is what I thought, but when I saw the ending I was about too throw up and vomit on the movie theatre floor. Im not going to tell you why because its just too sickening

For most of this movie I wasn't on the edge of my seat because I knew bluntly well what was going to happen next and for most of it I was bored out of my wits until the climax when I suddenly gained more interest. On the plus side though the movie does have a good opening sequence that is beautifully shot with great cinematography and as said before the ending has a good twist.

But still this movie is just plain awful, that is all I can say. Its a sappy retelling of a classic children's tale that made me want to cry out in pain. Tis movie (as they say on tv) sucks.

My Rating: 1/4 Shamrocks. 

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Rango -Paramount Pictures/Nickelodean Films

Fuzzy bunnies, cute duckies talking ponies subliminal messages targeted towards teenagers; maybe you'd find those in a magical disney movie but in Rango defiantly not. The new Johnny Depp dark comedy animated film directed by Pirates of the Caribbean's Gore Verbinski that hit wit, humour, adventure and heart and a solid thumbs up from me.

A lizard with no name is abandoned in the desert and travels to a small town inhabited by talking animals like himself. Upon entering a bar he makes himself out as a rough traveler with the allies Rango through his talent of improving. When he accidentally kills a hawk that threatens the natives Rango is appointed town sheriff and his number one priority is to find out why the town has been without water for so long and protect it from outside bandits before the public and two native girls that like him find out that he is not all he is cracked up to be.

An instant A, Kids and Adults
will love this witty film

For the first wee bit of the movie i was bored and the movie got on my nerves because it had bad acting but once Rango arrived at the main setting of the film I warmed up to it since we got to see more of who this character is and who he is trying to turn into. Once the movie maid a better leap in story i got to know Rango and Johnny Depp's position as the reluctant reptile who is trying to make himself as a someone in a town of strangers when he is to the outside a nobody. His sense of improve gets him out of every situation, yet at the same time can get hims tuck back into a bigger problem. Isla Fisher and Ned Beaty were also really good to the story as they added much more development to a dry story that was filled with conflict and made it spring into a puddle of boiling water that I loved.

Bill Nighy who worked with Depp in Dead Man's Chest (2006) and at Worlds End (2007) showcases the same chemistry he showed with Depp in the Pirates series, in fact it's almost the same with Nighy on top and Depp on the bottom. Although Rattle Snake Jake was really cool i still thought the chemistry was a rip on Verbinski's last series.

The animation for Rango is incredible. And what makes it really incredible is its realism that Pixar is still trying to get closer to everyday and Dreamworks isn't evan close to getting. The backgrounds of the movie are very authentic and the scenery of the village evan captures a live-action western. Evan the animal characters themselves have great realism in them because they look so much like their real life counterparts. But the problem is sometimes this realism takes you away from the fact that you are supposed to be watching a animated film, especially when they showed humans, which i think they should have shown from the waste down only or not include humans at all in the film. But still the realism of the animation makes the movie evan more worthwhile to see.

The western film is perhaps the birthplace of action films starting with the Great Train Robbery (1905) moving up to a piece of garbage like Jonah Hex (2010) This isn't primarily an action film but it is still a good example of western film because it implies what a western is about; courage, adventure and getting the girl away from the big threat to the town. It's also not afraid to show the gore of the film since it showcases the dead and injured and gets away with real firearms in the movie (something computer films arnt well known for doing).

Rango is a good film. Its a lot darker than your average animated films but thats ok, sometimes kids need something dark to teach them how tough it is out there in the real world. And Rango has a lot more maturity and realism than most animated films these days. Rango you are one cool lizard.

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Unknown - Warner Bros.

Liam Neeson is one of my favourite british actors, and one of my favourites that isn't in the Harry Potter films that is still alive. He's been in a lot from Schindler's List (1993) to becoming a master of the force in the Phantom Menace (1999). Well in Unknown you can call him a phantom menace as he plays a Doctor in a country where nobody he knows, knows who he is and I say that this phantom makes a really good film.

Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife Liz goes to Berlin, Germany for an important conference. After realizing he forgot his brief case at the airport he returns to get it but on the way he gets in a brutal car crash causing him to lose his identity. When he finds his wife four days later she is with another man who assumes his identity. His anger collides with his confusion to discover what is wrong with him and this leads him on a wild chase across Berlin to find out what the hecks wrong with him.

You will be on the edge of your seat
 from start to finish. Its really cool. 

I really liked this movie, the plot had many twists to it and it kept you guessing up till at least 20 min before the climax which in itself is pretty epic. The opening to the film is really good and when compared to the ending proves that Liam Neeson is a great actor, since he really gives you a run for your money. As I said in the opening of this review he has been a lot; from his academy award winning performance in Schindlers List, his role as Qui Gon Jinn in Star Wars episode 1 and evan brief guest appearances on the Simpsons and Sesame Street, Liam Neeson has proven himself to be an actor who can step into any shoes and take on a new challenge regardless of its size. Evan though he has done thriller films before the shoes he's in are new and fresh for audiences to see.

If a movie is set in a non-fictional place it has to be filmed in that non-fictional place. In this case its Berlin, one of the worlds most famous cities and the capital of one of the worlds leading powers.Berlin having been the site of some of the epic moments in European history is the setting for this very epic movie. The way the director captures Berlin is really incredible from its unground, to its nightclubs and its war memorials this movie showcases the very best of Germany and how they use the city to their advantage in the movie is really incredible. Speaking of the director this is arguably Jaume Collet – Serra best movie he has ever made compared to the god awful horror movies he has made such as House of Wax and the Orphan. Unknown is arguably a much better film.

Their were two things I didn't like about this movie. The first is that this movie doesn't really seem to know when to give it a rest. Once the mystery is solved it seems the director keeps going with material that the audience doesn't need to know yet and would be better saved for later evan though that material is good. The other thing I didn't like about this movie was that they never give Liam Neeson a moment of one of his famous pause and think moments and this causes him to spit out his anger like an angry dog and I don't like that quality of Neeson when he is acting, he's much better when he's calm and thinking.

However I still liked Unknown. Liam Neeson has some really good moments in it, the acting from the rest of the cast is good and I thought Berlin was captured beautifully in this film. Unknown is a solid contender for a good action/mystery film.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Gnomeo and Juliet - Touchtone Pichtures

Goblins, Trolls and Gnomes all the things you can find in your backyard, but on the outside just Gnomes. The bitter sweet tale of Romeo and Juliet has gone through many different adaptions, starting from being written by candle light by William Shakespeare to going to stage, and then various film adaptions and evan an epic anime series, Now the dynamic duo has found its way to animation again but this time their tale is told in short supply. 

Cute, funny, charming, a adaption
that both kids and adults will love. 

From the mind of the great William Shakespeare comes the greatest love story ever told but with a twist. In the continuing conflict between red gnomes and blue gnomes a silver lining is found in between their gardens. The Red Juliet meets the Blue Romeo as both attempt to spite the others' family and begin to see that they are not really that different and as the original tale went they became star crossed lovers.

When I first heard of this movie I was like; “Is this Hollywood's idea of the middle finger to Shakespeare?” But after I realized it this was going to happen sooner or later, computer animation would go after Shakespeare and make it into a soft and girlish adaption of one of his tragedies. I don't get why people never try making animated adaptions of his comedies like a Midsummers nights dream (which I starred in high school) but i guess some people like to twist a dark story into a happy go lucky family film.

But I liked this movie. It had the same sense of love and struggle the original story had and it wasn't afraid to dumb it down to the extreme, like pretending that Tybalt just disappeared instead of being killed in combat, and although they do substitute the gore that was in the original play they do it with innovation. For example Tybalt is “killed” in a sense but instead he brakes to pieces being made out of stone so that is an acceptable substitute.

Their is what made me praise this film. 

