Thor

*** stars

If you actually look at the character Thor without the Avengers franchise, the mythology is quite fascinating. He is a grand hero in a mystical world that is cast out due to his reckless temptation of war which is against his father's wishes. Thus, he ends up on earth.

Now, if you look at the character Thor with the Avengers franchise, it's quite silly. He's from another world and uses a big hammer to smash an enemy's face in. However, due to Shakespearean expert Kenneth Branagh and his excellent skill at directing, he manages to turn a potential disaster into an exciting summer blockbuster movie with (not surprisingly) numerous Shakespearean themes. Hence Branagh's attraction to this project.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) longs to take over his father's thrown as the king of his homeland, Asgard. But when he gets in over his head and takes on an old enemy which consequently opens the doors to a deadly evil, his father (an absolutely appropriate Anthony Hopkins) has been protecting for centuries, he takes away Thor's power and casts him out onto planet earth. The film never explains why his father sends him to earth, but in the mind of we the humans, where else he is going to go?

So how does Thor get to Earth? By creating a riff in science consisting of opening a magical gate that connects the two worlds. He crash lands in the middle of a New Mexico desert and is discovered by three very interested scientists. At first, they think he is a guy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. But when they find out about his abilities, they soon realize he is much more than meets the eye. Especially Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) who immediately believes that he is the answer to her entire life's work.

Thor has one thing in mind, to get his hammer back. To bad S.H.I.E.L.D found it first (in case you forgot, S.H.I.E.L.D is the group of agents that were introduced in the original Iron Man, and at the end of Iron Man 2 we see the lead agent finding Thor's hammer). Now, Thor has to get to his hammer back without being stopped by forces of earth.

Exactly, S.H.I.E.L.D doesn't stand a chance.

To my surprise, Thor finds a way to connect all the pieces. It continues the story of the Avengers franchise, it makes us believe that Asgard could be a real place, and it finds the fish-out-of-water humor that many moviegoers yearn for in these kinds of movies. It's what made the original Iron Man so refreshing.

Having a director like Kenneth Branagh doesn't hurt either. Shakespeare is seen all over this story. For example, Thor struggles with dishonoring his father, while his evil brother wishes to erase Thor's memory from his father's head so he would be his favorite son instead. The final battle between the two siblings is appropriately personal and heartbreaking. Visually stunning and in many cases quite the epic, Thor may not be the best film in the Marvel universe, but it certainly is a warm welcome to a new superhero.

Osama Bin Laden: The Most In-Demand Figure in Hollywood

For those of you who were too busy playing Call of Duty for the past couple days, Osama Bin Laden was finally killed by U.S forces on May 1st, 2011. It is a time of celebration, closure, and on a different note, a chance for Hollywood to bank on what is certainly one of the most historic moments in American history.

There are already a few Bin Laden projects in the works . The big one is Kill Bin Laden, which is (supposedly still) Katherine Bigelow's follow-up feature to her astounding 2009 best picture/director winner The Hurt Locker, about a failed attempt to take down the ultimate super-villain. However, now that he is actually dead, is it possible to make a project about someone who gets away even though we already know he has faced his much-deserved demise?

I think it could go both ways. Obviously, it will be harder for moviegoers to connect to the painful emotions of the story because we know the ultimate end to Bin Laden's outcome. Or maybe, it could create a completely different emotional effect where moviegoers can appreciate the bravery of the soldiers who tried to do so instead of just getting angry at the fact that we didn't "get him". It could be the opposite feeling of a movie like Valkyrie, where we knew that Hitler wasn't going to die and were waiting for the eventual demise of our heroes instead of our enemy. Thank you Tarantino, for giving us closure in Inglourious Basterds.

There is a third option for Kill Bin Laden, and that is to tell the same story but change the ending to include his death. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. The vibe for the last decade in Hollywood is that there are no happy endings when it comes to war. Jack Bauer went through hell and back again even though he was a bonafide hero. In the end, he was forced out of the country he swore to protect. Maybe now with the 9/11 attacks coming around in full-circle with the death of Bin Laden, there can be a real change in how we display outcomes in cinema. Maybe hope will rise again, instead of glooming in the dark sorrows that force us to believe that we are just prolonging the inevitable.

So, my question(s) to everyone is this: what kind of Osama Bin Laden movie do you want to see, if at all? Do you want an action movie about his take down? A biopic about the man's disturbing life? Another 9/11 movie that begins with the attack and ends with his death? Perhaps a failed attempt by the Clinton and/or Bush administration compared to the success of Obama's? Although, does it even matter which President gets the credit so long as the man is dead? After all, it truly is the one thing they all agree on.

As do we, the citizens.

Fast Five

*** stars

No movie called Fast Five deserves to be this entertaining. Coming off the stench that was 2009's Fast and Furious, I was shocked to find that this latest installment is actually a really fun action movie. It never takes itself too seriously, the plot actually has an end game to it, and there's a fresh sense of direction from Justin Lin, who holds nothing back and realizes that the more ridiculous it gets the better off it is.

Vin Diesel and Paul Walker probably owe everything to this franchise. It's the only real consistent commercial success they've experienced throughout their whole careers. For a while, they tried avoiding being typecast. Today, it seems they're embracing it. With huge paychecks. Fast Five just opened to $83 million, a monstrous figure. Now knowing that it is a very entertaining movie will up its chances of being one of the highest grossing movies of the year.

I was never a big fan of this series. There was always something non-sexy about fast cars continuously racing for no reason (except to show off the cars) and close-ups of female asses that indicate clear signs of a studio's desperation to lure young male viewers to their movie. That's what The Fast and the Furious franchise has been all about. However, what's clever about Fast Five is that it understands this and makes fun of itself before we have the chance to.

The movie roars off to a fast start. After receiving a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole, Dom Toretto (Diesel) is a free man after his best friend/former cop Brian O'Conner (Walker) and his sister/Brian's girlfriend Mia (Jordana Brewster) help him escape. The escape plan? Crash a car into the prisoner bus that is carrying him and hope that he survives it so they can snatch him up before anyone else can. After that, the three go on the run and find themselves in Rio de Janeiro hoping to find a way to freedom. That means ONE LAST JOB TO END THEM ALL.

