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

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Beauty & the Beast - Walt Disney Pitcures

On this special review of In the Theatre with Murphy Im going to do a re release of a timeless classic “Beauty and the Beast”. In 2002 Roger Ebert reviewed its first re release to home media on DVD, so i'll do a rerelease review for Blu-Ray. In todays's movie business we get at least six animated films come out in a year and most of them are done through the magic of computer animation. But back when I was still in diapers animation was done by hand and Beauty & the Beast is a excellent example of taking every advantage and solution you have with animation and make what is considered the best animated film of all time.


Belle (Paige 'O Hara) is a fish out of water in her small french village for her love of books and her dislike of the arrogant town hero Gaston (Richard White). When her father leaves for the county fair he finds himself trapped in the castle of a hideous Beast (Robbie Benson). Luckily Belle finds her father and reluctantly agrees to exchange her freedom for her fathers to the Beast. As with most good love stories the two start off hating each other but over time the do grow a fondness for each other. But as beautiful as their relationship blossoms it must be tested on what they are willing to do for each other to prove their the love to the other.


When Beauty & the Beast was released in 1991 it gained critical acclaim and proved that animation is not just for children since Beauty and the Beast proved to show such strong storytelling, excellent animation and the dealing of inner beauty vs outer beauty. The proof that Beauty & the Beast is a masterpiece is that it's the only animated film (until Up) to receive the highest honour of any film, the nomination for best picture. Although it honourably lost to Silence of the Lambs (1991) it still proved how far animation could go in the film industry with such classics as the Lion King (1994) and Toy Story (1995) with the sense that animation is not limited for souley children. Even as an adult now I see these movies as presenting very powerful feelings I could never understand as a child and now reflect on the struggles an adult would face such as what they wanna do in life and who they want to be with. 


The characters in Beauty & the Beast are very well done. Belle and the Beast make excellent chemistry together through out the process of the film and understanding that both have something that the other always wanted in a life partner. In Belle's case its someone who values her for her opinion and in the Beasts case someone who doesn't view him as a monster on the inside. The best scene of the two of them is the infamous ballroom scene which displays how much they understand about each other and of coerce how the use of computer animation is used to its full advantage at the time for the romantic scenario. The supporting characters in this film are animated on a brilliant level because being inanimate objects given life they are able to make full use of their vocal language as if they were real such as Mrs. Potts poring tea or Lumiere flirting.


The villain of the film is a rather interesting one. Gaston doesn't have any magical powers or a high intellect like other Disney villains that came before or after him. He is not a hideous monster on the outside like others and is actually a real “hunk-asourus” but this facade just hides the fact that he is the real monster of the film on the inside. Although he does lack powers like Ursula the sea which or Jafar the sorcerer he is just as sadistic and ruthless as either of them. He is considered the complete opposite of the Beast and the climax of the film proves it since he will go to any level to win Belle's heart and eliminate the competition. The final fight of the film is a clear example of two conflicting forces trying to win Belle's heart, and in the end it is the Beasts love for Belle that prevails over Gaston's love for himself.

The music of Beauty & the Beast is what earned this film an oscar winning. It has a beautiful soundtrack and has a song for everyone such as the hysteric “Be our Guest”, the obnoxious “Gaston”, the powerful “Kill the Beast” or the magnificent “Beauty & the Beast”. These songs are a brilliant reflection of characters and the animation reflects it perfectly.

Beauty & the Beast will always remain a classic among those great films that were released from the mid eighties to the start of the new millennium. Its well drawn, well acted, well sung and has made its mark in history as a true masterpiece that proves that true beauty is what is on the inside and love is the greatest judge of that. So if parents are thinking of what movies to buy their children for Christmas buy the Blu-Ray to show them how Disney made films through the art of pencils and not computers alone.


My Rating: 4/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The Social Network - Columbia Pitcures

Ironic isn't it, Ive been doing movie reviews for facebook for over a year now and now I'm doing a review for a movie that explains the origins of my “sponsor”. As most of us know we spend about a quarter to half our day on facebook for various reasons; chatting, messaging, liking, tagging and my personal favourite relationship changing. But just pause and think for a moment: how did all this start? When something big comes into our world we become so wrapped up in it (including myself) that we seem to ignore its origins. Now we've got a movie about facebook's origins and not only is it an accurate representation of how the site came to be what it is at the moment but a Hollywood blockbuster that is I think will make its mark in our era.

In 2003 Harvard Student Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is charged with violating personal privacy after creating a website (while drunk) that bashes every undergrad girl in Harvard and charged with a six month academic probation. His ability to create a website in one night while drunk attracts the attention of the Wiklevoss Twins (both played by Armie Hammer) and their partner Divya Narendra hire Mark to build them a social network site called ConnectU. Mark later has a better idea and together with his best friend forms a social network sight to connect people from all over the world and revolutionize the college experience.

This was without a doubt my favorite movie of the year, even beating Inception and Toy Story 3. One of the things that made me really like is that it's a bitter cold movie about a bitter cold story. The Social Network is a movie about a revolution and while most revolutions are a hot passionate war this revolution is the opposite a bitter cold conflict between different people either face to face or chat to chat. A prime example is in Eisenberg's performance; when Eisenberg is acting he is either being a total nerd or acting calm and cold to insure victory in a conflict. Eisenberg wasn't the only actor I thought was good; Justin Timberlake plays a supporting character in the movie and actually does a really good job in helping Zuckerburg with launching facebook. I think the reason so many of the actors in this movie did so well is because they let the ice run through them and that builds up great tension and some very cold chemistry.