The animation for the film is pretty good and can evan be on par with the animation with Toy Story 3. The reason its so good is that the animators were not lazy and made a wide variety of their characters diverse by giving them different clothing and small cracks on different parts of their figures and of course colour their hats differently so we know who is on which side.

The acting for the film is pretty good but the centre of attention is on the two leads of James Macavoy and Emily Blunt. The two make a lovely incarnation of the greatest couple to ever grace storytelling. They stay true to what their love stands for from start to finish and because of that it makes the story very respectful of their source material and their status as Gnomes makes the relationship evan more cute. The rest of the cast has a good selection of actors such as Maggie Smith, Michael Caine, Jason Stathum and evan Ozzie Osborn but none of them really do much and have little life and personality compared the characters they were made of, its like they were made out of wax instead of rubber.

One other problem I do have with this movie is that the idea of inanimate objects coming to life behind their masters back has been done before with the Toy Story trilogy and because of this it makes you feel the writers took the easy way out and do something Pixar has done. I think this movie would be worth a 80% or higher if they had better dialogue and a better setting. But it still is a good family film that kids and adults will love and that can be thanked thanks to Elton John''s great music.

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks.  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The Green Hornet - Sony Pictures

Ive seen alot of action stars starring in cheap family comedies like Vin Diesel in the Pacifier (2005) and Jackie Chan in the Spy Next Door (2010). But this time I see two big differences in this movie; Seth Rogan is the superhero and a superhero movie released in January? Seth Rogan is of all things; The Green Hornet, the superhero that started out on a radio show in the 40s and evolved into comic books and now has a new motion picture.

Britt Read (Seth Rogan) is a millionaire playboy who treats life like its handed to him on silver platter without needing to work a day in his life. However his does a 180 on him when his father is found dead and he inherits his fathers media empire. When he meets his fathers car mechanic Kato (Jay Chou) he makes three astonishing discoveries about him; He can make the most indestructible car in the world, he is a King Fu expert and he makes the best cup of joe in the world. This realization makes them form a partnership to fight crime in the streets of LA with a tricked out car. As the two gain more popularity under their alter ego of the Green Hornet, the cities most powerful crime lord Ben Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) declares a gang war so bloody it would paint the town red.

The big difference between this superhero movie and others is that the hero poses as the villain which thereby makes the two leads the ultimate anti-hero's. What gives this movie a bit of the Seth Rogan flare to it is the fact that Rogan helped write the screenplay for the movie and when the lead helps write the movie it makes them feel more comfortable and familiar with the movie without the worry of making a mistake on some Hollywood big-shots script.

Rogan is very funny in this movie but this is mostly due to the fact that he helped write it. If he didn't I don't think he would do such a good job since to him it would t be like reading off carved ice. Jay Chou on the other hand really is the cornerstone of this movie. Although Rogan is the lead its Chou who makes the Green Hornet what it is since he is the one that does all the work in the superhero gig (literally) the stunt work he provides for the action sequences is terrific and is almost on par with Bruce Lee in the original Green Hornet film. Christoph Waltz is a bit of surprise for this movie. Although he was good it seems a bit too soon of a leap for him to go from action to comedy, yet he still does a great job of playing a charming yet terrifying villain. Cameron Diaz is the weakest link for this movie, you can just tell she has never really absorbed any of the lines in the script for this film and as such she is a stale insufferable know it all. Her part would have been suited better for a character better suited for what she is on the Inside like America Ferrara on Ugly Beaty.

I liked Green Hornet but I obviously didn't like it as much as I would other superhero movies like the Dark Knight or X-Men. So the movie is, the acting is ok, the special effects and stunt work is great and the script is decent, so to be perfectly blunt see the Green Hornet. And personally I wonder if that car would ever fall under being an Autobot or a Decepticon.

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks.

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The King's Speech - The Weinsitein Company

Finally after all the waiting for a movie that will teach us the beauty of broadcasting and politics comes the most groundbreaking film of 2010, The King's Speech starring Colin Firth in this great retelling of King George's ascension to the King of England during the darkest era in recent history.