This turns Fast Five into a formulaic piece of pop culture entertainment with an actual purpose. They want to take down a corrupt businessman named Hernan Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), one in which they steal a very valuable car from, by using a computer chip from the stolen car that contains high valued information about illicit business activities including $100 million in laundered money. We don't want to see Dom and Brian stealing from just anyone. We root for our heroes because they are stealing from the corrupt even though in the end they are villains themselves.

Especially through the eyes of DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), whose philosophy on the law is catching any suspect whose file lands on his desk. This translates into him basically wanting Dom's head on a plate. However, as Hobbs learns more about what is actually going on, he starts to question who the good and bad guys actually are.

Oh, and by the way, as this is all going on, we get plenty of ludicrous car chases. The climax chase scene in-particular is an astonishing action trip into the ridiculous.

With these type of films, I like to be proven wrong. I am glad that the creative team behind Fast Five was able to prove to me that this franchise has yet burn out. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Let's see if they can do the same with F6.

BOX-OFFICE PREDICTIONS: SUMMER 2011

This has to be one of my favorite columns to write all year. Combining two big subjects in Hollywood that drive my passion (box-office analysis and blockbuster movies), I will now predict the highest grossing films of the summer. You'll be surprised that there aren't any real surprises on this list. In the predictions stage this far out, it's easy to assume what films will make money and what ones won't. However, it's all about how much each film will make. So, let's do it to it...

10.) Captain America: The First Avenger
($210 million)

The tenth spot here is always an educated guess. Hell, this whole list is. But the tenth spot is for the movie that will make about $10 million more than other potential hits, such as Kung Fu Panda 2, The Green Lantern, X-Men: First Class, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I'm giving this spot to Captain America simply because it is a chess piece in a larger game (The Avengers franchise). Anything that is apart of something bigger than itself has the upper hand in terms of making money.

9.) The Hangover 2
($250 million)

Regardless of how big this movie is for Warner Brothers and its summer movie line-up, it will take an enormous crowd to generate the same success the original film made in 2009. Making $277 million domestically and $467 worldwide off a $35 million budget is hard to come by. This sequel has a bigger budget and much bigger expectations. Because of that, look for it to come just short of the original. This may sound like a disappointment, but for any comedy to hit north of $200 million should count their blessings.

8.) Cowboys and Aliens ($260 million)

One of the few original films coming out this summer is Jon Favreau's first film after his enormous success with the Iron Man franchise. This will be a true test of his directorial skills as a big budget director (sometimes there's more pressure on the follow-up feature) and how bankable he really is outside of franchise that already has a built-in fanbase. If there's any indication from the buzz surrounding this film, it will certainly be a huge success. It won't be the biggest movie of the summer, but if it's this successful, look for the sequel to take control in the coming years.

7.) Thor ($275 million)

Thor has the same advantage Captain America does: it's apart of The Avengers. With a strong marketing campaign and being the first official movie of the summer (Fast Five is technically being released in April, so it's not necessarily the start of the season), look for Thor to take advantage of the first two weeks of its release. The only other movie that will be its competition (other than Fast Five) is Priest, which will not reach blockbuster heights anyways.

6.) The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn: Part I ($280 million)

(Sorry, no trailer has been released yet. This is all I could find.)

The Twilight franchise seems to be one of the only surefire moneymakers in the industry. Look for the first part of the last chapter in the series to continue that very trend.

5.) Super 8 ($300 million)

This is my wildcard pick. I am not just putting Super 8 at $300 million because it's my #1 most anticipated movie of the summer. I am putting Super 8 at $300 million because I think it will cross it. Why? Because it's an original film directed by J.J Abrams, produced by Steven Spielberg, and I think it has the potential to be the best movie of the summer. I also need to believe in a film that can prove to everyone that the better your movie, the more money it will make.

4.) Transformers: The Dark of the Moon ($300 million)

Michael Bay + Explosions x Product Placement = $$$. Although I think this will be the lowest grossing film out of the whole bunch. The second one may have made a lot of money, but its terrible sting still lingers inside many moviegoers.

3.) Cars 2 ($315 million)

Pixar may be making a mistake by releasing two sequels in a row, but I will certainly not be the one to doubt the company's extraordinary skill at making critically and commercially successful movies. Thus, I predict Cars 2 to outperform the original.

2.) Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($330 million)

I have mixed feelings about how this movie will perform. It's certainly capable of hitting $400 million, and if it's actually a good movie, it may even come close to $500 million. However, reboots are very unpredictable. Are people sick of Jack Sparrow? I don't think so, but I do believe that it will not be the highest grossing movie of the summer, because of....


1.) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ($400 million)

The end to the most successful franchise of all time in what could be the biggest movie not just of the summer, but of the year. Not only is its build-in fanbase enormous, but it's an action movie too, meaning it will attract all sorts of customers. Anyone who doubts this epic is about to have a serious wake-up call.

Scream 4

*** stars

Sometimes low expectations are a blessing, because I believe it actually allowed me to enjoy Scream 4, a nostalgic slasher flick (how often can you say that) that will remind fans of why they enjoyed the original so much in the first place.

On its own, this installment of the enormously successful franchise isn't much to goggle over. It's essentially a fun and loose remake of the 1996 original, only with a slightly different twist.

After coming out of the darkness with her new tell all book, Out of Darkness, Sydney Prescott (a welcome return for Neve Campbell) has returned to her old stomping ground (the town of Woodsboro) to prove to herself that the nightmares she's been living with for most of her life (also known as three successful films in a franchise) are behind her. That is until the masked-killer returns for some fresh teenage-blood.

Other returning characters include Gail Weathers, now Gail Weathers-Riley (Courtney Cox) and Dewey Riley (David Arquette), which ironic for them are a married couple going through a tough time in their relationship (Cox and Arquette reportedly split during the making of this movie). Gail is struggling with her life outside of the spotlight as the it-newswoman of the moment as she suffers from writer's block, while Dewey seems more interested in his cop partner Deputy Judy Hicks (Marley Shelton) than his own wife. The two both find themselves in familiar situations when they get involved with the investigations of the legendary killer. Through this, the two seem to reconnect. How twisted is it that this couple only finds happiness within each other when there is a serial murderer on the loose?

As the "story" steams on, we are introduced to new but overall non-memorable characters. Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere play best friends who become apart of the killer's game. We also get two film buffs explaining the new rules of a horror movie. The biggest rule? You don't need to have sex anymore to be the victim. Anyone can be a victim. Virgins are targets, too. This is after all how the original began. Sydney wouldn't give it up to her boyfriend, so she was safe. Then she did give it up, so she wasn't anymore. In the ideologies of the new rules, recklessness seems to be the driving force behind Scream 4's fear.