Something else I really liked about this movie was its similarities to a fictional piece named Dead Poet's Society. The Social Network is obviously not a ripoff of Dead Poet's Society but the feel of the film is similar. When I saw Dead Poet's Society I saw a bunch of boys that wanted to change the way they thought by thinking their own way instead of their fathers way while the Social Network deals with someone who is trying to use their mind to their full potential by sharing socialism with the world. The thing that these two theories have in common is that they both deal with using one's mind to their full extend and going past what people say are the bounders even if those boundaries can lead to dangerous situations.

The last film David Fincher directed was The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) which made my #3 in 2008. As much as I loved this movie I still thought The Social Network was a leap forward in Finchers career as a director. In both films the main character is the subject of the entire story and everything revolves around that said person but what makes the Social Network better is that it's much more realistic and better explores in to the inner circle of the main characters desires and fears but lacks the emotions in Benjamin Button. David Finchers films are usually very dark so when I heard his next project was a biography on the creator of facebook, I was basically shocked because facebook is the recess of the Internet.

I really do think that the ten billion people that use facebook are all apart of this movie. I say this because every person who uses facebook will want to at least consider to see this movie to understand what has led them to want to join facebook. Their is no point in joining something that's the most popular thing at the moment if you don't understand where it came from and what it planned to do from the beginning. When you walk out of this film you will understand that it's a two hour lawsuit that lead up to facebooks creation but that's what its trying to do. It wants the audience to understand the struggle Zuckerburgs struggle and how even if you piss off the most powerful people you know you can still keep your cool if you have the brains and faith in what you do.

My Rating 4/4 Shamrocks


In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Vampires Suck - 20th Century Fox

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls its now official; I have seen a movie that will break my spirit better than Son of the Mask (2005), Gigli (2003) and Disaster Movie (2008) all combined into one. Vampires Suck is the latest reason to walk out of the theatre after seeing the very first scene of a movie. But at least the title works well.

The plot of Vampires Suck can be summed up in just a few worlds. It's a parody of the first three Twilight films. Many of the movies that are parodied in this movie are movies that have been seen in the past year or are whats most popular at the moment.

I never liked either the Twilight books are movies and Vampires Sucks actually makes me think those movies were good. Vampires Suck is just the same rubbish that the dynamic dumbo's Jason Friedburg and Aaron Seltzer have been cramming down our throats for the last five years and their films just keep getting worse every time. Vampires Suck has a bit of a thread but most of the movie is just as I said earlier a large parody of whatever is most popular at the time.

The acting, directing, editing, effects and if they even had a script are all around the same level; horrible. This is because of one reason; the directors are taking the easy way out to make money in the movie industry. Well the thing is there is no easy way to make a good movie,it takes months to come up with a good script and it only took these writers less than a weekend to make a piece of crap like this. If you don't read over your work or are too arrogant to believe your a terrible writer than trust me your work will go down the tubs. I wrote some bad papers in high school that and too this day I regret not rewriting them so screenwriters of the future READ OVER YOUR WORK.

So after reading all the mad things Ive had to say I think I can come to the conclusion that this is the WORST MOVIE EVER MADE. Attention Mildmay and Teeswater, why beat each other when there are horrible writers and directors that can be reached on the next flight to Toronto. Let us join forces to destroy something worse than the Sith or yourselves. But seriously folks its just a sad parody of all the movies I hated this year along with what is most popular at the moment. I say don't see it in theatres, don't rent it, don't download it off itunes or lime wire, don't watch it illegally online, just don't watch it at all. This movie actually makes all the garbage that came out this summer look like Christopher Nolans work. Readers if you can do one thing to prove you all love me don't see this piece of shit.

My Rating: Ya know what I have now seen a movie that sucks worse than 0/4 shamrocks. I wonder if this fits for a rating, A very raw and bitter WORSE THAN AMERICAN BEER. If you want to hear a shorter and less winey review see the video I just posted and leave a comment.

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The Karate Kid - Columbia Pitcures

In 1984 the Karate Kid was released and proved to be a great film that I my self hold very true to but many people thought that it ran a bit too long at 2 hours and it could have cut out at least ten to fifteen minuets. Well now its 2010 and we've got a new batter stepping up to plate, thats right after all the horrible unspeakable sequels that were released following 1984 are make has come out and this is at almost two and a half hours. I can say that this Kid might as well pack his GI bag cause thats how I felt waiting from this dragging movie to end.

Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mother have moved from Detroit to Beijing so his mother can find better work. His mothers actions have indirectly ruined the boys' life as he is constantly picked on by a neighbour hood bully who is a Kung Fu prodigy who see's him trying to make friends with a beautiful chinese girl who Dra develops feelings for. The bully eventually gangs up on him but is saved by a maintenance man Mr. Han (JackieChan) who decides to teach Dre how to do Kung Fu the proper way so they can both develop peace of mind over their problems.

First off this movie is obviously not as good as the original for a few reasons. The first one is very obvious: In the original film the main character Daniel LeRusso (Ralph Macchio) is learning real Karate (Goju-ryu to be specific) yet in this remake the main character is learning Kung Fu and the title is still the Karate Kid, the reason; Kung Fu is in and Karate is out yet the name is still popular enough to attract attention and as my Sensai told me only 1% of people practice real martial arts so it really doesn't matter to the 99% of people who don't take it anddon't care as long as it kicks but.