In the late 1930's George of England (Colin Firth) must ascend to the King of England following the death of his father King George V (Michael Gambon) and the absences of his brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) George has no choice but to ascend to the thrown and face the most powerful opponent any political would have to face; the public, with the broadcasting industry growing. When his wife Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) convinces him to see Liona Loug (Geoffrey Rush) a speech therapist who helps him improve his diction and be ready to address his public in a time of great darkness for Europe.

This movie is incredible, when i said the Social Network was my favourite film of the year, I take it back the King's Speech is my number 1 but the Social Network still stands at number 2. Why do i think the King's Speech is so good? Well the reason is that it has many defining qualities that a person looks for when they see a movie that falls under drama and historical.

If you were to compare this movie to photographs and radio recordings on file you will see that the film is able to capture them to a clear cut accuracy. Looking at and hearing Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter is a good example of this because the movie actually does make them look very similar to what these people were like 75 years ago. Other good historical aspects of the film is its use of stock footage such as with Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany and how they don't try to act over it or modernize to please today's audiences.

When it comes to the acting for it this is what I have to say; could it get any better than this? All of the actors from largest role to smallest role knew their parts and played them beautifully. Evan background characters that have little to nothing to do with the story are able to make this movie evan more enjoyable by showcasing how people lived in 1930's Europe. The major actors are also very clear on what they have to do and who they have to play, Carter and Rush are both very distinguished in their roles and know who they are and how they acted in real life.

Colin Firth stole the show. His portrayal of King George was just the peace of acting I have been looking for a long time. The reason I liked him so much is that he is playing a role that has such big responsibility to speak to his public yet he himself is very shy and has a problem speaking clearly which is a problem I have sometimes too. But evan though he doesn't fully recover from it by the end of the film he is still able to find the courage to speak and Colin Firth does a great job of flowing the emotions of a King on the inside.

What's good about the acting for the movie is that it sets itself up like a play which many of the actors in this movie started out in and still do today. So they know how this movie should be paced without turning it into a sensationalized Hollywood blockbuster.

If you haven't seen the King's Speech see it. It is a terrific movie and i can guarantee you, that if you see any movie at all within the next five years see the King's Speech because I think you will be pleasantly surprised that there is no finder joy than hearing a voice for the first time.

My Rating: 4/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with kevin Murphy - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Warner Bros.

The boy who lived has returned for his greatest adventure of all time in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1. As a fan of the books I thought this film was good but as a critic I thought that this film was brilliant. J.K Rowlings final chapter of the worldwide phenomenon is brought to the big screen in two parts, right now is part one, you'll have to wait for the conclusion in July.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has embarked on a quest with his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Wattson) to destroy the key to his archenemy Lord Voldemorts (Ralph Finnes) immortality; the hHorcruxs. Along their journey many lives are sacrificed to protect Harry and Harry's determination to avenge all the lives that were lost since the day he met Voldemort has reached breaking point. While traveling the trio discover the existence of three talismans known as the Deathly Hallows that could make or break the future of the wizarding world.

Of all the Harry Potter films, this both the most mature film and the most dark. It is also my favorite even though it is only half the of the final book. Unlike the previous six films this one does not have a primary setting or sense of place which wold be Hogwarts, Instead this film has the characters traveling from one place to another looking for something or someone. Because its not set in one place the audience has a chance to look outside of the safety of school and see how dangerous the wizarding world really is and why Hogwarts puts such emphasis on safety from external threats.
Because these kids arnt in school anymore it almost feels like a coming of age film mixed with adventure and fantasy. It implies how well these kids have learned in school and how effectively they use their skills in real world situations. In school we are always taught about the “real world” which is the place outside the safety of a school wall where things are more hard and brutal than how school softens it by given you a second chance but in the real world your lucky to get one and a half and the film portrays this belief extremely effectively.