It's odd to say this because the film is nowhere near his best, but this is actually Wes Craven's best film in quite some time. Maybe even since the original Scream. This shows that the franchise only works with Craven at the helm. Although the film is disappointing at the box-office, at least Craven and company can sleep peacefully knowing that he has satisfied the fans that are worth satisfying.

Your Highness

** stars

When Danny McBride was plugging his epic medieval stoner comedy Your Highness on Conan, he said the original idea for the movie came when him and director David Gordon Green were in film school together. They used to play a game where one would come up with a ridiculous original title and the other must take the title and give it a ridiculous original premise. Thus we have in 2011, Your Highness.

The premise is quite unique. An epic story of two brothers named Prince Fabious (James Franco) and Thadeous (McBride) who embark on a quest to save Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), the bride of Fabious, from the evil Leezar. The twist? The movie is one long penis joke. While it sounds weirdly funny, it actually fails to produce anything above a forced chuckle.

You should never expect too much from a stoner comedy, because nothing good will come out of that. However, because of low expectations, a stoner comedy does not need much to entertain. Perhaps just a few laughs here-and-there in some unorthodox situations. Yet Your Highness can hardly do that, and instead of using the talents at hand (including Natalie Portman as the beautiful warrior Isabel) too take things to the next level, it almost feels as if the cast is holding back.

In the beginning of the movie, Thadeous is about to be hung by midgets and he survives because his feet hit the ground before the noose can grab hold of his neck. This is a very funny introduction to a character, however the reasons for his hanging are hardly touched upon and it is never brought into light for the rest of the film. Why not try and have a hilarious chase scene where Thadeous defends off midgets with a ridiculous weapon? Instead of using the time period to create uproarious randomness, Your Highness tries to parody the medieval concept itself and thus it is a missed opportunity.

The Ten Most Anticipated Films of the Summer

The Season of Blockbusters

This summer is chalked full of comic-book adaptations, remakes, sequels, threequels, fourquels, and a movie that at one time was called 5nal Destination. So clearly this top ten will have sympathy votes. While there is certainly plenty to scorn about, there are a few exceptions that I am extremely excited for. Here are my top ten most anticipated movies of this summer...

10.) The Debt

This film has been delayed by eight months. While that is never a good sign, I am looking forward to Sam Worthington's first attempt at a non-blockbuster roll since his breakout year in 2009. This is a political thriller about the capture and death of a Nazi war criminal carried about by three young Israeli Mossad agents in 1965. Thirty years later, the Nazi still appears to be alive, so one of the former agents must go back under cover to discover what really happened. Worthington plays one of the agents from 1965. I hope that this will showcase what kind of actor he will become. After all, he is the star of the highest grossing movie of all time.

9.) Larry Crowne

I'll admit, the trailer is flirting heavily with the lame side, but Tom Hanks directed, co-wrote, and stars in this relevant story about a middle-aged man who heads back to college after losing his job. The premise may come off as contrived, and perhaps it is, but Hanks is still and always will be one of the most beloved stars in Hollywood. Ten years ago, his movies were always one of the big headliners of the summer. While his box-office drawing power has softened over time, Larry Crowne also co-stars Julia Roberts, so expect this rom-com to be full of 90's nostalgia and a possible sleeper hit.

8.) One Day

(Sorry, this is no trailer released yet for this film)

Don't worry, I'll get to the big blockbusters in a minute. This could be one of the big surprises of the summer. Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess star in director Lone Scherfig's follow-up to An Education about re-visiting one day of young love on the night of their college graduation. They revisit each other on the same day every year for twenty years to catch up and rehash their incredible night together. Again, the premise may scare off the masculine, but with a solid director and a lovable cast, perhaps this could be the ultimate love story of the summer.

7.) Cowboys and Aliens

On to the big films. Jon Favreau passes the reign in the Iron Man franchise and moves on to an entirely different concept: cowboys vs. aliens. In 1873, aliens invade earth to take over the planet and it's up to a few cowboys to stop them. I'm a little turned off that the movie's title is the same exact thing as its concept, but Favreau is still a talented director (despite losing himself a little bit in the disappointing Iron Man 2) and with an all star cast including Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano, and Olivia Wilde, this could be the start of another very successful franchise.

6.) The Hangover Part II

Why tamper with something that already works? Part II of the hilarious 2009 comedy The Hangover finds Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Allen (Zach Galifianakis) in Bangkok for Stu's wedding, only to wake up once again after another night of torpedo-like destruction. Joining them is a mysterious monkey and some old friendly faces from the original. While I don't expect the sequel to match the comedic heights of the original, it may be the only real comedy I am looking forward to all summer. Once again, another summer fails to bring the necessary comedic balance. Hopefully, director Todd Phillips will bring enough of it in his film to give the fix moviegoers are yearning for.

5.) Cars 2

I was shocked to find that Pixar's follow-up to a threequel would be a sequel, and that sequel would be to the one film many believe to be Pixar's weakest entry. Then again, a weak Pixar entry will still be an entertaining and money-making machine. The premise follows now racing-legend Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and his sidekick Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) traveling overseas to compete against the world's fastest cars. It's a little concerning that Pixar is pushing sequels, but it's still Pixar, the only studio in Hollywood to be perfect both critically and commercially. So until the movie opens, no one should doubt a track record like this.

4.) X-Men: First Class

This is the only comic-book adaptation I am truly looking forward to, and of course, it's the one getting the least amount of press. However, I do feel that this will be one of the strongest blockbusters of the summer. This prequel to the extremely successful franchise highlights Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) starting up a school in 1963 (expect a huge part of the story to chronicle around the Cuban Missile Crisis), which ultimately leads to the infamous team of heroes. This film will chronicle the path of how the Professor and his once-upon-a-time best friend Eric Lehnsherr becomes his arch-rival Magneto.

3.) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

I'll be the first to admit that I've never been an ultimate Harry Potter fan. I almost feel ashamed having only read the first two books. Still, I am thoroughly impressed with this film franchise. Even though it has a leg-up on many others (considering the numerous amounts of source material it's been able to live off of, along with the sure talent of J.K Rowling) I do believe that moviegoers are in for one hell-of-a spectacle come this July. The most successful franchise of all time comes to a conclusion. That within itself is an epic event almost impossible to miss.