A major issue with this film is that its too much like the original Karate Kid. In almost every scene there is something that is just too similar to what the original was and all I can do is sit back and expect what I've already seen before only slower and more dragging in this movie. We all know that a remake mimics its source material more than half the time ratio of the film. Five years ago Tim Burton remade Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and while most of the plot remained the same their were a few touch ins that weren't in the original but I still thought they were good, but in this film they just drag on and replace what made the original film great with a continuous loop thatI don't think can really help the main character like in the original film.

The acting in this film is ok but I dint think it was that great. I thought Taraji J. Henson was just as obnoxious and annoying towards her son in the original as she was in this movie. We all know what she does is out of love for her son but the problem is she doesn't really know too much about letting the Kid think his problems through before she starts talking and because she does this it really gets on the audience's nerve as the main characteris trying to evolve and you would rather watch Jaden take his jacket off a thousand times before she starts talking. Jackie Chan was good but I thought he was a bitter piece of cardboard and doesn't really shape himself very well between being a handyman and kung fu teacher. However there is one scene in the movie where he really opens up and starts acting a bit more real but after that he's still cardboard and I really like Chans' work when he is more at ease with himself and serious at the same time like Rush Hour (1998) or Shanghi Noon (2000).

Jaden Smith, the new fresh prince was good in this movie but I've two major problems with him. One; He is too much like Will Smith. Whenever I see Jaden acting I really just see Will Smith and because of this its really hard for me to see Jaden stand out as his own actor instead of being in his dads shadow. If Jaden was a bit older and develop a bit more mature personality than I think he could have handled this on his own terms. My second problem is that the main character is too young to be facing the warrior like troubles of a boy. Because of this its not very realistic when it should be someone who's around sixteen facing these problems in the movie.

The two things I liked best in this movie was the cinematography and choreography. Many of the shots of China in the movie were just breath taking and you can tell the crew on the film really did their homework on where the best places are to shoot film in China such as the Great Wall for a training session. The choreography on the film was great because every fight scene felt real and looked like real Kung – Fu. With the title being a weak link the movie has to focus even more on its Kung – fu aspects and philosophies which the film does good in showcasing.

Running at more than two hours their really isnt much more to talk about with the new Karate Kid because if its running too long than people will start to get bored and even with this good information their will be people who are getting impatient with the fight sequences while others just want it to end. But at least this ones better than the sequels. If you wanna see the real Karate Kid go see the original because you will love it.

My Rating: 1/4 Shamrocks


In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Iron Man 2 - Paramount Pitcures

I wasn't surprised to find that a summer sequel like Iron Man 2 to do smoking well at the box office. What I was surprised about was that unlike its predecessor (2008),Iron Man 2 lacks many of the amazing things such as the acting and effects that were present in Iron Man 1. However I still found this movie to have a good followup to the last Iron Man because it is still able to showcase its dazzling effects without getting too overproduced (and I emphasis "too").

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has become the golden rule of the superhero, Never reveal your identity to the public. By braking this rule it has turned him into basically a full blown idiot. This is influenced him to treat his entire life as an after party with his armor as his tuxedo. Beneath this Tony's core is killing him and for his health appoints his assistant Virginia (Gwyneth Paltrow) CEO of Stark Industries. Meanwhile Starks laziness has left him vulnerable for a Russian physicist 'IvanVanko/Whiplash' (Mickey Roark) who holds a deep and boiling grudge against Tony's blood to team up with one of his rivals Justin Hammer(Sam Rockwell) to better Stark at the next expo resulting in some pretty sweet battle sequences.

Ok, first off this is defiantly not as good as the first Iron Man. The first Iron Man had a much more solid plot and the main character portrayed his genius much better than he did in this movie along with his responsibilities. I mean a few good chuckles from Stark when he's not being Iron Man is ok but when he's using that suit as a tuxedo that really makes me sulk my head down in shame. The opening of the film was extremely boring and slowing down the plot in my opinion and I didn't really wake up until the fight sequence between Iron Man and Big Machine. I think the major problem with this story is that now that his identity has gone public he cannot hold onto the identities of two namesakes and because of it he leads the praise of being Iron Man goes to his "Tony Stark" head and he falls back from being the great hero in Iron Man 1 leading this movie to loose some points from me.

However I would say that although the acting wasn't perfect it is still good enough to qualify with the first Iron Man and the first two Spider Man films. But let me assure you its way better than Fantastic Four (2005). I thought the best acting came from Mickey Roark as Whiplash who's vendetta against Stark causes him to be a bit more of a tragic villain who is doing his deeds to avenge someone he loves rather than Hammer who's just doing whats he's doing to prove he's better than Stark and even in his darkest moments you can still feel the good in Roarks performance. I thought Roarks performance was good but not as good as Randy the Ram Robinson from the Wrestler (2008).

Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as Lt. James Rhodes and although I thought Cheadle was good in his part. I found Howard a better actor in the position of Starks right handman. Although uncertain I would like to see how Howard would have handled being War Machine in comparison to Cheadle who I thought did ok as it.

My biggest compliment of this film is its great use of special effects. Its only been two years since Iron Man 1 so the technologies pretty much the same as in the first one but this movie still packs heat with its effects, especially with its fighting and flying sequences.

