The Lone Ranger

Plot: Native American warrior Tonto recounts the untold tales that transformed John Reid, a man of the law, into a legend of justice. (via.)

Matt's Rating: C+

Matt's Review: I can't get that god damned William Tell song out of my head.

There's not much substance to this summer blockbuster. It's a fun film that is loaded with runaway trains, gun fights, and leaping white horses, but it lacks any of the things that make good superhero movies...good. You never truly root for the Lone Ranger, it's incredibly predictable, and none of the characters have any depth.

Armie Hammer actually does a decent job of portraying this new Lone Ranger. The problem lies in the fact that he's too goofy. This is not the fault of Hammer but its just how Gore Verbinski and the writers have transformed the character.  If you're looking for an intense new Lone Ranger, you wont find it here. And ultimately that's the biggest problem with the film. There is virtually no change in Armie Screwdriver's character. He starts as the anti-gun slightly bumbling lawyer named John Reid and transforms into a gun wielding bumbling guy in a mask named The Lone Ranger. He never finds that edge that you would hope your new hero of the west would have.

There is also no theme or message in this action packed summer flick. Where films like Man of Steel, Dark Knight, and Iron Man show the origins of heroes with a solid theme or subplot, Lone Ranger just shows his quirky origins without any of the additional elements needed to tell a compelling story.

The movie tries to get a little dark at times but never holds that mood long enough to maintain a constant tone. We watch through a reflection in John Reid's eyes as a man cuts out another man's heart and eats it. But this gory moment, and the feelings that come with it, is never replicated. So, in the end this scene sticks in your mind simply because it was out of place.

While in the Pirate films Verbinski showed us why he is a talented version of Michael Bay, in Lone Ranger he misses in all the ways he succeeded during his last franchise. The action sequences are a little too long, the characters are flat, and the suspense is virtually non-existent.

On the bright side, Johnny Depp is great and he and Armie Crowbar have really good chemistry. In fact, they are the sole reason I could add the "+" to the" C" I was going to give the film. Depp brings the same life and comedy to Tonto that he brought to his part in Pirates. In fact his scenes with the white horse (another bright spot in the film) are some of the best moments in the film. But it might not be a good thing that the best parts of a movie are between your highest paid actor and an animal. 

It's a fun summer movie but nothing more than that. 

Behind the Candelabra

Plot: Filmmaker Steven Soderbergh presents the story of the flamboyant pianist Liberace, and his long-term partner, Scott Thorson. (via)


Matt's Rating: B-

Nicole's Rating: C+

Matt: I'm just not sure about this one.

Nicole: It was...weird. I was really excited to see it. Because I had heard so many great things about it from various sources, including the fact that it was the kind of movie that could be watched over and over again.

Matt: Well then maybe we need to watch it over and over again to fully grasp how good it was?

N: That's okay.

M: One thing I know for sure is that Matt Damon and Michael Douglas were both fantastic. Yes?

N: Yeah. They were both great. Douglas truly embodied Liberace. And Damon was convincing as a young and naive man who is easily swept up in Liberace's grandeur. But I just didn't see the point of the movie.

M: I think Damon has perfected subtle acting and that is on fully display here. I'm not sure that there is ever a "point" or theme in biopics. Which is why I am not a huge fan of them. They all seem to be the same: Musician gets famous, musician finds love, cocaine is sniffed, musician dies, people remember. It gets old after a while.

N: Is Damon #1 in your mantorage?

M: No....maybe...anyway...

N: Anyway...I don't know what else to say. I didn't hate this but I didn't really like it either. It was well made, well acted, but overall kinda meh.

M: I liked that it was kind of a "different" biopic. As in, they only showed us his last 10 years. They did an interesting thing by summing up Liberace's life with this one relationship.

N: Well that's because it was based off of the book written by Scott Thorson about their time together.

M: I guess I'm just not ready to dismiss it. Everything about it points to it being a good movie. It was very well acted, well written, well directed, and well shot. I guess the thing that really bothered me was I felt like I had seen it all before. Right?

N: Definitely. And the hokey ending did not help anything.

M: Well, I think that was an homage to how he ended his shows.

N: I get that. It was still corny.

M: In the end, I think I really want to like this film but it just feels like Walk the Line put through a bedazzler.

N: I think I've got what the problem is. Because I hear what you're saying - there's nothing wrong with the film in terms of quality. It's a good film. But it's Thorson's story told in a Liberace biopic. So, it's lacking focus. And that's why I think I'm left wondering - what's the point?

M: Agreed. But the point of the film, or Soderbergh's point, is that Liberace's extravagant celebrity lifestyle ultimately leaves him lonely. But that concept doesn't go with Thorson as the protaganist. So the film feels disconnected.

(Man*) Date Night - Star Trek: Into Darkness

Plot: When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew. (via)

Matt's Rating: B+

*Note: I saw this with a couple of my buddies and without Nicole. So she will not be partaking in this review. If you want a woman's take on the movie you're going to have to wait.

Matt's Review: This is one of the few films I have seen recently that I can say was well worth the price of admission. I have said it once, and I'll say it again: JJ Abrams is the new master of the action genre. He makes action movies that do more than show you explosions and gun fights. In his films, you find yourself caring about the characters and in constant legitimate suspense.  No matter how many times Kirk makes a rash decision, and even though we have seen him get out of them a million times, we still get nervous about him and his crew. Even the cheesy moments fit.  Only Abrams and Whedon have been able to truly master the art of cheese. When Kirk thinks the battle is lost he turns to his crew and says "I'm sorry." Now, you know he is going to say it and we've seen that moment numerous times but for whatever reason it seems genuine. That is due to nothing more than good solid direction.

The writing in Into Darkness is just as clever as the first Abrams' Star Trek and it remains relatively faithful to the original source material. Every single character is fleshed out and serves an important role in the film, which is something most action films lack. The cast is not there to simply act as foils to Kirk, rather they progress the plot and have actual depth.