The effects of Deathly Hallows part 1 are incredible and by the far the best out of all the films. Every effect in the movie is used the way the book wanted it to be used and it doesn't try to waste any of it on something that either doesn't play a part to the story and conflict of good vs evil or on something that that isn't relevant to the story. The best example would be Ron's moment of triumph when he confronts the power of one of the Horcruxs.

The acting for this one is the best out of all the films. When I compared the books to the films basically every character I saw in the books acted and sounded just the saw they should have been in the books. The best example from the first movie to now would be Alan Rickmans performance as Serverus Snape because he knows how to play the role the way J.K Rowling intended it to be done, this also applies to Robbie Coltranes performance as Rubeus Hagrid and Ralph Finnes as Lord Voldemort.

For this film specifically I found the best acting to come from the trio of Harry, Ron and Hermione. In 2001 the characters were brought to the big screen and as the films got darker and more mature they followed along at the same level, but by darker I mean they let more dark attributed confront them with less protection from the older characters. Their chemistry is also brilliant in the film because these three have worked together for so long they really did start out as kids and not as actors and because of this they have shaped their relationship in the finale instalment into a real friendship as apposed to a typical Hollywood drama. I think eight great films through the past decade is enough to prove how good it is.

Because this movie is so dark I am extremely glad the rights were given to Warner Bros, because of all the American film companies they are the ones that are the best at making dark and dramatic films together. I can tell how dark one of their movies is simply by looking at their opening logo on the movie and with the Harry potter films the look to them gets darker and more gothic like with Batman (1989) or Sherlock Holmes (2009). I can only imagine the horror if the rights were given to Disney.

The director of the film David Yates was by far my favorite director of the Harry Potter films because of his approach. Before working for Warner Bros he did TV drama's for the BBC and that type of experience, brought to the world of film can bring serious depth, drama and humor to a story. With the cast, story and effects already provided for him he has made the best use of all the resources for the harry Potter films. My only compliant about his approach is that he seems to focus a bit too much on the teenage relationships in the film and not enough on the actual story, taking up at least a quarter of it when it should only be a tenth. But the good news is he didn't waste any of the relationship scenes on something cheep and pathetic like Glee, Fame or High School Musical.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this film is a 9 ½ with only that small complaint about the directing approach. Since 2001 Harry Potter has proved not only to be acceptable by fans but by critics as well since the movies are very well done in many ways. Since this is the first half of the final film we expect much and most sequels cant do that because they get to commercial.But because the author of the books stays so committed to the movies (she was even a producer for this one) she keeps a iron fist on the quality of the film and because of this, Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows is a must see film.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Megamind - Dreamworks Animation

From the people that didn't bring you Superman comes Megamind the newest motion picture from Dreamworks Animation. Coming out with three animated films in the same year by the same company is rather rare and most of the time only one at the least is really good. In this case I would give the gold to How to train your Dragon but I would say Megamind is worthy of a respectable silver.

Megamind (Will Ferrell) is the super villain of Metro City and has been in constant battle with his arch rival Metro Man (Brad Pitt) who is loved by the people for always foiling Megamind . However when Megamind apparently “kills” Metro Man he is now the criminal kingpin of Metro City. However he realizes that without a Yin to his Yang their is no purpose left for him. To get excitement back in his life he uses a piece of Metro Man's DNA (left from is costume) to turn a lonely cameraman (Jonah Hill) into the new super hero but makes things worse when Megamind must become what he thought he would never become; the hero.

Their are three types of Dreamworks films that come out in the Film Olympics. Gold, Silver and Bronze. In Megamind's case it gets a silver because although the animation and story is good and did feel like its one of those movies that just repeated what other Super hero movie have done. My biggest complaint for this movie is that they ripped off Superman in the opening sequence to the point were even someone who has never seen Superman would know its a parody. I also saw a few references from Batman and Spider-Man however I don't think anyone would really notice or care because it doesn't take a famous scene from their movie.