So I think Iron Man 2 is just ok and it really isn't as electric as its predecessor some of the other Marvel or Superhero films that took the name superhero seriously. Well at the very least I have gotta praise it for not adding a scene where Robert Downey Jr. struts his stuff down Wall St in his Iron Man suit looking really bass ass, that would have landed this movie very deep in the mud.

My Rating 2/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - How to train your Dragon - Dreamworks Animation SKG

Well it looks like Dreamworks has finally learned something from their rivals Pixar by not only making a film that has a decent to good story but has also made full use of their animation system by making their best written and best animated since the first Shrek; It's a bit a three way mix in about the classic coming of age genre with the boy – dog, son – father and man – woman relationship film with the boy – dog (or in this case dragon) being the showcase of the film.

Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is a viking in training who has big dreams of being a powerful viking like his father (Gerard Butler) but has one problem he is the physically weakest warrior in his village and is picked on by the other vikings in training for it but most harshly by his love interest Astrid (America Ferrara). However Hiccups life takes a turn for the worse when he successfully captures an extremely rare dragon. Doesn't seem so bad at first but when he finds his capture in the forest he is reluctant to kill it due to his gentle nature and chooses to study the dragon and begins to believe that maybe his peoples belief about dragons may be wrong thanks to forming a bond with the Dragon he has named Toothless.

I loved this movie. It was funny, well structured and the flying sequences are gorgeous and epic. But a small problem is that although the flying sequences are epic the film does seem to rely on them a bit more than dialogue but the good thing is that the movie doesn't try to over produce itself with their special effects because if so than the film would considerably flop. At the start of 2010 I saw an independent film called Over Canada that showcased the beauty of the Canadian landmass from coast to coast. Although Over Canada was live action and How to Train your Dragon isn't both films are able to showcase what it wants the audience to see it through the most beautiful manner from eyes of the sky. Because of how they showcase it the audience can have their breath taken away and can then follow the plot and see that the cinematography is helping to tell the story since the effects for How to Train Your Dragon are so good they help expand on the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless while Over Canada was trying to showcase how beautiful Canada is to its people. Although different intentions both films get their point clear through their cinematography and effects.

The acting in the film is good but its not excellent like with some other animated films like Up (2009) or Beauty and the Beast (1991). At first Hiccup seams to be a bit woddan and one dimensional but by id say three eighths of the way through he does start to flesh out more and expand of his actions and reactions with his fellow characters and helps the audience stay primarily focused on him. Gerard Butler and America Ferrara were also good in their roles and most of their good acting comes out of their characters relationships with Hiccup along with their later feelings towards both Hiccup and Toothless. I thought Craig Ferguson was hilarious as Gobber, Hiccups teacher who has that real sense of a Scotsman humor that both kids and adults will find funny and his scenes really made me laugh out loud due to his husky voice and raw sense of humor. I thought that the rest of the characters were played very good but a problem I had with them is that their stereotypes have been done before in both live action and animation but its not necessary the writers fault, these character traits are what audiences will remember and in about twenty years or so it wont matter because those traits will pretty much live on their own, its just passing from one film to another, so id say the supporting cast was very well done. The best acting in my opinion came from the body language and chemistry between Toothless and Hiccup because these dragons are portrayed as if they were real animals. By using their body language I think people can get a feeling that these animals are real and the bond between boy and dragon is just as heart warming as boy and dog. I am also very glad the dragons couldn't talk like cartoons because it would defeat their purpose as real animals and really be cartoon characters and I don't think the audience would take them seriously.

This really is Dreamworks Animations best film they have ever made, it doesn't have stale or weak jokes, the plot works well, the chemistry is excellent, the acting could be a bit better and the cinematography and effects are epic. I just wish I had seen it in 3D from what other critics have said. But evan if you haven't seen it in 3D its still a great film and I think it will be one of the animation milestones on the 2010's.

My Rating 4/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Alice in Wonderland - Walt Disney Pitcures

Guess what everyone watching grass grow is actually more fun than you think especially if you've seen Walt Disney's live action remake of the classic Alice in Wonderland. I'll let it out now I never liked Alice in Wonderland in any of its variations I found it to be slow, moody and just plain boring. Although their was one thing I did like from it.

Alice (Mia Wasikowska) who is being pressured into a marriage tries to avoid her idiotic fiance and looses her way as she enters Wonderland which is now in the clutches of the evil Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) but is granted help by the locals such as the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) to defeat the queen who according to them is the Alice that will kill the Queens most deadly lightning breathing beast and restore the right of ruler to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).

I didn't think this movie lives up too much. As I said before the story is boring (from my point of view). I know I have people out there that will say otherwise but the reason I think its boring is because of the background and the texture of the film, pretty much every part of it is broken down and the look of many of the CG characters such as the bloodhound, the twins and the flowers is very mouldy and can easily make you fall asleep along with the background even if its from the imagination of a 19 year old girl.

Tim Burton used to be one of my favourite directors such because of his creative approaches to films like Batman (1989), Edward Scissorhands (1990) and my personal favourite Beettlejuice (1988) but now he seems to be losing his creative spark due to the fact that the movie business is changing too fast and Burton doesn't like it, meaning he has to reluctantly play along and do things their way. And if it means doing things Hollywoods way than it means all Burton will be able to do is remakes and although they still have a bit of his original flare they seem to lack any originality. Alice in Wonderland is really nothing more than the animated film put in live action and having all the beauty of hand drawn animation sucked right out of it just so Hollywood can think of easy idea's to make easy money. I just hope one day Burton will realize this and go back to his drawing board.