All the actors excel. Chris Pine is a great Kirk, Zachary Quinto is a perfect Spock, and I think Simon Pegg might be better than any of them.  His performance will be dismissed because of his comedic background but he really stands out here. He never seems like he is trying to act. Benedict Cumberbatch is also fantastic (if you haven't watched him in the BBC's "Sherlock".....what are you doing?) and he fit the role perfectly.  However, his character is my one complaint. I felt like his character's original motivation (pardon the vagueness, I'm trying to not give away any spoilers) was not as intense as I thought it would be.  His initial actions seem more evil than his initial rationale for doing them.  As the movie progresses, and he has more wrongdoings done to him, his motivation becomes stronger but up to that point we have a seemingly evil terrorist who's motivation appears to be simply "I don't like how you do things." But as I said, as the plot develops his story and reasons gets stronger until I finally felt like his actions equaled his reasons.

I can't give it an A because the film lacks other feelings beside tremendous suspense and thrill. The film pins you to your seat and never lets go but it is missing that emotional thread that the first one had.  The "Kirk loves his crew" theme seems a little over done and the Spock/Kirk friendship thread is only kept fresh by the twist later in the film.  The introduction of Benedict Cumberbatch's character seems to be the only shot of truly fresh material that fuels the movie.  Still, for a film titled Into Darkness I expected it to be a little, well, darker. Cumberbatch's story allows the film to teeter on dark territories but I'm not sure it ever quite goes the whole 9 yards.

I can't sit here and tell you it's better than the first one. Maybe it's because I felt the first one was so fresh and new that any sequel wouldn't be able to recreate that feeling of rebirth that the first one had. That being said, Into Darkness is probably the best action film you will see this year. While I don't think it is quite as good as the first Abrams' film, I think it is as good of a sequel as can be made.

Date Night - The Great Gatsby

Plot: An apsipring writer falls under the spell of an aloof millionaire with designs for the young scribe's unhappily married cousin in director Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's celebrated novel. It's the spring of 1922, and wide-eyed Midwesterner Nick Carraway has just moved to New York City in pursuit of the American Dream. Settling into a home next door to wealthy Jay Gatsby, Carraway grows increasingly fascinated by the elaborate parties held at his new neighbor's estate. Meanwhile, across the bay, Carraway's cousin Daisy flounders in her marriage to philandering aristocrat Tom Buchanan. (via.)

Matt's Rating: B-

Nicole's Rating: B-

Matt: The Great Gatsby is one of my top five favorite books.

Nicole: I'd have to say it's up there for me as well. That being said, what'd you think of Baz Luhrmann's interpretation of the famous text? 

M: I don't think anybody is ever going to turn it into a good movie. 

N: So you didn't like it? 

M: I liked it better than the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow Gatsby. 

N: I've never seen that one. But I kind of feel the same way. There was a lot that I liked and a lot that was true to the novel. The actors all fit their characters. The opulence of the time was very... opulent. And yet, something feels like it was missing. 

M: I don't know what opulence means. 

N: Geez, Matt.

M: There were definitely more things to like than there weren't. I liked the added storyline about Nick in the sanitorium. It was a nice way to make his narration more than just narration.  

N: That was definitely a nice touch. And again, Tobey Maguire really fit the role of Nick Carraway as I envisioned him in my mind - as did all the actors. 

M: All of the actors were good, but the standout to me was Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan. I don't think the acting or the writing was the problem. 

N: But there was a problem... right? I'm finding it so hard to pin down. 

M: It was too glitzy of a movie to be an accurate depiction of the novel. 

N: I absolutely disagree.

M: How can you disagree? 

N: Didn't we just look up the word opulence? Gatsby's parties were over the top, ridiculous affairs - rumors of which Gatsby hoped would draw Daisy to his home. Yes, those scenes were completely Luhrmanned, but I think that's really his main strength as a director when tackling this book. It's the glitz, and glam, and over the top-ness of that Jazz Age/Prohibition Era. 

M: I have no problem with his parties being over the top. But the whole movie is over the top. Klipspringer's character was a great example of what I mean. In the book he's just some guy that sleeps at Gatsby's house and plays the piano. But in the movie, he plays a giant organ and is a descendant of Beethoven. The entire interpretation was treated this way.  And it shouldn't be. Gatsby's facade is larger than life, but nothing else about the story is. And that was missing. 

N: So the heart of it? 

M: Yeah. I feel like the heart of Fitzgerald's story, of living in excess and wealth and the dangers of it took a backseat to Gatsby and his love story. 

N: Agreed. It's the brilliance of the novel that's missing. There was nothing technically wrong with the movie. But I just don't think anyone will ever be able to capture what The Great Gatsby truly is. I wonder why they don't stop trying? 

M: They don't stop trying, because like the douchebags in the film, Hollywood continues to try and create something that can't be created. 

N: By douchebags, you mean - Daisy, Tom, Gatsby just going along with their ridiculous plans and hurting everyone around them? 

M: Yes. I mean Baz Luhrmann didn't do a bad job. I just think the genius of the novel comes from Fitzgerald talking about extravagance and excess without actually talking about it. So there's nothing melodramatic about the novel. 

N: So what's your final word? 

M: It's as good of an interpretation as we're going to get. But the source material is just not conducive to film.     B-. 

N: I agree with you there, I think. B-. And please, read the book. 

This is 40 (Date Night with My Sister)

Plot: Five years after writer/director Judd Apatow introduced us to Pete and Debbie in 'Knocked Up', Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann reprise their roles as a husband and wife both approaching a milestone meltdown in 'This is 40', an unfiltered, comedic look inside the life of an American family. via. 

Nicole's Rating: C+

Nicole's Review: My parents suggested my sister and I watch this while I was home visiting this past weekend. They had rented it and were excited to exclaim, repeatedly, that they had it for another 24 hours. We should watch it, they said. 

It's difficult to review a movie like This is 40 when I was so clearly not the target audience. I'm pushing 30,  I'm unmarried, I don't have kids. I don't get it because I can't. Whereas, for my parents - here's a movie that depicts how hard it is to be married. How you can really hate and love a person simultaneously. My parents were able to laugh because they'd been there. I haven't been anywhere. 

Instead, I related more to the kids- who are played by Judd Apatow and Leslie Mann's real life children. I can remember listening to my parents fight through walls and it can be terribly frightening and confusing. Maudie and Iris Apatow were phenominal in this movie. 