I would say the animation for Megamind is good but the problem with it is that their really isn't anything new or revelatory in it. Whenever a new animated film comes out I have high expectations that it will do something that has never really been done in animation like Wall-E (2008) or Shrek (2002), but this film uses the theme of super hero's which has already been done with the Incredibles (2004), not that its a bad thing its just I think that this film could have come up with a more original theme to approach its message of rivalry.

In terms of acting for this movie I did find it rather predictable for a Will Ferrell comedy . I did think Will Ferrell was good as Megamind and the best choice for a comedic bumbling villain that is trying to succeed but always fails. In terms of the antagonists I didn't care much for Jonah Hill as the bad guy and thought they should have brought in a more serious actor for his role as super villain yet I did like his transformation to become a villain. Brad Pitt as Metro Man was a bit too card board and typical Superhero image like Superman who is more of a celebrity than a hero and I mean Metro Man not superman. I thought the worst acting came from Tina Fey who I thought was just their to be the Lois Lane to the needed Superman in this movie. David Cross on the other hand I found to be perfect for the good old comedic villains sidekick that everyone loves to hate.

However I would say the story of a villain in desperate need of his rival was a good new story element and the new hero becomes the new villain with the old villain becoming the new hero . Although I didn't like Megamind I do think that the kids that see this will love it because it is primarily a family film and a few of the jokes were funny in it. So if you have kids than I suggest you take them out to see it, they will love it as much as I didn't.

1½/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Due Date - Warner Bros.

In every persons life their is a certain day that has been set in stone since the day you were born. Unfortunately you are bound to run into a few “deterrents” on the car ride. Tonight on In the Theatre with Murphy we will be discussing the biggest “deterrent” in a mans life with Due Date, with Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis and I would say Due Date is the a rather big deterrent for me to review.

Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is wanting to get home to Los Angeles to see the birth of his first child but is put on a no fly list after saying the T word in front of another passenger who also says the word resulting in both of them losing their flight and Peter misplacing his wallet. The other passenger Ethan (Zach Galifanakis) decides to make it up to him by driving both of them to Las Angeles. On the trip both of them prove to be the thorn in the others side as they continue to stray over where they really need to go and why.

From Todd Phillips I really did expect more after he did the Hangover which was one of the smartest comedies Ive seen in years. But this film is not nearly as good or as actively written. When I say actively written what I mean is its more original (if its a original script) or more respectable towards its source material (if adapted). With this movie I don't see hardly any originality. Looking at this film it seems to be a bit of mix between Road Trip and the Hangover and I do think Todd Phillips could have done a lot more to make Due Date more original.

The large reason I don't see much originality is mainly because of its leads. Zach G's character is far too similar to his character Alan from the Hangover. For example both of them have mental quirks and say the most random nonsense that makes what I say sound like Edger Alan Poe. When you see this movie it almost seems like its a spin off for is character from the Hangover and I didn't find anything unique or interesting from his character that I haven't seen before. Don't get me wrong I think he is a good comedian and when he needs to be he is very good at sensitive and emotional scenes. Jr on the other hand I thought was ok. Many of the scenes he is in often involve his in a very bad and comical mood making you wanna laugh your ass of because they are either so random or dangerous in a funny way that would kill a man instantly.

I didn't like the chemistry between the leads. The reason is that although both men are very funny, they are only funny in their own way. This means they both have their own style of comedy. Galifanakis style is very slapstick, pop culture and improve, relying on other sources to make a situation funny and using it at the most random time thinking “where the hell does e come up with this shit”. Jr. On the other hand relies on a more direct approach to his comedy such as Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes and by this I mean he intentionally makes fun of his targets and knows what he is talking about it knows when to say it to please his audience. I just think the two of them are two different to at least star in the same move. Its like Jr is from Neptune (Cool Blue humor) and Galifanakis is from Uranus (You know what type of humor Im talking about). 

As much as you think I hated this film with all my heart and soul their were some parts to it I did like. Their were a few jokes that I found very funny but I will remain silent about them for the audiences sake. One part I absolutely loved was the cinematography of the western USA . In many shots they showcase some incredible landscapes and I would say the director wanted to showcase the bright side of two very different people travelling together they can see some pretty great sights to get their mind of how much they dislike each other and gives them a chance to think about someone other than themselves, but this mostly applies to Jr's character.

So this movie isn't as good as the Hangover or some of Todd Phillips other work. The major reason I didn't like it was because many of it is just a repetition of his early work like Road Trip and the Hangover. Although the writing style is similar I do think they could have made this movie more original.

My Rating: 1/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Easy A - Screen Gems

Its pretty hard to lie about a movie ya hated and ya have every pulse in your brain wanting to tell the truth about a movie you really liked. Well a lie can spread really fast in our modern world even if its just a small simple one that you can't really support without concrete evidence. Well thats the film plot point of Easy A where when you walk out you get the feeling you and they got more than you bargained for.

Olive (Emma Stone) is a smart, funny and independent girl who is hardly noticed by her peers and whenever she is often ridiculed by them, but most harshly by the queen bee Marianne (Amanda Bynes). To make herself seem more respected she uses her greatest talent to make herself the most popular girl in school; lying. At a weekend party Olive reluctantly agrees to pretend to have sex with a gay guy (Dan Bryd) so homophobic bullies will stop tormenting him in exchange for payment. Olive soon turns into what I call a “plastic prostitute” as more boys pay her to pretend to have sex with her and Olive starts turning into the subject of the book she is reading for English class “The scarlet letter”, causing her to question herself.

This was a very good teen comedy and coming from someone who is in the middle of their college education you can tell Im not lying especially since I get a little drowsy watching teen comedies. It's a little hard for me to say what I liked about this movie but I could say that most of the acting in this movie ranges from average to good. Emma Stones role in the film is mostly static through it as her personality doesn't change that much, but her decisions and motives do start to change to about middle of the film when she begins to show reluctance for what she is doing. There is one scene in this movie where she completely opens up to the audience about her problems that i thought was just terrific and (you will all think Im insane) but for that scene along with her daily pod casts I think she deserves a nomination for best actress.

Another performance I liked was by Thomas Haden Church as Olives english teacher. What I really liked about him was that he reminded me a bit of my old politics teacher in high school and my Tv production teacher in college right now. What makes him good is that he's very convincing as that one teacher you had in school that looks like you hate him on the outside but on the inside you think he is the greatest teacher of all time since he is very straight forward with his performance and he doesn't drag the movie on or bore you to death. A performance I didn't like was by Amanda Bynes as Marianne because as good of an actress she is, I really haven't seen her go all the way outside of her box by having a more mature/adult role. I thought making her an antagonist was a good leap for her career but I think Hollywood is still treating her like a child and because she is so loveable and childish you don't want to see her take on a more serious role.

A few months ago I said in my review of Avatar that was like Pocahontas (1995), well in a very weird way Easy A is like Avatar. Both films do deal a great amount of their time to acceptance and being able to blend in as one of the cool blue kids. But like Avatar both films go on a downward spiral to their climaxes and enter either a state of rejection and hatred from the religious authority which in both cases are the political authorities of their cultural body. I also thought the video logs/blogs had some similarities since they both deal with one spilling out and discussing things they either wanna keep to themselves or just wanna blurt out to the world wide web.So you can see that apart from effects and budget both films deal a great amount of their time to acceptance and rejection.

As mentioned in the plot summary this film is partially based on the scarlet letter. In the Scarlet Letter a woman is found guilty of the crime of adultery at a time when the church had a great influence. As such she is forced to wear a large red A on her clothing to identify herself as such. In Easy A, the plot is modernized to deal with the additional themes of peer pressure but like the Scarlet Letter does deal with religious pressures. I think the major theme of both stories is Pressure and the ability to control it when you need to. When a person lies it runs fast and the pressure of it can easily change one's personality and as illustrated in the oscar worthy scene makes you different.

This is a good teen comedy and although I do think the acting could be a bit better I still found it interesting to see how the mind of a teenage girl can act out through internal and external actions.

My Rating: 2.5/4 Shamrocks