However one thing I did like was the performance by Johnny Depp who I think was brilliant as the Mad Hatter because the character has a unique way of thinking that a cardboard actor would have a difficult time portraying on camera but giving that type of role to someone like Johnny Depp would mean ideas would just come to the director and the character is nailed perfectly. I also enjoyed the acting by Alan Rickman as the caterpillar who as a figure of wisdom is able to help Alice through her quest. Alice on the other hand I found to be unbelievably boring, she hardly says anything interesting that would keep me in the mood and that the character needed to be given deeper emotion such as in the animated adaption. The rest of the cast I thought was alright but weren't as good as Depp or Rickman.

Is this a good movie.... no. It really is nothing more than Hollywood trying to make some extra money by ripping off a classic (that I wasn't really fond of) and by wasting the good time and skills off many talented actors in this bad knockoff of a classic children s story.


My Rating 1/4 Shamrocks

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

A dream is the state of mind when your subconscious is superior over the rest of your mind. In the state of dreams you are at your most powerful yet at the same time you are at your most vulnerable and thats what the new Christopher Nolan epic Inception is about. This truly is Nolan's attempt to make a much more mysterious and thoughtful film and the result is what appears to be the best movie of the summer.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an “extractor” who's job is to enter people's dreams through advanced technology and takes information from them. His capacities and abilities have cost him his wife (Marion Cotillard) who continues to haunt him through his own dreams turning them into his worst nightmare which have cost him his children and nationality but is granted the chance to regain them if he agrees to do one more heist; the only difference is instead of taking something he and his team have to plant an idea into someones mind through the more difficult process of Inception.

This is a really good movie by far and most likely the most healthy fish in this oil spilled cost of bad summer movies. Inception stands out among others because it is very structured and very thought through. Although the world of dreams has been done before such as with Nightmare on Elm Street and the Matrix Trilogy, Inception takes those beliefs evan deeper and into more emotional driven levels such as Dom's burning desire to see his children again and the dangers of his memories.

Since the majority of this film takes place in the world of dreams the logic of this film is based purely what we can remember. In dreams we have a considerable level of control over what happens and this is portrayed good in the film because its showcasing what we've learned from dreams such as the fact that nobody remembers how the dream began and the level of control you have (at your most powerful) yet at the same time how the dream can spin out of control and into a horrible nightmare (at your most vulnerable) which is portrayed mostly with Don and his target Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) who both have a lot of issues that their subconscious hold on too. Just like how nothing is ever erased on the internet for good, the mind works the same way; nothing goes away and most of your fears come to haunt you in your nightmares and the movie is great at showcasing this theory.

I thought that DiCaprio was brilliant in his role where he plays out the a calm and collected individual who tries to go with the flow of things but has a very fiery nature on the inside which is what a dream can be like because it can shift from being a wonderful fantasy to a horrible nightmare and I think this indirect comparison may earn him a nomination for best actor. I also enjoyed the acting by DiCaprio's co-stars who all brought an extra sense of might to the plot as each one has a piece of expertisein the world of dreams that Dom iisn't able to do on his own. Ellen Paige is a real genius in this film as she has a large sense of knowledge that she lends to the plot and she also has the innocence to show the viewers that her character is still catching on to the story like us.

Now comes the part you don't like when it comes to a movie everyone (including me) loved; the cons, or in this case just “con”. The only thing I didn't like about Inception was that the pacing was extremely slow. The movie is good with all the levelling of the dreams but the problem is that it drags on for too long and at two and a half hours Im left with “Ok this is a really good movie but they could cut out at least twenty minuets out of it to keep people focused and entertained.”

Although the plot to the film is a bit muddy thats alright, its being intentional with this so the audience can understand the main character is struggling with his problems as much as the audience is trying to solve out this ingenious plot of great sci fi film. Inception is arguably the best movie of the summer and I highly recommend this film for future viewers to see a film that will make you both think hard and feel hard for this movie.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Toy Story 3 - Walt Disney Pitcures/Pixar Animation Studios

Before a senior learned to fly, or a robot discovered beauty, or a baby learned to tame a beast and before a little bug started a rebellion, their was a toy who had an evan greater adventure; the story of a Toy. There is only one thing in the world of cinema harder to find than a good performance by Jim Carrey these days. That would be a trilogy were all the movies are fresh and stay true to the themes present in all three. I think I speak for everyone when I say Toy Story 3 is as fresh and sweet as any of my Grandma's date squares. Its by far my favourite film of the summer (which is really no surprise) and has that flavor of imagination in a film I haven't experienced since I was a child. 

Andy is heading off to college in a few days and the toys are worried that their master will dispose of them as they always feared this day would come. Woody (Tom Hanks) tries to keep his optimism and knowing Andy cares about them too much that he would throw them away instead of putting them in the attic. However a mix-up with the trash causes the toys to be relocated to a Day Care where at first it seems to be a haven for toys but after Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) makes an astonishing discovery the day care is revealed to be something much more atrocious.