Matt isn't really a fan of Judd Apatow. He thinks the man is self-serving and sacrifices story for self-promotion. I don't have a problem with the guy. 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up are two movies that consistently make me laugh. Having seen and liked Knocked Up, I was excited to revisit Pete and Debbie in This is 40. The movie had its moments - Paul Rudd can do no wrong and Leslie Mann can hold her own as well. It was the explorations of the ups and downs of a marriage, and it definitely did what it set out to do. Made me sporadically laugh and occasionally cry.

But I can not for the life of my figure out WHY the movie needed to be over two hours long! There was absolutely no need for it and it made an otherwise decent movie drag on to the point where any reasonable person would turn it off and walk away. Less is more, Mr. Apatow. Less is more. 

Date Night - Paul

Plot: Two sci-fi comic geeks embark upon a pilgrimage in a RV to the center of America's UFO heartland: Nevada's infamous Area 51. While in the middle of the desert, the two friends encounter a fugitive alien by the name of Paul. Somewhat reluctantly , they embark upon an adventure that will change not just their lives, but also the lives of the friends and enemies they encounter along the way. via.

Nicole's Rating: B -

Matt's Rating: B

Nicole: I was a little disappointed with this one. It was mildly entertaining, especially toward the end, but compared to Simon Pegg's other films, it was a real dud. And he's the reason I wanted to see the movie.

Matt: I don't think it was a dud. I definitely wasn't dissappointed, I was pleasantly surprised because nothing about this movie originally intrigued me.

N: I don't know - I love Shaun of the Dead and British humour tends to get me going as well - this seemed to be an American rip off of a British comedy and - I don't know if they completely succeeded.

M: I really like Shaun of the Dead. But - Hot Fuzz was subpar and so I expected another subpar movie. But Paul did make me laugh.

N: Yeah - I guess I'm being a little harsh. I thought parts of it were pretty funny, even though it was kind of slow to start and lagged in a few places. The last half hour or so was pretty great.

M: You were laughing harder than I was the whole time. At least it made me giggle on a fairly consistent basis.

N: Well, I liked the joke about American's being weird because they leave the teabag in their tea!

M: You're stupid.

N:

M: You see, you got nothing.

N: Shut up. I love the Brits.

M: Speaking of things we loved, was this Seth Rogen's best acting job or am I crazy?

N: You crazy. He's great in Knocked Up and 40 Year Old Virgin, and I totally loved Zac and Miri Make a Porno.

M: He was funny in all of those, but he nailed the voice acting in this.

N: Okay, Matt. Whatever you say.

M: I also really liked Jason Bateman in this. I thought he was stand out. But when isn't he?

N: Yes! That was exciting!

M: Should we wrap up?

N: Yeah...

M: It was a fun time at the movies and I was entertained for almost the entire movie. But, it never had me dying of laughter.

N: Same, I guess. The true test of a good movie for me is how long I think about it afterward. And I sort of forgot we saw this almost immediately. I wasn't even sure what I'd write for our review. So, it was a relaxing movie night? I guess? With laughs?

M: Again. You're stupid.

N: That's not nice.

Date Night - SuckerPunch

Plot: The story of Alice in Wonderland receives a hyper-violent makeover in Watchmen and 300 director Zack Snyder's fantastical tale of a young psychiatric patient who escapes into a vivid world of fantasy after being committed to a mental hospital by her abusive stepfather. Set in the 1950s, Sucker Punch takes viewers on an incredible journey into the mind of Babydoll (Emily Browning), who finds herself at the mercy of her malevolent stepfather after her mother passes away. With no remaining family and no friends to turn to, her stepfather has her committed to a bleak mental hospital, where she is scheduled to receive a lobotomy in five days. As the procedure draws near, Babydoll creates a phantasmagorical alternate reality in which she must seek out five items in order to secure her freedom. Should she fail, her mind isn't the only thing she stands to lose. Abbie Cornish, Vanessa Hudgens, Carla Gugino, and Jon Hamm co-star in a film co-written by Snyder and Steve Shibuya. via.

Matt's Rating: D+

Nicole's Rating: D-

Matt: Sooooooo, SuckerPunch sucked. Thoughts?

Nicole: It really, really did. So disappointing because I was looking forward to it. I think it's important to note, for our readers, that: there's this "plot" and there's an unnecessary subplot and THEN there's an escapist plot as well. Ugh, I can't wait till we're finished with this so we can stop talking about this movie. So, why, if you can narrow it down, did you think it blows?

M: Well, you would think that hot women with guns, nazi zombies filled with steam, dragon, and robots would all equal a movie worthy of a film titled SuckerPunch.

N: Don't forget the orcs!

M: But, Zach Snyder just epically failed. There was zero characterization, and a razor thin plot that was just there because some producer told him "Zach, you cant just have girls shooting things for two and a half hours."

N: See, I actually disagree with that. I think he really thinks he made a good movie with a solid plot and a lot of heart. Which is what makes it even worse.

M: The visuals were cool but that's it. I mean it's ok to have a movie with a goofy or no plot but it MUST then have edge of your seat action, and this just didnt But I know you liked the beginning.

N: The beginning was AMAZING. I thought, wow. We're in for something really great here. Up until he switched to the subplot/alternate reality, it was great. I think he could have stuck with the reality plot and still kept the action escapist plots. His movie would have been 1000 times better.

M: Agreed. There was NOOOOO need for him to delve into this odd 1950's orphan/stripper fantasy subplot.

N: Except to get them half naked.

M: Yes, which isn't the worst thing ever. He could have easily told his story in the "present day setting" but he apparently doesnt know how to write a movie. I'm not saying the women weren't sexy, cause they were. Especially when they were shooting big guns. Just everything else about the movie sucked.

N: They were hot. But he could have just as easily put then in no clothes for the escapist part of the plot. To cope with her surroundings she goes into videogame hero survival mode.

M: YES NAKED! good idea. You should make movies.

N: If people keep making movies like this, I really think I should start.

M: Emily Browning was decent though. I mean I almost feel bad for her for being in this movie. Hell, John Hamm out acted everybody and he was in the film for like 30 seconds!