2.) The Tree of Life

In what seems to be a 30+ year project in the making, Terrence Malick's first feature film in six years (and only his fifth ever) is finally going to be released. Now, obviously he wasn't literally working on this for 30+ years, but right after his 1978 film Days of Heaven, Malick began brainstorming the idea for this film. The project was originally titled "Q," and while I'm sure it's not the same film it would have been had it been released back then, it should be as close to that vision as Malick can possibly make it. This could very well be the next 2001: A Space Odyssey, only this time specifically focusing on man instead of machine. If this movie is as good as I think it will be, watch out for the first surefire Oscar contender of 2011.

1.) Super 8

I put this film above all else because it seems to be the only blockbuster taking summer entertainment seriously. In what could be the greatest modern director/producer combo ever, director J.J Abrams (Star Trek, Mission Impossible III, Lost) and producer Steven Spielberg team up to create a new kind of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Taking place in 1979, a gargantuan train crash is caught on camera by a group friends making a super 8 movie. With this footage, they start to realize that this was no accident. As the mystery starts to unravel, the town is thrown into chaos. Starring Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights), the man who deserves to be the next great movie star, I am overwhelmed with joy that Abrams and Spielberg are teaming up to give us what I think will be the best time at the movies all summer. What I find more fascinating about Abrams movies are their marketing campaigns. They are so brilliantly executed, that for me, they are events within itself. Catch my article on this topic coming in the next few weeks, along with the box-office predictions for all of these movies, and more.

Source Code

**** stars

In 2009, director Duncan Jones crafted the highly underrated independent film Moon, one of the best science fiction entries in modern cinema. Crossing over to the mainstream with Source Code, Jones is proving to be one of the most refreshing filmmakers of his genre. Breathing new life into a Groundhog Day-esque concept, (how fascinating that the mythology of a 1993 Bill Murray comedy about a groundhog is still a brilliant base for science-fiction movies) this highly entertaining thriller is a blast of exciting relevancy mixed with a component that I have yet to discover this year in movies: fun. Because it has this as one of its chief elements, Source Code stands out as the first true gem of the year.

Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal, in his best performance since Zodiac) wakes up in confusion on a morning commuter train heading into Chicago. Why? Because the last thing he remembers is flying a helicopter in Iraq. While the beginning of the train sequence certainly didn't do this on purpose, the opening of M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable certainly comes to mind. Confusion on a train seems to be a very exciting way to begin a movie. Maybe it's the fast-paced atmosphere combined with the thrill of the vehicle's physical speed.

The twist here in Source Code is that not only does Colter have no idea how he got on this train, he seems to be an entirely different person. While I won't for a second spill any details on why he is who is he, I will say that in place of being a military captain, he is now a school teacher sitting across from what could be the most beautiful woman he has ever seen. Christina (Michelle Monaghan) seems very interested in him. Confused by all of this, he searches the train for clues. Everyone seems to be noticing him as if he is the biggest elephant a room has ever seen.

Eight minutes later, a bomb explodes killing everyone on board. Colter wakes up from this in a confined space, in what seems to be a training program. He notices a small television monitor with mission controller Carol Goodwin (Vera Farminga) asking him several questions about his memory. To Colter's surprise, he remembers the answers.

So what is Source Code? Basically (and this is not a spoiler, but a foundation of the story) it's a specific technology that allows the military to use a soldier like Colter to re-create a real-life scenario for eight minutes that will allow him to stop something terrible from happening in the near future. In this case, it's a second terrorist attack. The bombing of the train was just the first strike. Chicago is in danger, and it's up to one confused and lonely soldier to save the day. Without his permission, Colter is thrown back onto the train several times over, trying to find the man who could destroy an entire city.

Maybe I was a sucker before I even stepped in the theater to see Source Code, as Groundhog Day is one of my favorite movies and 24 is one of my favorite TV shows. I just couldn't get over how brilliantly directed this movie was. Duncan Jones allows time for the human side of this story to kick-in, which many recent science fiction films have failed to do.

For example, a huge complaint of mine in last month's Battle: Los Angeles was how mechanic the storytelling was. All the characters were simply pawns in an action chess game with no real side of humanistic emotions. If Battle: Los Angeles was trying to be a salute to the troops, it failed. Source Code honors troops in a very different and more personal way. It focuses on one soldier who is thrown into chaos without knowing how he got there in the first place while still finding it in his heart to save all those around him before saving himself. I was moved by Gyllenhaal's charismatic performance, as he discovers strong emotions in scenes that many other actors would fail to find.

Combining electric action with taut storytelling, Source Code is some kind of small, short-term miracle, giving me the strength to find a reason to tell people to head back to the movies. While I am saddened that it only opened to $15 million (although with only a $32 million budget, it will be considered a success) I hope that the strong word-of-mouth will allow this movie to find the audience it deserves.

Sucker Punch

** stars

There are only a few movie titles that define how you feel after you've seen the movie itself. Sucker Punch is just that, a sucker punch to the gut after withstanding a long and strenuous fight. Zack Snyder's idea for Sucker Punch is electric: four women who are trapped in an insane asylum try to escape through their imagination in a fantasy world. Because after all, what else do you have in solitary confinement other than your own world?

What makes Sucker Punch a failure is in its execution, too much style and not enough substance. Snyder did such an amazing job with Watchmen (although it's impossible to repeat the success of its source material) because his style matched perfectly with the novel's substance. 300 was also successful because it was an entirely new direction of graphic novel filmmaking. Legends of the Guardian: The Owls of Ga'Hoole succeeded solely because of Snyder's vision and not much else. Here with Sucker Punch, it's as though he was trying to make the holy grail of trash movies. Instead, it just looks like trash.

It's too bad, because I was really looking forward to this one. Why not have a movie with four women kicking ass? Women deserved to feel empowered when they go to the movies just as much as men do. The mistake this movie makes is what ultimately happens to these characters. The third act of this film will make women feel powerless and men feel like scum.

The story revolves around Baby Doll, a young woman who is sent to the creepiest insane asylum known to man by her abusive stepfather. She meets four other young and abused women, all who seem to have access to infinite amounts of makeup. In what Baby Doll believes to be the doom of her existence, she decides to escape to an alternative reality where defeating bizarre creatures and extinct soldiers is the key to finding the ticket to freedom.