It really is a rare find to find a trilogy that doesn't have a single bad member but then again this is coming from Pixar who have never made bad film (so far). Before Toy Story 3 came out I had fears that with such a large gab between its predecessor it wouldn't live up to the series reputation and would suffer a fate similar to many Disney sequels of the films made during Walts era, but I was proven wrong because these are films about a boy and his toys and how ageing effects how he will react towards their existence and influence in his life which would make each film more mature and grow in a line that cant get overblown or weakly plotted. The visuals are also pretty good in this film as they stay consistent with Toy Story 2 but go a little better as time has progressed.

I thought Tom Hanks was terrific as Woody as he has been in the past but I think this was his best performance in the Toy Story trilogy because if there is one thing I see Tom Hanks doing good in a series its evolving but still keeping his characters traits and attributes constant. Aside from Tom Hanks most of the other acting in the film was pretty good. Most of the original actors returned for the threequal and like Hanks keep their original character attributes in tack, such as Tim Allan, Joan Cusack and John Ratzenburg (who is in every Pixar film). I thought Ned Beatty made an excellent tragic villain as Lotso Hug Bear as he shows drive in scenes when he's supposed to be kind and later vulnerability in his voice as the pressure of his life gets put on him. Michael Keaton was frikkin hilarious as Ken in so many flamboyant ways I couldn't control my laughter because his performance was so smart and funny, at the end of the film I asked myself; So that guy was Batman?

This was a great film, I thought it was the best film of the summer (which is no surprise since this summer doesn't look so good) I also think it lives up to its predecessors as being smart, funny and heartfelt. The kids are going to love this film and anyone who ever saw the original when I was a kid I say go see it because It will bring back a lot of memories of the good old days. I say a big thumbs up and go and see it I was extremely happy with it.

My Rating: 4/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Date Night - 20th Century Fox

“Date Night”, the last time I had something like that was two years ago when I was young and In love; now Im old and bitter spending my time writing my reviews and looking for work. Oops wrong story I was supposed to be talking about the movie Date Night starring Steve Carrell and Tina Fey. I can tell you this; the best way to see this movie is with someone because It will make you feel better than the movie already is if you were alone like I was.

Phil and Claire (Carrell and Fey) are a married couple that follow the same boring routine every week concluding it with the same boring friday night out. Phil who is tired of the same routine decides that he and Claire should try something different by going out to a “very” fancy seafood restaurant and steal a reservation from another couple, halfway through their meal ( I wish halfway through the movie) a problem comes up where the New York mafia demands a flash drive that they think they stole from their boss (and by they I me the couple who had the reservation).

This movie is like the Hangover, but without the Alcohol or the “convincing hookers”. I say this because it's a screwball comedy film where a few people have a idea and it branches into something that goes terrible wrong and they have to solve every little piece of it. This movie can get somewhat confusion and can go off track for the audience but it can be avoided if the audience restrict their attention to Tina Fey and Steve Carrell who I only got a few small giggles out off. The supporting cast isn't much to look at because their the ones that really confuse you and dig a majority of plot holes for the audience which is a downturn for the movie. James Franco who has a brief role in the movie shows off the worst acting he has ever shown by being stupid and obnoxious and its not convincing enough and in my opinion he should stick to action and drama. However I did a few laughs on Mark Walberg who 's scenes were awkward but they still worked because it was put in a situation where both leas would have a hard time expressing their energy.

I thought this movie was weak and It could have been done a lot better if it had a more solid cast of characters and filled its plot holes better. As I said at the beginning the best way to see this movie is with someone like your girlfriend, wife, hooker or bitch or girl – friend, like my best friend did when we were supposed to be having a boys night out by seeing the A – Team and getting hammered at my place afterwards.

My Rating: 1.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The A-Team - 20th Century Fox

If you need to see a kick ass movie this summer and nothing else good is playing than you should go see; The A - Team. For those readers who are too young to remember the A – Team were the pinnacle of 80's television. At first I thought this film would be a sad knock off because its based off the original classical show with different actors. But when you look at it from my point of view these guys are just as perfect for our generation as they were for the last.

In the middle of the Iraq War the A Team is a highly regarded combat force serving the USA military, until their final mission when the Iraqi's are planning on shipping counterfeit US currency and their job is to make sure it doesn't enter Bagdad or else. The plan is initially successful until their commanding officer (who was the one who authorized the mission) is killed and the boys are arrested and stripped of their rank. Later on they break each other out and plan to clear their name in the sweetest fashion; revenge.

I didn't watch much of The A – Team when I was younger for two very important reasons; It was way past my bed time when they were airing reruns and there is no way in hell my mum would let me watch it. But now that I'm older I can watch whatever I want, which Is what the movies about; doing what you want and doing it your way instead of the way everyone else thinks it should be done. I think the buddy chemistry in this film is great because it has four guys that have something special to bring to their group and can overcome most obstacles and how each one individually grows or shrinks on the other three. Liam Neeson is without a doubt terrific as Hannibal, if you give any part to him from a Jedi to a talking lion he will get a good sense of it and give the audience whatever they want, which will leave them impressed. The other three members were good but not great, Bradley Cooper and Sharlto Coplay played their roles good but I didn't see much development from either of them and the relationship between the Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel characters is just so boring and it completely slows down the plot. My opinion on Quinton “Rampage” Jackson is this; He's just the shoe shin boy in the presence of the great Mr. T. I pity the fool who upstage Mr. T.

The other characters in this film arnt much to talk about, their about as boring as any supporting characters can get, most of them are too predictable in their involvement with the plot and don't give much chemistry to either themselves or the A – Team. I was a bit peeved that they set the movie during the Iraq War over the Vietnam was which is when the movie originally took place. But lets not forget this movie has been remade to fit OUR time so it makes better sense to set the movie now over then.