N: John Hamm is always the best. His five seconds were my favorite of the movie. What was your favorite part?

M: That's because you like his...hmmm...bulge.

N: Yes. Yes I do. And you liked the bustier and panty shots. We're even.

M: My favorite part was everytime Emily Browning was in her third reality school girl outfit.

N: So, our favorite parts were super yummy but STILL not enough. Closing thoughts?

M: It was pointless. Like watching somebody play a long video game. I mean there were goals to achieve, levels, and even boss fights!!! It's not even a good Sunday action movie. D+

N: My favorite part of this movie was the lobotomy because I wish I would have scheduled one for myself instead. No, no - my favorite part of this movie was when we played with the dachshund puppy at the pet store in the mall right before the movie started. A horrible, horrible movie with zero point and not enough of anything else to make it appealing in any sense. If you can find it, try to watch the first twenty minutes ONLY and then go bake a cake or do something else with your life. D-. (Not an F because the movie was on par with Snyder's others stylistically.)

Date Night - The Social Network

Plot: On a fall night in 2003, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius Mark Zuckerberg sits down at his computer and heatedly begins working on a new idea. In a fury of blogging and programming, what begins in his dorm room soon becomes a global social network and a revolution in communication. A mere six years and 500 million friends later, Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in history... but for this entrepreneur, success leads to both personal and legal complications.

Matt's Rating: A

Nicole's Rating: B+

Nicole: Just as a disclaimer and an apology - sorry we've been totally absent lately. Matt is a head coach and has been busy head coaching, and I just found out today that my brain is broken and has been broken for the past few weeks. More on that soon (we hope) but, sorry. And we'll try to do better. And - on with the show? So - we saw The Social Network days ago. How'd you like it, Matt?

Matt: I liked it. But, I liked The King's Speech better. I thought the social network had a very special feel to it. Which is typical of David Fincher films. I think that's also the sign of a great film, when it has an intangible feel and mood to it that stay consistent. I also really enjoyed the writing, but then again Aaron SOrkin is my hero. When I grow up I want to be him.

N: A recovered coke-aholic? Can we say that?

M: Also known as a writer?

N: True. I liked it as well. But blah, blah, special. It was good because it defines not only a generation, but our society as a whole. It was well written and funny. But I liked The King's Speech and Black Swan so much better and so every time I think back on the movie I get really pissed because it's going to win. And I don't want it to.

M: But it will, for all teh reasons you stated. It's hard for the Academy to NOT give the Oscar to a generation defining piece. Plus Jesse Eisenburgh was very good. Actually almost all the acting was good.

N: Ugh, even Justin Timberlake was good even though I wanted to punch him in the face.

M: Exactly! He served his purpose. I also like the irony that the creator of facebook is one of the most socially incapable people EVER (according to the movie).

N: Well, and that was the point, for the movie. Zuckerberg's character was more symbolic than realistic, according to everything I've read. Which made the movie and the statement it was trying to make all the more interesting.

M: Anything you didn't like?

N: No, I guess there really wasn't anything I didn't like. I say that begrudgingly. It dragged a little.. in the second act. (Look at me! Movie talk!) But, it was a pretty darn good movie.

M: I also feel like this was a movie that could have totally failed. It would have been easy to do some lame biopic on Zuckerberg or do some stylistic and artsy film about the decay of society. But the filmmakers COMPLETELY nailed the movie. It was executed very, very well. The only thing I think it lacked was cinematography. Both Black Swan and King's Speech were shot better. So, in closing?

N: Ugh. B+. Because it was a good movie, but it wasn't a beautiful movie. It defined my entire life, but it also won't really stick with me in any way. I loved watching it, but I won't buy it. And I don't think I'll ever feel the need to see it again.

M: A. Easy top 5 movie of the year and its a social commentary that doesn't come across as preachy. Which is difficult to do.

Date Night - No Strings Attached

Plot: Lifelong friends Adam (Ashton Kutcher) and Emma (Natalie Portman) attempt to avoid falling in love after falling into each other's beds in this comedy exploring the complexities and quirks of having friends with benefits. via.

(Note from Nicole: the rest of this synopsis on Fandango says that he's surprised to have fallen for Emma given that he's never felt this way about his many other conquests. I'm not sure what movie that reviewer saw, but it wasn't this one.)

Nicole's Rating: B-

Matt's Rating: B-

Nicole: I'm glad you agreed to see this movie with me!

Matt: So am I...

N: Well, did you like it? I liked it. I thought it was pretty freaking funny.

M: It was funny. It was a good romantic comedy. A good date night comedy. Bahhh!

N: Um.

M: I think Ashton Kutcher is funny. And he had good chemistry with Natalie Portman.

N: She's super hot, isn't she?

M: Yes. Not as hot as you...

N: Yeah, whatever. But I was actually surprised to hear you say you liked Ashton in this when we left the theater. I feel like he gets a bad rap. I mean, I guess he did make What Happens in Vegas with Cameron Diaz, but. I think he's really funny and I thought he played a different character from what he usually plays in this one.

M: He's done a lot of really bad movies. But this wasn't one of them. He played a kind-hearted, funny guy.

N: He was so sweet! So many scenes, even when he delivered a funny line - it was just always so subtle and you could tell it was coming from a sweet place? I feel like I'm making it sound like he was super cheese ball. He wasn't.

M: But that's what was good. He did everything subtly sweet, which prevented it from being cheese ball. I think what also helped was that it was produced by Natalie Portman and I think she knows what she's doing.

N: It was? And she does? I feel like you're just saying that because you have a crush on her.

M: Yes, yes and yes.

N: Okay. Well, I don't see how that has anything to do with anything. It was a decent script, even though it was predictable, and it was very well cast, down to Ludacris playing one of Kutcher's hilarious side-kick best friends.

M: Oh, Ludacris was hilarious. Almost everything he said was funny. But I disagree about the script, I think the acting helped the writing.

N: I didn't say it was a good script. I said it was decent. It was a decent story.

M: Agreed. I think there were some things they could have explored a little more.

N: Like what? It was a rom-com... what was there to explore?

M: Well, Cary Elwes character.

N: Cary Elwes career is suffering. That's all he was there for.