The transitions in-between the two-worlds are made possible by Baby Doll's ability to dance in front of the entire staff and inmates, all of which are in total awe of her talent. When she dances, we are taken to another world. The fantasy world is filled with stupendous visual effects, but without a reasoning behind the characters' motives in this fantasy world, we are forced to accept this world the same way the four girls do: escapist entertainment.

Which would be fine, if the dialogue wasn't so painful to listen to. The acting is stiff and forced, and it's unfortunate to see such talents like Carla Gugino and John Hamm reduced to nothing but odd and out-of-place cameos. I would have enjoyed Sucker Punch a little more if it chose to take itself a little less seriously when it came to the fate of these characters. Once the movie starts to pick up steam, it comes to a crashing halt created by unnecessary melodrama.

Battle: Los Angeles

* star

Battle: Los Angeles is a mind-numbing experience, one so full of ineptitude and incoherent action that it literally traps itself within itself. Aliens have invaded earth and it's up to a group of Marines to save the day. From what exactly, the absolute destruction of a city? Downtown L.A is already in ruins quite early in the film's storyline, yet we think a group of marines in Santa Monica has all the answers? Battle: Los Angeles becomes so compiled with trash that I started to wonder if there was anyone left on the planet fighting against these creatures besides the group we are forced to focus on.

Aaron Eckhart was born to play this kind of role. It's too bad the script lets him down. His character, Marine Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz, has just retired. BUT THEN, HE IS FORCED TO GO BACK TO WORK TO FIGHT OFF ALIEN INVADERS! AH! Sorry for the corny explanation. But that's what Battle: Los Angeles entails: corny explanations followed by moments of loud explosions. Repeat this concept a dozen times and you got yourself a certifiable March madness movie that's sure to open above $30 million. Luckily for the film and the financiers behind it, they banked on the stupidity of the American public.

I almost feel jealous for Michael Nantz, because he had the opportunity to both retire and then come back to be the hero of heroes. In the real world, you're lucky if you can just retire. But enough banter of the film's relativity towards modern society, because that's certainly not what the intent of the film is. If anyone knows what the real intent is, let me know and I will credit you of your findings in this review.

I'm all for alien invasion movies. All I ask from the aliens is a reason for the attack and all I want from the humans is for them to be smart enough to be able to detect the millions of falling spaceships crashing to earth that apparently satellites can't pick up. Sure, they think they're just meteors at first. But even if that were the case, why would people take that news so nonchalantly? Meteors can be just as if not more dangerous than the actual aliens, so why does it have to be another race that we are so scared of?

Actually, I wouldn't even call these aliens a race. They look like leftover junk parts from movies like I, Robot, Independence Day, District 9, and every other alien/robot invasion movie ever made. I have mentioned before that my big complaint about Hollywood right now is their lack of timing in releasing event movies. Everything is either in the summer or holiday season. So while I was excited to see what could have been a fun blockbuster in March, Battle: Los Angeles drops the storytelling bar even lower than what it already was. Thus, Hollywood deserves to be in the slump that it's in.

March 2011 has given us Battle: Los Angeles, Sucker Punch, and the election of Chris Dodd as the chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America. April 2011 has Fast Five scheduled as its biggest movie premiere. The hope that a great movie which will save the industry seems to be scheduled far away into the distant future. Hopefully in that time, it will not include a Battle: Los Angeles sequel named after another city.

The Adjustment Bureau

**1/2 stars

Matt Damon seems to have the unfortunate luck of being in promising, but eventually delayed movies. Last year, he was fantastic in the very underrated and horribly marketed war thriller, Green Zone. That film was original tentative for a fall 2009 release, which means a potential awards contender. However, it was bumped back to March to due unknown reasons. Well, not really unknown, but the educated guess would be that studios suggested the film could make more money in a less aggressive movie season. They were wrong. The movie opened to $14 million and became a flop for Universal. It's sad because it was one of the best movies of 2010.

Now, here's The Adjustment Bureau, another delayed Matt Damon movie bumped to an early March release date. However, this film does not follow the same merit Green Zone deserved, and instead is a harmless romantic science-fiction thriller about old men with cool hats who monitor the entire planet. My guess about its delay would be because the theatrical trailer resembled another film you may have heard of called Inception, and at the time, who the hell wanted to compete with that? The Sorcerer's Apprentice was supposed to be the counter-programming of Inception and look how that turned out (it was one of the biggest bombs of last year). In the end, counter-programming for Inception is like saying 3D works for every movie.

The Adjustment Bureau is loosely based off the Philip K. Dick short story, Adjustment Team. Damon plays up-and-coming politician David Norris, who is on his way to becoming one of the country's leading leaders. I say that in ridiculous fashion because there's no real indication as to what his end goal is (until the end twist which I certainly won't give away) so for now, just go with the fact that David Norris is about to have his dreams come crashing down because of every person's kryptonite: love.

David meets a beautiful dancer named Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) in a bathroom after a tough election defeat. Instantly, they connect. This is believable because of the talents of Damon and Blunt, who share the chemistry necessary to pull off this attraction in a matter of moments.

The twist in this romance is that they were never supposed to see each other again after their first encounter. We discover that the Adjustment Bureau, basically a group dressed like extras in Mad Men, control and monitor the entire world, meaning that everything must go according to plan. Their plan. What's suitable, yet bittersweet is director George Nolfi's choice to take the simpler approach and basically uses only this mythology to tell the story. David and Elise aren't supposed to be together because it's not apart of the plan. Defying complex explanations allows more authenticity to our modern society, where us regular people do not know what the plan is created by those above us. The result is a relevant and mildly entertaining thriller.

Although with this simplicity comes missed opportunities. I wanted to know why David Norris was the spotlight on this. Why a politician? Why must the fate of the world rest on just two people and their love? I would have liked The Adjustment Bureau's ending to have given us more than just a wild-goose chase, something many films stoop to as the cowardly way out.

Rango

***1/2 stars

The fact that Rango is the best film so far in 2011 is bittersweet. Sure, it's Gore Verbinski's best movie to date, Johnny Depp is perfectly cast, and it's an absolute refreshing experience of animated imagination. However, the fact that this is the best movie so far this year is a sure sign of Hollywood's weakness. This is not a negative comment on Rango, but a disappointed moviegoer who is clinging on to any positive emotions he can.

Back to the film. What a weirdly creative and wildly uncontrollable ride this is. Depp brings his usual offbeat charisma to his chameleon character Rango, a hero without a story, so says the owl mariachi band who give us the breakdown fourth wall style. When Rango is thrown into chaos by flying out of the pet life and into a wild one (a bump in the road throws him out of his owner's movie vehicle), he hits the Mojave desert to search for the Spirit of the West. Upon his journey, he discovers Dirt, an old and small western town made up of desert animals. Because of his initial actions of playing tough in front of a dirty bar crowd, he receives the honor of becoming the Sheriff of Dirt. But when the town is low on its water supply, Rango is thrown into a world of corruption. He wants to know why the Mayor of Dirt, who is a turtle, is not worried about the water supply. Is he up to no good? Picture Fievel Goes West meets The Man With No Name. The latter here especially considering when Rango meets the Spirit of the West. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.

What's fascinating about Rango and its mythology is how this chameleon living in modern society discussing his own story about being a hero is shoved into the morals of a past century, and through his knowledge of the modern world, he fits the role of the genius outsider, even though it couldn't be farther from the truth. The film's message is simple: so long as you are given the opportunity, you have a chance to achieve your destiny and discover your own Spirit of the West. Rango's fate was decided by a bump in the road, something that we can all relate to.

Note: Rango is an even finer film for refusing 3D and sticking to its roots in 2D. Hopefully, many others will follow suit.

Hall Pass

** stars

In this light and harmless Farrelly Brothers comedy, Hall Pass seems to be obsessed with its premise: two guys who get a week off from marriage to do whatever they want. You know what that means. Get ready for the desperation to have sex with other women.

Unfortunately, the movie fails to deliver the amount of laughs it promises. Instead, it settles for a mild amusing romp starring Jason Sudeikis and a miscast Owen Wilson.

Wilson seems to be mailing it in here. I think this is the wrong movie for him. Wilson is great when playing more of a sidekick (Zoolander, Meet the Parents), but when he takes on the lead, the pressure falls on him for laughs. With that, his monotonic awkwardness starts to occupy the screen rather than what he is actually saying.

Perhaps this film is geared towards a slightly older audience. Not maturer, but older. This is a story about two guys named Rick (Wilson) and Fred (Sudeikis) who are obsessed with sex, but haven't actually experienced it in a long time. Their wives, Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate) notice this, and after an embarrassing afternoon at a friends house when the guys are overheard talking about gratuitous sex, they find no other way to fix the problem than to just let the husbands take a week of from marriage. But are they doing it for their husband or for themselves?

I like this idea, however the slow execution by the Farrelly Brothers puts the flame out before the fire gets hot. We get glimpses of funny scenes, but they never really take off. In one amusing sequence, Rick and Fred join their guy friends for a lovely day of golf, on brownies. This is one of many scenes that has a very funny premise, but fails to heighten them above the obvious. We know taking brownies will make you act goofy, but not always stereotypically goofy the way they are portrayed in this film.

Perhaps I was looking for a more raunchy experience. When you have a premise like this, live up to it. While the morality of these characters is the key ingredient to them growing-up, I feel as though they held back on the gratuity for all the wrong reasons. In Todd Phillips The Hangover, the three lead characters were put through immoral situations, and the only way for those characters to get through them (without falling from grace) was to take as much morality back with them as they could. In Hall Pass, Rick and Fred were questioning their morality from the start, and because of that, we knew that they weren't going to do what they set out to do.

I think the Farrelly Brothers are still important comedic filmmakers. Comedies are becoming less and less relevant these days, and there have been worst comedies as of late than this. In the end, at least Hall Pass didn't Just Go With It.

Oscar Recap: Enough with the Fatigue

Well, what do you know: the Oscars have been widely panned.

The real confusion for me is the part of the program that's being panned, and that is that it was "too boring". I think people who look at the Oscars as a scripted form of entertainment need to rethink the real reason behind it all, and that it's a pan because of who took home the big prize.

This is not trash talk against The King's Speech. This is against the Academy for not recognizing the importance of a win for The Social Network. This is a film that will be remembered as an iconic capture of a moment in time. A "generation movie" so to speak. For that, I am left saddened that David Fincher and his film did not take home the prize with best adapted screenplay winner Aaron Sorkin. Instead, it went to the film that will be forgotten about once the hype dissipates.

So how non-sober was James Franco? Whatever he was on, at least he looked more relaxed than any other host in the past decade. Anne Hathaway tried her best, but seemed to be on the other end of Franco. However, I think it's time to look for hosts who are more entertainers than movie stars. And if the Academy is thinking what I think it's thinking, bringing back Billy Crystal will not redeem the show. We need someone who is not connected with the inner circle of the Oscars. Ricky Gervais was a perfect fit for the Globes. The Academy needs to find someone like him who will spice things up. The unpredictably that makes this show so great has been missing for a while. Are people/the FCC so conservative about television that improvisation is considered offensive? I think if they want to stick with a movie star, why not someone witty like Robert Downey Jr.? Sherlock Holmes 2 comes out at the end of the year, so maybe a Robert Downey/Jude Law combo will occur.

It's always a sad day, the day after the Oscars. It's as though the movie spirit disappears, only to reappear again when it's necessary. I wish there were more consistency in Hollywood. I want to know there is something to look forward to before the summer season (and even that is tough to say with the presumably weak line-up this year) that will keep my movie-loving heart beating and movie-hating heart at bay.

That is, until the release of Fast Five.

The Academy Awards Column: Predictions, Analysis, & Passion

The 83rd Annual Academy Awards

If there's at least one positive thing I can say about the AMPAS this year, it's that they picked the right films for Best Picture. While I'm still disappointed only one comedy was nominated (and in reality, The Kids Are All Right can be considered a drama), every film is worthy of its nomination. In terms of who will actually win, it's between The Social Network and The King's Speech. In terms of who got the shaft (again) is Christopher Nolan. What does the man have to do to get a nomination? In terms of predictions, here they are...

Best Picture

Nominees: Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King's Speech, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter's Bone

Who Will Win: The Social Network
Why? Because it has to. Sure, The King's Speech has the same chance of winning (and it won't be a surprise to me if it wins) and the average voter in the academy is nowhere near the demographic of The Social Network, but this is landmark movie. It captures the here and now in such profound ways that it truly is a once-in-a-generation film. I know this sounds like conjecture in terms of who will win, but if the Academy doesn't recognize these terms, it will be forever regretful.