Overall I think The A – Team is a good movie but not a great one and it could have done better in terms of supporting characters and talking after its sources more seriously, but still the movie is an action packed thriller and the perfect buddy film of the year, (just make sure you or your best friend dont bring any girls with ya).

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Avatar - 20th Century Fox

After 12 long years, James Cameron has returned for what is now the biggest blockbuster of the decade, Avatar which also makes up for being my favourite movie of 2009 and my major pick for Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards. When Cameron directed Titanic it made my favourite movie of that year, and now that Cameron has come out with Avatar i have to say he's done it again.

Avatar takes place in the future, when corruption in big business has sunk even lower as a major corporation is mining an extremely valuable substance from the planet Pandora and want the natives known as the Navi out-of-the-way so they can excavate the planet. A group of scientists that wish to study the natives have been given the task of making peace with them and make them move away from the excavation sites. They do this by transferring their minds into bodies of the natives called Avatars so they can fully communicate with the natives. The newest member an ex marine; Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) gets very close to a native which causes him to think hard on who's to team he's playing on.

This was by far one of the best films of 2009 and my favourite. First off the effects for this film were flawless, beautiful and utterly amazing (especially if you saw it in 3D like I did). Its almost impossible to tell that the Navi were computer generated since they looked so bloody real (even more real than Morgan Freeman's voice) and every piece of the jungle and everything that lives in this world acts for itself. This means that the world of Pandora has a personality of its own and it portrays it through its showcasing of the beauty in all forms of nature and teaching us that there is beauty in our environment too, and that there are things in our environment we take for granted over others.

Like Jurassic Park before it this films real stars are the special effects present in the Navi as they prove to be the protagonists of the film compared to us who are the initial antagonists as the majority of the humans plan to destroy the life force of the Navi for profit. The way in which the humans are portrayed in this film is that they care too much about material possessions and not enough about what they have in front of them and ignoring their actions which is the flaw in the majority of their actions. Pandora on the other hand is a character itself and is the overall protagonist since everything on Pandora has a mind of its own and will do whatever its can to protect the other as everything on Pandora is connected in one way or another, as we with Earth.

The acting in this film is a bit mediocre because I don't see enough “electricity” coming from the actors (especially the antagonists) which either slows the movie down or when they are showing energy they are going to fast and you can't make much use out of their actions. The acting that is good in this film is coming directly from the Navi and as I said before they are the stars of this film. The reason their acting is better than the humans in this film is that they pace themselves and they know when and when to show the right amount of positive or negative or as most of them have shown; neutral energy.

I've heard a lot of talk that this film is very similar like Disney's Pocahontas (1995). Well although I do see some similarities between the two films there are many major differences; Avatar emphasizes its message of peace more effectively and its a piece a original story instead of a disunited historical documentary. Don't get me wrong I liked Pocahontas but its hard to deny that Avatar is better and is a major blockbuster of its time while Pocahontas wasn't as much.

Overall this was a great film that I think has set itself as the 3D king of the new ages. In my opinion I still hold Titanic as being my favourite James Cameron film but this film has far beaten Titanic in terms of effects and originality but Titanic was still better paced and acted which is what I value most in a movie. Even though the acting was a bit mediocre its still good and people are going to want to see this over and over again because of its beauty, storytelling and its mastery of special effects. And remember if you plan to see it again in theatre's see it in 3D, it will be the best thing you ever saw on screen.

My Rating 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Sherlock Holmes - Warner Bros.

Elementary my dear reader a film review is not a gossip paper meant to spill secrets of the hottest stars to your idiot teenage girl or twilight cult follower (both of which are the same). It is to expand the elements of a plot to a reader that is curious about a movie they want to see so they may think if they should see it or not, or have just seen it and want to read another s opinion. Well my opinion on Sherlock Holmes is nothing short of excellence and pride. Its been a long time since a good detective film was made that included a real mystery and a plot that had so many twists and turns it would make your head spin round and round for hours so pay very close attention when you see this movie.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his trusted apprentice/sidekick Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) have been given their latest assignment; Holmes most menacing foe Lord Blackwood has been sentenced to death under high treason for the practice of witchcraft on a innocent civilian, however after his execution a witness stated that they saw Blackwood rise from the dead. Holmes sceptical yet bizarre nature but now solve the case of how the dead can rise again.

This was arguably one of my favourite films of the year, its smart, funny and very, very, very ten more times thorough. If you have ever read the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or seen on of the old British Films than you would know what your in for right? Well Sort of. This movie has a great blend of action and wit, their is not even one second of this film that i would consider uninteresting because the main character is always thinking of something important of how to get in the case or get out of the mess.

One would argue that the effects in this movie are old school, and their right it is old school, thats because all the effects are reasonable for the late 19th century such as horse chases as apposed to car chases and barrel explosions as apposed to dynamite, so it all fits with the story perfectly. The acting in this movie is pretty good, Jude Law and Mark Strong both deliver good performances knowing their place in the story as either protagonist or antagonist. The women in this movie are good but they can do better, Rachel McAdams was a devil as Holmes rival however she didn't seem to be that electric and contribute much to the story as well as Watsons girlfriend who isn't much than Holmes latest experiment on Watsons life and his dog.