M: He didn't do anything! He just grew a beard and said five lines that weren't funny.

N: Poor Cary Elwes. So, what did you think overall?

M: It was an above average romantic comedy. I laughed out loud a lot.

N: Agreed. I liked it a lot. I loved all of the characters. Oh! I forgot to mention that Mindy Kaling was in it too and I love her! Who doesn't love her? And Kevin Kline. A lot of funny people came together and made this a really enjoyable date night movie.

M: I really wanted to give it a C+ because I feel obligated. Because I'm a man. But - for a rom-com it was pretty good. B-.

Not Really A Date Night: Movies We Saw Without Eachother

Toy Story 3
Plot: Woody, Buzz and the whole gang are back. As their owner Andy prepares to depart for college, his loyal toys find themselves in daycare where untamed tots with their sticky little fingers do not play nice. So, it's all for one and one for all as they join Barbie's counterpart Ken, a thespian hedgehog named Mr. Pricklepants and a pink, strawberry-scented teddy bear called Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear to plan their great escape. via.
Nicole's Rating: A+
Review: Better than the first two and I loved the first two. This was - beyond a fun and animated movie. It was full of action and emotion that I hadn't at all anticipated. There is a scene where the toys accept their fate and - I can't quite describe to you how hard I cried. I don't think any movie, ever, has ever touched on mortality in such an accurate and poignant way. If you think I'm kidding, I'm not.

The Fighter
Plot: A look at the early years of boxer "Irish" Micky Ward and his brother who helped train him before going pro in the mid 1980s.
Matt's Rating: B+
Review: As a boxing movie (Hollywood pumps out about 2 a year) its pretty good. Probably the best since Rocky or Cinderalla Man but it's still not a great movie. It's above average. It's real, gritty, very well acted, and you feel yourself really hating and caring about certain characters. BUT it was very anti-climactic. I'm not saying that because I'm a typical must-need-a-last-second-knockout movie goer. But rather, I just didn't care about Micky Ward. So, his last fight of the movie was good but when it was over I felt "eh." Plus, from a pure sports stand-point, how do you NOT delve into his epic trilogy of fights with Gatti.

But what was a major turn off for me, and I know people aren't going to like this, was Mark Wahlberg. He just isn't a great actor. He's good, but not great. I can almost guarantee that without Christian Bale's performance and great supporting actress' (Amy Adams and Melissa Leo) the film fails. I know Micky Ward was suppose to be this silent confident guy, and his brother was the charismatic one, but Wahlberg has maybe one page of dialogue!! The rest of the time he just boxes and looks tough. Hell, Keanu Reeves can do that. I know it was his dream project and he spent years getting it together but acting wise, he wasn't impressive. He filled the role fine, but wasn't stunningly good. Which is why I dont understand all the people clamoring for him to get an Oscar nod. Give him an Oscar as a producer but not as an actor. Mark Wahlberg has done only one movie where he was impressive, Boogie Nights. Go look at his resume, it's very Nick Cage-esk. Lots of bad action films. But I digress...

As I previously stated, Christian Bale is AMAZING! Every time he's on screen you can't take your eyes off of him. He doesn't even look like Christian bale. I mean the man fuckin transformed into this character. Plus, Amy Adams was great and still sexy (regardless of how deep Boston they made her look) and Melissa Leo plays a fantastically annoying helicopter mom.

One of the better films of the year, but not hte best one. Probably 6 or 7 on this year's top 10 list.

How Do You Know
Plot: After being cut from the USA softball team and feeling a bit past her prime, Lisa finds herself evaluating her life and in the middle of a love triangle, as a corporate guy in crisis competes with her current, baseball-playing beau. via.
Nicole's Rating: C+
Review: It was ... strange. Paul Rudd, as he always is and should be, was the best part of the movie. Owen Wilson wasn't too bad either. But Reese Witherspoon just missed the mark. Sometimes she forgot to act - which was really obvious in every instance where she suddenly remembered to act. Her voice and mannerisms would completely change from one scene to the next. I'll tell you who I loved. Kathryn Hahn. She's a gorgeous character actress who always plays the best friend, and frankly, someone needs to give her her own shit. I love her in everything she does. Anyway - the movie was awkward and slow moving. And the back story didn't really make a lot of sense and took too long to actually become clear. Cute, but not all that great. Also - is Jack Nicholson losing his voice? Maybe he should retire. Sean Connery retired when his voice went (as in, lost the famous voice and started sounding really old). I think it might be time for Jack to move on. To retirement, not to the other side.

Date Night - The King's Speech

Plot: Tells the story of the man who became King George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth II. After his brother abdicates, George ('Bertie') reluctantly assumes the throne. Plagued by a dreaded stammer and considered unfit to be king, Bertie engages the help of an unorthodox speech therapist named Lionel Logue. Through a set of unexpected techniques, and as a result of an unlikely friendship, Bertie is able to find his voice and boldly lead the country through war. via

Matt's Rating: A

Nicole's Rating: A

Matt: Even though I haven't seen Social Network yet, this is the best movie I've seen this year. It's only the second Colin firth movie I've seen but he is quickly climbing my list of modern day great actors.

Nicole: First being, Bridget Jones?

M: Yup.well I saw Pride and Prejudice a while back.

N: Wait, and you've seen Love Actually ("I hate Uncle Jamie!")

M: Never the whole thing

N: Oh. But still. He's climbing. Good stuff. We know I love him. All of him. Even when he's stuttering King George. I don't care.

M: I believe its stammering

N: Okay, whatever. PC.

M: Is there a difference??

N: No idea.

M: Anyway. The movie was great - characters, writing, cinematography, acting, everything. And the story was very compelling for such a simple premise, that's impressive.

N: I mean, there isn't much more I can say except - I agree. I thought everyone in this movie was amazing. Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Crazy... I mean, Carter. (Seriously, love her) Geoffrey Rush. And it seemed to remain true to history/culture/whatever else. Cinematography - yes. So many shots were SO BEAUTIFUL. Even when they were sitting in that dingy room - it still looked gorgeous.

M: Yes. I mean it's just such a smart film. Which is what I loved about it.

N: Colin Firth won the Globe, fyi.

M: I know and Bale did, too. Social Network took home best picture. But it's impressive that Firth had to master a stammer, voice, and mannerisms of a person and he fuckin NAILED it. I'm also a sucker for a good historical piece.

N: Yeah, he did! That's my sexy, Firth!

M: Even with the stammer, sexy?

N: Isn't that what I said like, five minutes ago!? Pay attention!

M: SORRY!

N: Favorite scene? Just because I know we both had them - scenes that we found really moving...

M: The one where he talks about the nanny. I don't want to give much away, but the whole singing thing got to me. As a whole it just had so many smart and moving moments. Very well executed. And you? (Note from Nicole: singing his thoughts along to the tune of a popular song is one of the treatments.)

N: For me it was both he (Firth) and Lionel (Rush) were in the church fighting over whether or not taking these speech lessons and being the king was something Firth could do. And he shouts over Rush - "I have a voice!" I just loved that. I really loved the two of the them together - I loved that the movie was really about the two of them. Their friendship. How the courage the one was lacking was found in the encouragement and belief of the other. Loved it. So what are you going to give it?

M: My one gripe would be that I would have liked to see more of Rush's subplot. I don't think they explored that and used it as much as they could have. However, besides that the movie was great. I'm going to give it an A.

N: Where, I thought there was of Rush's subplot was too much and that what they had was superfluous, which is why I am also giving it an A. That's probably absolute proof that you can never make anybody happy. So just do it the way you want to...

M: Agreed. Real quick, I often find myself finding a reason to not give a movie an A, just because of how good a movie needs to be to get an A. I don't want it to be easy. I'm trying to do that here but as I run through each scene in my head - every one served a purpose, which is the sign of great film making. Ok, I'm done.

Date Night - True Grit

Plot: Mattie Ross arrives in Fort Smith as her family's sole representative, in search of the coward Tom Chaney (Brolin), who is said to have killed her father for two gold pieces before setting out into Indian Territory as a fugitive. Beholden to follow Chaney and see him hanged, Mattie enlists the help of a man rumored to be the most ruthless U.S. Marshal in town - trigger-happy, drunken Rooster Cogburn (Bridges), who, after many objections, agrees to hunt Chaney. But Chaney is already the target of the talkative Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon), who also aims to catch the killer and bring him back to Texas for an ample reward - which brings the trio to collide on the trail. Each willful and stubborn, each driven by their own rough moral codes, this unlikely posse rides towards an unpredictable reckoning, as they find themselves enveloped in the stuff of legend: mischief and brutality, courage and disillusion, doggedness and unalloyed love. via.

Matt's Rating: B-

Nicole's Rating: B-

Matt: What's his face was really good. I keep forgetting his name. The Dude.

Nicole: Jeff Bridges. He was fantastic. I feel like he's always fantastic.

M: The acting in general was pretty good. Everyone was pretty good - Matt Damon was good. But Bridges was visibly a step above everybody else.

N: That's because he's the man. The movie was slow to start, being extremely dialogue heavy and having scenes that lasted longer than they needed to. But right from the start you are blown away by the performance of that young actress and Jeff Bridges.

M: Some of the scenes were a little long and dialogue heavy like you said, but that's a trademark of the Coen brothers. But what was missing was the dark edge and the suspense that usually come with their scenes. It just didn't have the tension that No Country had.

N: And yet, I liked this better than No Country - even though this also had the disappointing ending. I hate movies that just end. I'd like to see the original to see how much the Coen brothers changed. It's apparent that the writing was phenomenal.

M: Oh my god. How do you not like No Country? Better question - how do you like this better than No Country?

N: I was so ridiculously disappointed by the end. If a movie isn't wrapped up to my satisfaction, it can ruin the entire experience for me. And it could be the best movie ever with what I deem a crappy ending and the whole thing is just done for me. I enjoyed this better because of the characters. I was really drawn to all of them, Mattie, Rooster Cogburn, LaBoeuf - even Ned Pepper and that crazy doctor that showed up for five seconds.

M: The characters were good and ultimately it was a character piece which is typical of the Coen brothers. But, even with character pieces, you need some underlying driving plot. And this seemed to lose its plot. So it became just watching these characters interact with each other. But ultimately I didn't care if they achieved their goals or not.

N: Well, it's not like I scored this all that high. If it wasn't for the acting and the well rounded characters, I'd be giving the thing a C. I agree with everything you're saying.

M: Yeah - if this was directed by anyone else, this would be getting a C, C+ at most. But the Coen brothers are one of my favorite directors, and in my opinion, top five directors. So I think the direction and writing raises it to a B-.

N: I'd say acting and writing before direction, but okay.

M: I disagree.

N: All right, well - what are your final thoughts?

M: I was expecting a 3:10 to Yuma or No Country for Old Men but instead I got an old school western, which I'm not a fan of. If you like old westerns, you'll like this movie.

N: The movie wasn't all that I expected. Josh Brolin only has a small part and I was hoping for more from him because I think he's great as well. But, it was enjoyable. And while I think this could have used some editing, I enjoy the slow cadence of a good western. I'd recommend seeing it but also ignoring all the hype.

Date Night - Black Swan

Plot: Nina (Portman) is a ballerina in a New York City ballet company whose life, like all those in her profession, is completely consumed with dance. She lives with her obsessive former ballerina mother Erica (Hershey) who exerts a suffocating control over her. When artistic director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Ryder) for the opening production of their new season, Swan Lake, Nina is his first choice. But Nina has competition: a new dancer, Lily (Kunis), who impresses Leroy as well. Swan Lake requires a dancer who can play both the White Swan with innocence and grace, and the Black Swan, who represents guile and sensuality. Nina fits the White Swan role perfectly but Lily is the personification of the Black Swan. As the two young dancers expand their rivalry into a twisted friendship, Nina begins to get more in touch with her dark side - a recklessness that threatens to destroy her. via.


Matt's Rating: A-

Nicole's Rating: A

Matt: I can't get Black Swan out of my head.

Nicole: I know... me either. You ready to review this shit?

M: Yeah. I just noticed something interesting though. if you look at the IMDb credits, each character name has an alternate title like Nina/The Swan Queen.

