The Citizen Review " A man goes to the movies. A critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." -Robert Warshow

Average Grade: A-

Jack says: A-

Going in to see Shutter Island, I expected many things from viewing the trailers. I expected a film noir-esque mystery. I expected an eerie thriller. Well for the first hour and a half, that's what I got and it was great.

The film begins with U.S. Marshalls entering Shutter Island, a remote island with an institution for the "criminally insane" as Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) puts it. From the get-go, things seem a little fishy to Daniels on Shutter Island and he can't figure out what happened to Rachel Solando, the supposed missing "patient". Of course, Teddy has a haunting past. Throughout the film he has remembrances of World War II, being a soldier in Nazi death camps. He also has visions, or dreams of his deceased wife Dolores, who died in a fire.

The film isn't just creepy, it oozes creepiness and emits fear. There is a dark, dark shadow cast on all of the island that makes the viewer question the morals of everything that occurs on it, even of the main protagonists. Martin Scorsese has done something very impressive with Shutter Island, he made it as if he had resurrected Alfred Hitchcock from the grave and had him direct it with him. It's that good.

The performances are also great. Leo, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson and Michelle Williams all give Oscar-caliber performances. The film is also graced with great dialogue and many scenes are just Teddy and one other person talking. There is also a twist. Of course, a twist is expected from a movie like Shutter Island but this twist was beyond twisty. It doesn't just affect the main characters, it throws the whole movie you've been watching out of the water. I won't give it away but it's as if Scorsese has given us two films, something not quite pleasing but masterful.

There are great scenes in Shutter Island, some that are hard to watch. It will have you second-guessing the villains, the heroes, even yourself.

Matthew says: A-

The mysterious and eerie Shutter Island opens with a large boat slowly coming out of the fog, closer to the dark island. It's a classic, noir opening, much like the rest of the film. Shutter Island is shot with long winding shots, dark lighting and labyrinthine sets. The film draws you in with every shot.

Teddy Daniels is an FBI cop and comes to Shutter Island with his new assistant to investigate the missing case of a child murderer, played creepily by Emily Mortimer. No one knows how she escaped, it's nearly impossible to. But there's another reason why Teddy is here. Teddy has a dark past, much like most of the noir heroines.

Throughout the movie, you feel like there's something everyone knows but you. Teddy feels the same way. He continually drifts off into dark, eerie dreams, shot beautifully, but with the beautiful camera work, results in horrifying images.

Some critics complain, saying the ending wasn't worth the rest of the movie. But the rest of the movie is the mad brilliance of the final sentence. Shutter Island is a beautiful, horrifying, mysterious noir film that shouldn't be missed.

Average Grade: B-

Jack says: B-

It doesn't matter what you say to me, I will never believe that The Blind Side is Oscar-worthy in terms of Best Picture. I have finally seen the movie and I wasn't moved from my side of the fence. Did I enjoy this movie? Yes. It wasn't my favorite kind of entertainment but parts of it were worth watching.

One such aspect was the performance given by Sandra Bullock. There's no denying that Bullock is one of the finest actresses in Hollywood today, but not even her performance could save this movie which is drowning in it's cliches and drowsy montages. The worst part of this movie (aside from the lackluster, store-bought musical score) were the performances by the actors whose names weren't Sandra Bullock or Kathy Bates (yes, she snook her way into this one, too). The focal point of the story, Michael Oher, was played by Quinten Aaron and I'm sad to say it's one of the worst performances of the year.

Some of the scenes are good, but there are some scenes and montages that are just unforgivable in terms of acting caliber and believability. The movie isn't horrible but is it one of the ten best of the year? Not even close. As it remains, The Blind Side is one of the biggest outrages in Best Picture history.

Matthew says: C+

The Blind Side is a film that has been getting a lot of buzz around Christmas time, it being the inspirational film for the holiday season. That being said, this film isn't very inspirational or moving, or emotionally filled. It's one of the most emotionally empty "emotional" film I've ever seen. And that is certainly no thanks to the writer/director John Lee Hancock. Did this guy just say to read from the script and then leave the set?

I'm sure you all know the story of The Blind Side, then again, you only need to see the cover for the film, showing the black teenager and the rich white mother together, to know what this movie is about. The story is secondary to Hancock's vision for the film (or lack thereof). The only thing on his agenda is getting the audience to root for this story, no matter what it is.

One of the few good things of this movie, and without it this film would have been completely unenjoyable) is the performance of Sandra Bullock. Now, just because I said that, does not mean I think it is the best of the year. And, as you might have guessed, I certainly don't think it is one of the best pictures of the year. It is far from it.

Sandra Bullock. Best actress?

What is happening...

We're still in shock.

Sincerely,

The Citizen Review

Jack says: A-

If you ever watch a reality show on MTV, then I'm sorry. Those aren't realilty. There is one called "Taking the Stage" about teenagers at an art school in Cincinnati trying to become stars. It's not horrible but it's not very realistic. Well, Every Little Step gets everything right that TTS gets wrong. It's gritty, it's funny, personal, terribly entertaining and you can't help but get up and dance.

It follows the journey of severl actor/dancers trying out for a part in the revival of A Chorus Line, the tour de force of the 70's. It shows just how quintessential this show was and is in the lives of dancers and actors. There are parts where the director plays excerpts from the famous night where all the dancers gathered to talk about themselves. That premise alone is haunting and beautiful enough to sustain the movie.

To make things very interesting, it puts the story of the dancers struggling to get to the top in the real lives of the dancers trying to make the crucial cut.

The dancing is real, raw and out of control. The producers and directors and choreographers who worked on the original show are great to watch as well. They are true characters, especially Baayork Lee. She is the dancer from the original, playing the part that was written about her life. and she's a true force of nature, a creature of the theatre.