Who Should Win: The Social Network
Even though I gave Inception the best movie of the year (plus I gave up on its chance once Christopher Nolan was insultingly snubbed), I think The Social Network is the movie that needs to establish the benchmark. Citizen Kane failed to win in 1941, so why make another mistake now?

Best Director

Nominees: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), Joel & Ethan Coen (True Grit), David Fincher (The Social Network), Tom Hooper (The King's Speech), David O. Russell (The Fighter)

Who will win: David Fincher
Because even if The King's Speech takes it, the academy cannot afford to not recognize what Fincher did. He took an impossible premise for a movie and made it real. Aaron Sorkin will get his with an Adapted Screenplay win, but it would be nothing without how Fincher brought it to life.

Who should win: David Fincher.
For the same reasons.

Best Actor

Nominees: Javier Bardem (Biutiful), Jeff Bridges (True Grit), Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Colin Firth (The King's Speech), James Franco (127 Hours)

Who will win: Colin Firth
There's no arguments here. This is his year.

Who should win: Colin Firth
This is his time.

Best Actress

Nominees: Annette Benning (The Kids Are All Right), Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole), Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone), Natalie Portman (Black Swan), Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

Who will win: Natalie Portman
Even though Annette Benning may pull the veteran card and take her long overdue Oscar, I think Portman has the advantage of letting everyone know that she is on top of the world. Black Swan is a $100 million hit and I think it's a much stronger contender than what people have come to perceive. With the overwhelming support of the film, it looks like Portman is about to top the top of the world she is already on.

Who should win: Natalie Portman
She completely engulfed herself in the role. And now, it will completely payoff.

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees: Christian Bale (The Fighter), John Hawkes (Winter's Bone), Jeremy Renner (The Town), Mark Ruffalo (The Kids Are All Right), Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech)

Who will win: Christian Bale
He gives the performance of the year in one of the best acted movies of the year. His portrayal of Dicky Eklund is nothing short of a revelation. Finally, this is his year of recognition.

Who should win: Christian Bale
What don't you f****** understand?

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees: Amy Adams (The Fighter), Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech), Melissa Leo (The Fighter), Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit), Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom)

Who will win: Melissa Leo
Even though she's off-putting voters with an aggressive campaign, Leo has the advantage of playing a standout character. And it's not just the hair.

Who should win: Melissa Leo
This is almost by default. Leo isn't a clear winner, she just barely edges out the competition.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Nominees: Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy (127 Hours), Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network), Michael Amdt. (Toy Story 3), Joel & Ethan Coen (True Grit), Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini (Winter's Bone)

Who will win: Aaron Sorkin
Is there anything more sweet to the ears than Aaron Sorkin dialogue? This is a rapid fire script that is tightly written and beautifully executed. This is a combination the Academy can't ignore.

Who should win: Aaron Sorkin
Usually I get turned off when one movie dominates the whole night, but when it's deserving, there's nothing sweeter. Sorkin all the way.

Best Original Screenplay
Mike Leigh (Another Year), Scott Silver & Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson (The Fighter), Christopher Nolan (Inception), Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg (The Kids Are All Right), David Seldler (The King's Speech)

Who will win: David Seldler
Because the Academy has The King's Speech in frontrunner status, therefore knocking everything else out by default.

Who should win: Christopher Nolan
The fact that he wasn't nominated for Best Director is more than shameful. It doesn't make any sense. Yet somehow, the Academy still has a chance of redeeming itself. Don't expect a Nolan win here, but if they ever want the good graces from fans again, this is where they can get it.

2010 was a robust year for movies, but the Oscars are always something special, regardless. I am proud to say that every movie nominated for Best Picture is worthy of its status. I just hope the right movie walks away with the prize. To The Social Network, I hope you take it all.

2011: What Happened To My New Year's Resolution?

Less than two months ago, I made a New Year's resolution that I would be more optimistic about movies. Then I saw Season of the Witch. I joked it off. Then I saw The Green Hornet, which wasn't terrible by any means, but certainly nothing worth rushing to the theaters for. Biutiful was certainly beautiful in many ways, but that's a 2010 release so it technically doesn't count. Then last night, I witnessed Just Go With It. Not only was it a cadaverous experience, it was an eye-opening one.

I can now feel what I use to only see: today's movies have hit rock bottom. At least for me anyways. I won't rant, but it's just very hard to stay optimistic when movies like Just Go With It are being released successfully. Obviously, product-placement and marketing specific demographics are nothing new, but how much sadder can it get? Let me explain.

Just Got With It is an Adam Sandler comedy released on Valentine's Day weekend with a sexy co-star who shares the movie poster with the actor in which they are in a tropical environment where he is fashioning a goofy smile and she is displaying a melancholy look. It means the two characters will experience "funny" hell before they live happily ever after. Here is the poster:

Doesn't this remind you of another Adam Sandler comedy released on Valentine's Day weekend with a sexy co-star who shares the movie poster with the actor in which they are in a tropical environment where he is fashioning a goofy smile and she is displaying a melancholy look? And that it means the two characters will experience "funny" hell before they live happily ever?.....

Did I mention that both taglines are totally lame too?

50 First Dates isn't a terrible movie. In fact, it was very appropriate for the holiday when it was released back in 2004. However, that doesn't change the fact that whoever is marketing Just Go With It is purposely duping the public into going to the same movie they saw seven years ago. Sure, the premise is slightly different, but where do studio executives get off? When their movie open to $30 million? I hope that is satisfying enough, because there could easily be a passable film here like 50 First Dates (which opened to $40 million), but instead, we see Sandler (and company) having a great time in paradise collecting a hefty payday.

I guess this is all pretty irrelevant considering the success of this movie, but I hope next time we moviegoers look at these similarities and take them to heart. I know I have. I used to go into any movie regardless of what it was and enjoyed just being at the theater.

But with no upcoming movie really worth getting excited for, I guess I have to just go with it.

Nudity in Movies...

Necessary or Distracting?

In the past few months, my girlfriend Katelyn and I have been frequently discussing the topic of nudity in films and whether or not it is necessary to the story. This began by discussing the controversial scene in Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan where Natalie Portman's character has a wild sexual encounter with another female (Mila Kunis). While we disagreed on many aspects of this discussion, we were both trying to answer the same question: in what cinematic situations is nudity called for, and when is it not?