N: Yeah, I saw that. The movie plays out like the ballet.

M: I kind of figured as much. It will definitely get nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

N: Do you think it's worthy of it? I know you have your own ideas of what makes an award winning movie.

M: I think it's worth it. It forces the audience to think about what they are watching...and thats an art that has been lost in recent cinema. I also thought that early on in the movie I was invested in Nina. Which speaks to Natilie Portman's acting, which was really good. Not amazing but pretty fuckin good.

N: I thought she was pretty amazing. In any role she takes... she's never the same.

M: She has a termendous amount of range. Plus shes sexy. Not so much in this one unless your into really freaky shit I thought Kunis didnt have enough screen time to truly shine but maybe that was done on purpose

N: Well.. it's not her story If you think about what we saw in the ballet the Black Swan only has one act even though she changes the whole course of the story. Mila Kunis is essentially the Black Swan. (sidenote: I'm basing this off the movie. I've never seen the ballet)

M: Good point. You're smart.

N: I try.

M: But I like Aronofsky's style. It's dark and creepy but realistic all at once.

N: I was thinking... I know you haven't seen a lot of his other movies. And I've not seen Fountain or Wrestler but I love both Pi and Requiem... Black Swan seems to follow the same sort of themes of both of his early movies except... you can tell he's grown as a director.

M: I don't know enough of his work to judge. I liked the Wrestler better but it's a different type of movie. This was a thriller and borderline horror with some pretty trippy stuff going on but it was all done very subtly, which I applaud. He didn't hit us over the head with the creepy stuff.

N: I was insanely creeped out. It was subtle, but I was definitely shaken by it.

M: I think "mentally shaken" is the best way to describe how I felt when I left the theater.

N: For sure. So what are you going to give it?

M: I'm going to give it an A-. It's pretty darn good and a great piece of cinema but it's a couple moments short of being great. I can tell you right now, there are going to be people who see it, think its too weird and immediatly dismiss it as too odd and therefore bad. And thats a shame...these are the same people who will love Transformers 3

N: How does Transformers 3 come into this?

M: It doesn't and shouldn't...but somehow did...and thats why I hate it. I was trying to say that the general public have become numb to good films and just want to see boobies and robots. So whats your grade?

N: I think I'm going to give it an A. Because there were a couple parts that I thought were a little cheesy. Not full of cheese, but just.... the movie would have been better off without them. I hated the scene with Winona in the hospital. And some of the turning into the swan stuff was a bit over the top.

M: Its also a movie that I think needs to be viewed a couple times to truly grasp it. Which is usually the sign of a good movie.

N: Would you go see it again?

M: Yes, but I'm also a film nerd. I think most people wouldn't. I would go to see it again, not because I liked it so much, but to understand it better and study it as a film.

N: I would too... I think I'm going to buy it when it comes out. And now I want to catch up and see The Fountain and The Wrestler. Closing thoughts?

M: It's definitely a Top 5 movie of the year and it will keep your mind reeling for hours. But, it's a little too weird at times.

N: Agreed.

Date Night - Unstoppable

Plot: In this action thriller from director Tony Scott, rookie train operator Will (Chris Pine) and grizzled veteran engineer Frank (Denzel Washington) learn that a runaway locomotive carrying carloads of dangerous chemicals is headed for Will's small Pennsylvania hometown, where his wife and young daughter live. In order to save the day, they must figure out how to catch up to the rogue engine, and stop it before harm comes to the town. Standing in their way is Galvin (Kevin Dunn), the head of the company who is more interested in saving the stock price than lives. On the plus side, the duo have competent corporate employee Connie (Rosario Dawson) on the radio, talking them through their various attempts to corral and then stop the potentially lethal locomotive. via

Matt's Rating: C+

Nicole's Rating: B-

Matt: I don't understand why this is getting such good ratings.

Nicole: Me neither. I mean, it was good. I enjoyed it a lot. I thought both Denzel and Chris Pine were really great in it. And I'd recommend people go see it. But I'm not really understanding the hype.

M: Agreed. Publish post.

N: I would never tell anyone, OH MY GOD YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE. And I feel like that's the sort of attention it's getting.

M: I just never cared enough about any of the characters to be truly held in suspense.

N: I found a lot of it suspenseful. I grabbed onto you how many times? When Chris Pine jams his foot and falls! That was scary and suspenseful. When you think the train is going to run right into all those annoying screaming kids! That was suspenseful.

M: I thought the most suspenseful part of the movie was when it was going to hit the horses.

N: Oh gosh, that was another part.

M: There was no victim to be killed, there was no bad guy to hate, there was no dramatic tension. So it became difficult to get emotionally invested in the story.

N: And then all they did was stop the train.

M: Yeah. It was anticlimactic. What prevents this from being a truly cheesy movie was the perfomances by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine. Without them it was just an over the top action flick.

N: About an inanimate object.

M: But with the movie Speed, what made that compelling was that there was hostages and there was a bad guy. And there was a goal in mind. And good subplots. But this movie was so one dimensional and it's subplots were never fully developed enough.

N: You're making me rethink my letter grade.

M: Damn straight.

N: I think all in all, I found it to be an entertaining couple of hours. Wait, was it even that long? Doesn't matter. I found it entertaining, but I probably won't bother myself to ever watch it again.

M: It was entertaining, but not enough to see it in theaters. Wait till the DVD.

Date Night - Deathly Hallows Part One

Plot: The first installment of the two-film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) as they search for the pieces of Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) soul that he extracted from his being and hid in obscure locations both far and wide. If the trio is unable to locate and destroy them all, Voldemort will remain immortal. Despite their long friendship, a combination of dark forces, romantic tensions, and long-held secrets threaten to sabotage the mission. via.

Matt's Rating: B-

Nicole's Rating: A-

Nicole: Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!

Matt: Ah, ah, ah, what?

N: Harry Potter!

M: Nerd. I love Harry Potter.

N: Did you just call me a nerd and then mumble that you love Harry Potter? (this is me explaining to our readers what just happened.)

M: It was good but the Harry Potter movies don't seem to live up to the books.

N: I never expect them to. I think if you expect a movie to follow a book 100%, you are gearing yourself up for one boring ass movie. Not everything translates. All I ever ask for is for the screenwriter, director and actors to stay true to the feel of the book. I think Part One did that well. AND this one hardly ever veered.

M: I never said it had to follow the book, I said it has to live up to the book. I think that considering J.K. Rowling was a producer, it was as close as it was going to get. It's just that being a reader and fan of the books, it makes me biased and I think the movie is almost doomed from the moment it starts.

N: You don't get a much bigger fan than me, Matt, and I think it lived up to the movie really well. I've read the books at least six times each. Maybe more. I know ridiculous details. I thought it was great.

M: Donnie Rodlift is not a good actor.

N: Daniel Radcliffe. And I thought he did a really good job in both this one and the last one. All of them did.

M: I think she, the girl who plays Hermione, was good. And I think the guy who plays Ron was good. But I think that Harry is a character that's difficult to act because in the books he's not as colorful as the other characters. The reader sees everything through Harry's eyes. So the character is very internal. All the stuff that goes on with Harry goes on in his head. It's hard for an actor to show that. I think you're doomed if you have to play Harry Potter.

N: I agree that both Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were good. Rupert Grint has always been the best actor of the three. Emma caught up in the sixth movie, as did Daniel Radcliffe in my eyes. I think all three of them have grown into fantastic actors and you can't sway me on that point. But - how did you like the movie?

M: I think, ultimately, Part One and Part Two of Deathly Hallows should be viewed as one movie. So it's difficult to flat out critique Part One since it's all build up. And it's supposed to be. The movie ends during the rising action. You don't have a complete story yet.

N: Agreed. There were parts of it that dragged because of the fact that it just setting up things to come later. I did really like a lot of the action sequences though and I loved the story of the three brothers and the Deathly Hallows. That animation was really unique and interesting.

M: Yeah it was cool.

N: I don't know, I thought it was pretty awesome.

M: I think, too, that where it falls short is the meat of the movie takes place at a point in the story where the characters are having a lot of internal struggles. And I think it's difficult to show that on screen, but the moments that had to do with the Horcruxes were very good because it was cinematic.

N: I thought they did an excellent job showcasing the internal struggles. I think we're just going to go back and forth here.

M: I do think there were good things. I thought the comedy was good. I thought Dobby was the most interesting character in the whole movie.

N: I can't talk to you.

M: When he came on screen as a CGI character he stole every scene he was in, which I think speaks to the other actors.

N: If I could only insert silence and a dirty look into a blog post. Closing thoughts, jerkface?

M: It's an okay movie, but we only have half the story. So you can't judge.

N: Don't listen to Matt. It was really good. I loved it. Go see it.

Date Night - Due Date

Via.

Plot: From director Todd Phillips, “Due Date” stars Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis as two unlikely companions who are thrown together on a road trip that turns out to be as life-changing as it is outrageous. Downey plays Peter Highman, an expectant first-time father whose wife’s due date is a mere five days away. As Peter hurries to catch a flight home from Atlanta to be at her side for the birth, his best intentions go completely awry when a chance encounter with aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) forces Peter to hitch a ride with Ethan—on what turns out to be a cross-country road trip that will ultimately destroy several cars, numerous friendships and Peter’s last nerve. via.

Matt's Rating: C+

Nicole's Rating: C

Nicole: I pretty much hated this movie.

Matt: No you didn't.

N: Dead end. Um, yes I did.

M: No, 'cuz you laughed during certain parts. In fact so hard that you covered your mouth. But it still sucked.

N: There were definitely parts that made me laugh, but only parts. You know? I wasn't peeing my pants the entire time like in Hangover or Wedding Crashers. Although I was seriously anxious during Hangover but that's another story.

M: Okay... Definitely a step back for Todd Phillips. It just didn't hold the laugh per minute ratio that the Hangover did.

N: Isn't that what I just said?

M: Yes, but I said it better. I felt like it really tried to have heart but something was missing. It didn't have the emotional value that the Hangover did.

N: I thought it was too fucking emotional, with all those dry and boring scenes where Zach Galifianakis is crying over spilt ashes.

M: Well, I thought the scene in the bathroom where he was "acting" was very well done. But like I just said, the serious parts didn't connect me to the characters, they were just boring and slow.

N: That scene in the bathroom just made me really uncomfortable.

M: It's supposed to make you uncomfortable, that's the point. Robert Downey Jr. sees Galifianakis as a human being for the first time in the movie.

N: Let's talk about the funny parts of the movie, of which there were four.

M: Okay.

N: Okay?

M: Any time Robert Downey Jr. flipped out on Zach Galifinakis it was funny.

N: What were their character names? Do you even remember?

M: Ethan.

N: Ethan Tremblay/Chase, that's right.

M: What was Robert Downey Jr's? Paul? Tom?

N: I don't think it was either of those, but moving on. Any time he got angry was funny EXCEPT for when he spit on the dog because that was freaking horrible.

M: That was hilarious.

N: That dog was so cute. You shouldn't spit on dogs. Animal cruelty.

M: When he said he was going to rip it in half!

N: That was funny.

M: It just wasn't funny enough. You could tell there were parts that were supposed to be funny
and they just weren't. That's where it failed.

N: Definitely. We should have gone to see It's Kind of a Funny Story.

M: It wasn't playing in the theater.

N: Shut up, Matt.

M: I don't know if we should blame the actors, the director or the writer. We've seen both the actors be very funny before and Todd Phillips has made funny movies before so it's got to fall to the writers. Or Todd Phillips just didn't do his best work. But I don't blame the actors.

N: What bothered me was the piecemeal way they put the story together. It was like they said, in order to get here, let's just make this really stupid thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever happen. So much of it was beyond unbelievable. And that bothers me. Like - how could they drive hundreds of miles in a stolen border control truck and not have anyone looking for them or catch them?...So is that the writers then?

M: Yeah. It's their job to get us from point A to point B and make us laugh and they just didn't do it on a constant enough basis.... Closing thoughts, Nicole?

N: If you're okay with only laughing once in a while and taking a nap in between, go see this movie. You?

M: Wait for it to come out on DVD. Don't pay the $10.50 to go see it.