This film deftly moves from person to person, telling their story from callback to callback. It shows the pain and the risk that actors take when they do their job. It shows the letdowns, the happiness, the utter up-then-downness of it all. It's a documentary that is so electrifying and raw that I found myself wanting to watch it over and over again.

Matthew says: A-

Documentaries. No matter how riveting the subject sounds, the real film is rarely ever as intriguing. However, this little documentary will make you smile, cry, bite your nails in anguish, and want to leap from your seat and dance. In fact, that may be the only flaw in this film, having a sudden wish to burst out in song and dance and then realizing you can't. (I'm just speaking for myself).

Every Little Step is the story of the revival of the Broadway classic, A Chorus Line. The film goes off and on between the audition process of the revival and the history behind the original musical. The history is fascinating, and the auditions are insanely entertaining.

This movie really does make you feel deep sad emotion. With the true stories of these dancers with subtly troubled pasts. They may not seem excruciatingly horrible on paper, but as these real people tell their stories with full honesty, it's heart breaking. And then it shows these actors try to pay homage to these people and their stories, you really want them to. And in the end, seeing the finished show, after all the work put into it, you feel like a proud parent seeing their child chasing their dreams.

Jack says: C

The Lovely Bones is one of those confusing dramas where one must watch it two or three times to fully grasp or understand it's intent. Unfortunately, it's also one of those dramas where you don't want to endure it's wrath more than once.

There were parts of this film that I found enjoyable. The writing (which I hear is mostly derivitive of the Alice Sebold bestseller) was very good. Susie Salmon's monologue was poetically passive, if not slightly ambivalent. It was delicate and quietly beautiful. I thought the scenes that simply examined how the family reacted to the given situation were at times very good too. It showed how random the horrible act was, and how everything can suddenly change, and how we realize that we are so unaware. It also showed that life is so delicate and that very few things are needed for us to be alive, and how easily they can be taken away.

There were also parts that were in my opinion just unnecessary. Not unnecessary just in the aspect that they were frivolous and didn't help the story, but scenes that were probably not meant for the screen. The scene that leads up to the murder of Susie is so horrifying and taxing that I had to turn away. It wasn't exactly distasteful, it wasn't gruesome. It was subtly disturbing, but I don't think it needed to be. We all know how horrific murder is, we don't need a lesson.

The book The Lovely Bones is unread by myself but it seems like a book that doesn't translate well for screen. The scenes where she was in "the blue in-between" weren't inconsistent but they just were wrong. I don't know why. It seems like the film would have been better as a dramatic study of the family after Susie's death, and her just narrating it. But on the same token, those heaven scenes might be necessary. What I guess I'm saying is that this just can't be made into a film, at least not by Peter Jackson.

After leaving the theater, my friends and I were confused. We weren't sure whether it was good, or if we even liked it. But we were pretty sure we wouldn't want to see it again. I think we were so confused because the film was confused along with us.

Matthew says: C+

For the past 20 years or so, Woody Allen has made and released a film ever year. Perhaps this reflects on his work. Well, in any case, it certainly has in his latest release, Whatever Works.

The movie is very "Woody Allen-like" but that's basically all it is. When you watch the movie all you think is him trying to recreate his success with his previous, and better, New York set film. It's been four films since his last New York picture, and let me just say, maybe he should go back to Barcelona.

Whatever Works is the morality tale of an intelligent but has a very dark view of the world. One day he stumbles upon a teenage southern belle, comfortably residing in the dumpster by his house. She ran away from her constrained life in the south and wants a place to stay. Well, she and he get more than they bargained for when the incidentally fall in love (or something like that).

Her very southern, bible beating mother comes along and gets swept up in the mad world of New York City. Her father also drops by, and gets swept up as well.

In the end of this messy, confused tale, the only lesson I found is do "whatever works", whatever that means.

Sincerely,

Jack says: B-

In 1999's A Midsummer Night's Dream, we have a perfect example of what happens when a movie is nearly perfectly faithful to a piece of work, but changes all the wrong aspects of it.

The movie has a magical forest of great actors: Christian Bale, Dominic West, Calista Flockhart, Michelle Pfieffer, Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Rupert Everett. They all have pretty good performances, considering the whole movie is in the original Shakespearian tongue. They all do their job, but it's all a mess at the same time. Another mistake was casting Anna Friel in the role of Hermia. Hermia could arguably be called the heroine of the story and she is least well-known actor. It seemed a little off.

The film is not set in Shakespearian times, but in the 19th century in Athens (it basically looks like England) which I think was the first mistake. If the film wanted it to be set in that era, I think 19th century jargon would suited the film better than the original play. It was just too confusing and clunky. If they wanted to keep the Shakespeare-speak, then it should have been set in the original date. There are bicycles, hoop skirts, parasols. It's a little over the top.

The storyline is also exactly the same as the play, which seemed to be a burden in the 'modern' setting. They should have changed it up a little if they wanted the film to communicate better to audiences. It's like it can't really decide if it wants to be a broad Shakespeare-blockbuster or a die hard period piece, for the most discriminating English scholar.

The film uses all classical music for the score, which made for some dramatic sequences that I quite enjoyed, it almost made up for the ridiculous other parts of the film.

The film can be used as an educational tool, since it follows very closely to the script. I watched the film in my Shakespeare class recently and one can basically hold the script in front of them and follow along. People who have studied Shakespeare in high school or maybe even college can appreciate the film for it's accuracies and it's beauty, for it's production value and for the merit of the performances by the supporting cast. But for those scholars out there writing their dissertation on old Billy S., it may seem like a frivolous misfire.

Sincerely,

The Citizen Review