So I decided to create a list of movies that succeed in using nudity to enhance the story, and others that, well, do not. This also includes sexual acts that may not necessarily show the actual body part, but certainly show the action of doing it. (I will rate the necessity of nudity on a scale of 1-10.)

We'll start with positivity...

Five Movies That Get It Right

American Pie (1999)

I know it's not the best use of nudity ever, but in terms of enhancing the story, it was too hard to ignore this 1999 teenage phenomenon about a group of high-school seniors who try to lose their virginity before college. Now, the Weitz Brother's could have opted for a PG-13 rating and played it safe, but in 1999, the teenage comedy was almost dead and there was no reason to really go out of your way to see one in the theaters. Until now! American Pie was a huge step in the liberation of nudity in movies. The Shannon Elizabeth/Jason Biggs "sex scene" (or whatever you want to call it) is as funny as it is a movie landmark. Whether you enjoy nudity in films or not, there is no denying that this film would have failed without the abundance of nudity. How can you tell a story about losing your virginity without showing what you need to do that? Of course there are no close-ups of any male or female genitalia, but it avoids the mistake of censoring everything, and shows what it needs to let audiences know that nudity is apart of growing up, for better or worse.

Necessary Rating: 8/10

A History of Violence (2005)

David Cronengerg's mindblowing drama was one of the best movies of 2005, and one of the big reasons for that is because of its controversial sex scene between Viggo Mortensen and Mario Bello. The movie has been around for a while so I don't think this is a spoiler (although if you haven't seen it and want to know the story for yourself, skip this part). After finding out her husband is not who he says he is (that's putting it nicely), she is torn between forgiving him and leaving him. But before she can do any of that, the two engage in a crazy sex scene on the stairs in their home that's not rape or forced (because she eventually sanctions it), but that we know she is still attracted to this man. However, once its over, she leaves without saying a word. It's all physical from here, and I think he realizes that seems to be the only thing left between them. It's a stunner of a scene that utilizes its setting on the stairs to show a stalemate in their relationship. She goes up the stairs after its over. Does he go down? Watch the movie if you haven't seen it. You will be riveted.

Necessary Rating: 9/10

Last Tango in Paris (1973)

This is so strange. In the process of writing this article, I went on to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) to cross-check some credits and to learn more about its stars. Upon doing so, I see a news flash that the film's star Maria Schneider has passed away. It was an eerie coincidence, one that it now impossible for me to shake off. In this movie, Roger Ebert called the sex scenes "not sex at all, just a physical function of the soul's desperation." Couldn't have said it better myself Roger. This is considered one of the most controversial movies ever, and for good reason. If you have a closed mind, avoid this one, unless you want it opened up.

Necessary Rating: 10/10

The Dreamers (2003)

A fascinating, but exhausting sexual adventure about an American (Michael Pitt, now from Boardwalk Empire fame) studying in France who befriends a brother and sister during the 1968 student riots. I saw this movie for the first time when I was 15 and barely understood any of it. Watching it again in college made me look at it very differently. The movie is pure escapism, and in order to capsize on this American's fantasy, the viewer must be overwhelmed by how far sexually he is willing to go to feel that escape. While I'll admit the sexual content overbears almost anything else in the movie, the performances and controversial scenes make for one fascinating account of someones sexual desires.

Necessary Rating: 9/10

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Now, obviously there isn't any sex in this movie that one can enjoy. In fact, this movie contains one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever seen. However, it's for that reason that this movie makes the list. In the finale sequence, a character struggling with a serious drug addiction (played by Jennifer Connelly) sinks so low to get a fix that she's even willing to fornicate with another woman in front of an entire crowd of ruthless men just to get it. The only way we can truly feel the horror of this woman's actions is by physically showing what she's doing. It is a stunning portrait of addiction, one that literally creates the image of the lowest point in a person's life, and while it's happening, she knows exactly this. Anyone will tell you this movie is not for the squirmish, but for everyone else, it's a triumph.

Necessary Rating: 10/10

Five Movies That...Don't

Splice (2010)

Adrien Brody has sex with an alien. And they show it. What else do you need to know?

Necessary Rating: 2/10

Hollow Man (2000)

Note to studio executives- Invisible rape does not sell a movie, but that's one of the big scenes in this Kevin Bacon thriller, or should I say disaster. Not only are we watching a woman get rapped, but we're suppose to get some disgusting feeling that this is someones fantasy because she can't see who the rapist is? Literally? The only way to get through this is to notice the cheesiness of how its shot. If that's the case, game over.

Necessary Rating: 1/10

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

I enjoyed this crazy sci-fi sequel to the 1999 smash, but the Wachowski Brothers display a side to the human race only underground clubs should show. I understand they were trying to display the liberation of human sexuality, but did it have to be shown through a naked cave rave? That or Keanu Reeves and Carrie Ann-Moss showing off their beyond obvious awkwardness during a sex scene?

Necessary Rating: 3/10

The Human Centipede (2010)

What's wrong with the way this film displays nudity? Or better yet, everything? The answer is...EVERYTHING!

Necessary Rating: 0/10

Munich (2005)

Spielberg tries to create such fear in one man's eyes that he literally can't even have sex with his pregnant wife without those fears returning to his head. It's a bold scene, but it comes out of nowhere, in a movie that forgets the story it was trying to tell in the first place.

Necessary Rating: 4/10

Bruno (2009)

Too much penis. Not enough humor. When you have to mimic a website called MeatSpin.com to get a laugh, it's not only desperate, it's sad.

Necessary Rating: 3/10

This is just a taste of countless films that explore sexuality. I for one find it perfectly acceptable for a filmmaker to display the human body, so long as it has a reason to be in it. Wild Things can be considered a joke of a movie, but does the nudity make it better? I think so, and not just because of that epic pool scene. But did About Schmidt need a naked Kathy Bates in a hot tub? I think not. That is clearly a distraction. But everyone feels differently. And that's perfectly acceptable. Political beliefs, parental figures, where you live, and who you see the movie with are all factors in how one reacts to a scene.

I watched Last Tango in Paris during college after a class where we discussed the end of the Production Code, so I was clearly looking at the film from an educational standpoint. It's a movie I think any aspiring filmmaker should see, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a family member or someone like that. In a perfect world, I wish everyone was able to realize that nudity is a part of life, but then again, there are also films that can bring the human body back fifty years. For example, if anyone enjoyed the nudity in The Human Centipede, I see a therapist in your short future.