But the piece de la resistance in this movie is Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes. If you look at this man's character you can see that he is always thinking of his next 100 moves on his case, his life, or screwing up Watsons life. The man knows what he's doing in the movie, he knows how it should be done when Arthur Conan created him. I have a very strong hunch that Jr. May be nominated for best actor at the Oscars for his incredible performance as the greatest mind in fictional history.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - Warner Bros.

The magical world of Harry Potter is back for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and after waiting two long years since The Order of the Phoenix the wait is worth it since The Half Blood Price is one of the best of the six films and i would dare say its the most mature and serious of all six as I takes us into some of the most serious concerns and emotions that can be presented in both a book and a movie with it being stationed more into a real world drama than in a fantasy book. Its also the most revolutionary of all six from the looks of it its going to take home a few oscar's this year.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) begins his sixth year at Hogwarts and his world is now fully aware of Lord Voldemort's (Ralph Finnes) return and decide to stop living in false peace. As Harry begins his sixth year Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) decides to give Harry special history lessons on Voldemorts past and the rehiring of an old friend of Dumbledore who has something important that Dumbledore needs. Meanwhile Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) has been chosen by Voldemort to perform a task that will impact his destiny and the destiny of his world.

Of all the Harry Potter films this is basically the most mature far more than the others. Half Blood Price was my favorite Harry Potter book because it ties up almost all the loose ends that were left in the last five books especially Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire and it also sets up for the conclusion in Deathly Hallows but im not going to say how it sets up because i value my life. While i liked the movie overall their were a few aspects i didn't like mostly concerning with time ratio and pacing. As with the past five movies this one seems to cut more than whats necessary for example half the memories in the book are cut out to fit the movie and from what ive seen some of it was cut out because its either unimaginable on screen or unsuitable for a PG audience. Thats one of the big issues with an adapted screenplay is that it cant be taken word for word for a lot of reasons such as it taking up too much time from the audience or the case might be that their are some parts within the book that are too difficult to show on screen like the spirit of Lenny's aunt in Of Mice and Men (1992) or the ghost chariot in a Christmas Carol (1951) but the thing is these were just hallucinations from characters, the reason for the over amount of cutting is simple; Its a PG movie and the book is six hundred pages long so if its word for word than parents will get board and their kids will get restless so everyone will leave. My other major concern is the love triangle of Gryffindor house and the fact that its taking up far to much of this film, we know these kids are growing up and developing in many ways but their are far more important things going on with young people today than love and that sometimes one must pursue their own destiny than stay with a shared destiny.

Those are the only things i didn't like about the film everything else on the other hand was very good especially the acting and character developments from the characters. The look of this movie is really something terrific, having evolved from the past movies including the interior and exterior of this world along with the best special effects and shots of all the movies. All three of the main actors (Daniel Radcliffe Rupert Grint & Emma Watson) for this movie have really evolved since 2001 and in this movie their showing a lot more mature characteristics around each other such as passion, anger and love. The supporting cast on the other hand has changed the most in this movie. Many of the characters in the movie have shown a small to major change in their personality, their outlook on life and their relationship with both the pro and antagonist. The biggest change seems to come from Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) who we all remember as being played as being a slimy cowardly bully who thought he was king of the world thanks to his bloodline, wealth and status in society, but now all of that seems to be tarnished thanks to Harry and the Order of the Phoenix. And because these were the things he valued most in his life without it he feels his life is ruined so he will do anything to regain it and later on begins to show real emotion and change and ever regret in the second half of the movie. Michael Gambon who took over the role of Dumbledore from the late Richard Harris has such great presence and energy in this movie from beginning to end and I really like how he has evolved his relationship with Harry from a student/teacher to more of a grandson/grandfather relationship with them dealing with issues concerning who they are and taking a very comfortable approach to serious situations. The newest addition to the cast Jim Broadbant who plays Horace Slughorn is good example of a good apple in a basket of bad ones. For example in the past five movies it seems everyone in Slytherin house is someone you cant trust or is pure evil, its almost like they were born bad. But Broadbants jolly and proud performance along with his brilliant chemistry with Danial Radcliffe and Michael Gambon proves that you cant judge a book by its cover proving that if there are a lot of bad apples in a basket your bound to find at least one or two good ones and vis-versa. I also enjoyed the brief performance by Hero Finnes as a young Tom Riddle, who being a kid who is new to acting can pull off all the emotions a kid has including curiosity, fear and innocence without the pressures of being an actor letting him slip on what makes a person a person, even though we all know what will happen to his character in the future.

The tone of this movie is really something incredible especially for a fantasy film. Its a lot darker than the last one and a lot more steep and tense and I think the reason is that there is much more of the muggle world (or our world) in this film and because the movie is set in a fictional world were used to seeing the typical tones and emotions we've seen in films like Lord of the Rings or Narnia but because this world of witches and wizards shares the same time and space with the muggle world certain characteristics can cross over or blend in with others thus setting a realistic tone in a world of fantasy and a magical sense (or evil sense as some would call it) in the real world. So if you have kids don't take any little ones because I think that this film is targeting pre teens to adults audiences which proves that Harry Potter isn't just for kids especially since J.K Rowling gets more serious with each of her books. So i say this film is definitely worth your while the cast is great, the effects are great, the pacing could do a bit better. But the real credit does go to J.K Rowling who I think is a blessing on this era since she was able to turn an entire generation of kids (including myself) onto reading, kudos Rowling and I look forward to the Deathly Hallows.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks