the movieGOOMBA

1 GOOMBA

In the mood for something funny? In the mood for some romance? Something cute and tingly? Well, this is not the movie for you. Love Happens, is when love does not happen. Love is not nearby. It is far . . . far far away.

Hypocritical self help celebrity, Burke, works through his dysfunctional issues while trying to kindle a relationship with florist, Eloise.

Jennifer Aniston stars in another flop alongside failed other half, Aaron Eckhart. The plot lagged, the couple had no chemistry, and the story was a complete downer. But above all, Burke was an undesirable man and Eloise was not a good muse. None of Burke's actions seem inspired by anything, especially her. One could argue that Walter, the stoic man's man, who was able to open up after the death of his son, might have stirred a change in Burke, but this is suppose to be a romance, not a "I Love You, Man" flick.

But I'll let you guess, do you think Burke and Eloise end up together in the end? Oh the suspense! And you'll just never know because I've just convinced you to never see it.

I would like to comment on how cute I thought Aniston's wardrobe was, but that aside, this movie gets no love from me.

2 GOOMBAS

Finding humor in a tragic situation can be a gift. It can defy four out of the five stages of dying - denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. Laughter is the best medicine, after all. But in the case of George Simmons, these stages manifest themselves in humor.

George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a professional comedian who started in stand up but has a made a career that includes major motion pictures, big-name magazine covers, multi-million dollar houses, hot girls, and no friends. When he finds out that he has a deadly disease, he goes back to his roots in stand up comedy, gains a dark edge, and befriends a young, aspiring comedian, Ira (Seth Rogen), who is grounded, loyal, and star-struck.

Through the course of this dramedy, it becomes evident that George is a selfish ass, but Sandler's depiction is subtle and surprisingly likable. Ira is George's opposite - occasionally selfish but does the right thing when it counts. The development of their relationship was fun to watch at first, but then the movie just dragged; dragged during George's attempts to win his married ex-girlfriend back; dragged when hunky Eric Bana beats the crap out of frumpy Sandler. The film lost my interest, and by the end, I didn't care so much about Ira or George. Where's the humor in watching a train wreck?

It was cool to see into the life of the comedian lifestyle; a lifestyle that isn't portrayed that often in movies - the hard work, the creativity behind a good joke, the need for a lucky break, and the glamorous poverty of an unsuccessful career in the entertainment industry. However, I couldn't help but feel this watch was a waste of my time. The flick may star funny people, but it wasn't that funny. I'd skip it for something else. Funny People includes cameos from Marshall Mathers, Ray Ramano, and James Tayler.

4 GOOMBAS

Shot on the streets of India, Slumdog is full of hope and great story-telling. I was surprised to know that much of this intercrately weaved film was in English, but most of Jamal's youth was told in Hindi. I think that many viewers may find this movie to be eye opening. It isn't everyday that American's sitting in their cushy stadium seating see children living in landfills and fearing organized begging rings. But aside from international awareness, Slumdog is touching and its hero posseses an ironic innocense and unyielding spirit that makes this film unique and touching.

Don't be fooled by the seemingly cheesy premise. I'm guessing that the decision to base it around a game show has something to do with Indian culture in general. India loves light-hearted, sometimes (mostly) corny media (e.g. the Bollywood musical), and I appreciated the thought to add the authentic cultural influence. However, in no way is Slumdog corny.

Slumdog has cinematic style and class - hip but not trendy. Ocassionally, some scenes were shot in documentary style while his happy childhood memories look like nostaligic home movies. It definitely had cinéma vérité influences. The lighting marks each scene's tone, and then, there was the awesome soundtrack filled wth pop music from around the world. And I cannot forget to mention the subtle details in the subtitles, which is telling of the filmmaker's devotion to every component of this film

However, Slumdog's ending isn't as powerful as I hoped it would be, but my only compliant may have little to do with the movie and more to do with how jaded I am. There is remarkable quality found in this film, and it is worth watching - both for its story and for its message.

Sidenote: I thought the young Jamal was absolutely adorable.

1 GOOMBA

Dance is such a great form of expression, and it's such a great skill to have. People are always impressed if you know how to do any kind of dance, but there are some kinds that I can't find the appreciation for. For instance, I go to a religous conference every few years, and every time I go, they always have these expressionist dancers that I find distracting. I dare say that its kind of corny (God is going to shoot lightning at me now). But ribbon twirler's aside, I also didn't enjoy watching the "street" dancing that Step Up 2 the Streets exposèd.

Back at Maryland School of the Art (MSA), Andie West finds herself in a whole new world. A part of a local gang of street dancers, 4-1-0, Andie has become a common hooligan. So Andie's aunt sends her to MSA school in hopes that she can get her act together and go to college. Of course, her first few months at the art school are rough. She doesn't fit in, and her style of dance is considered beneath the schools standards. With the help of another student (who also happens to be the brother of MSA's school director) Andie finds herself expanding the school's idea of art and finding the confidence to battle at The Streets.

I don't normally care about how bad a dance movie's plot is or how cheesy the love story is - as long as the dancing is good. However, I must say that this was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. It's "step up" from Fool's Gold, but still some kind of awful. First, its a sequel - but a Bring it On kind of sequel. Nothing new. Just a regurgitated plot and a new 'villian' to beat. Second, the dancing was so jerky. You know that dude the Britney Spears cheated on Justin with; Wade Robson? I'm sure he's suppose to be an excellent dancer, but something just seems so stiff about the way he dances. Same with the moves in this movie. If that's what street dancing is suppose to be, I'm not a fan. Third, yes the end 'battle' was insanely (in a good way) choreographed, but seriously, the rain and the conspicuous stage lighting? If this movie was suppose mimic street culture, the street is a glamorous place.

There's an energy that draws audiences to see attractive youth and sex with clothes, but I warn you not to succumb to what you may think is a guilty pleasure. So I digress into song: Skip this movie. Skip it, skip it, skippin' and a screamin' and a bop-d-bop. Skip it, skip it, this jingle is a better than the flick hop hop.

Sidenote: Channing Tatum makes a brief appearance as his original character Tyler Gage.
Sidenote: We have a whole lot to look forward to. They're making a thrid movie, Step Up 3: The Pace. Whopp-de-doo.

4.5 GOOMBAS

1 GOOMBA

. . . and then he could jump through space and time - now we're in London, now we're in France, I can see Rachel Bilson's underpants.

Completely abrupt, haphazard, and crazy, Jumper is a story about David Rice (Hayden Christiansen) and his ability to jump through space - I'm not sure if he can jump through time though. They may not have covered that in the user manual. One day, after being throughly humiliated on the school yard in front of the girl he's crushing on, he falls through a frozen river and is about to drown. Suddenly, he finds himself sopping wet in the middle of the school library. He then realizes that he can go anywhere in the world, which includes a stop over in the middle of a bank vault. As the years pass and he's worked his way up to a luxury apartment, Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), a Jumper Hunter, finds him, and the whirlwind of jumping, running, and electrocuting begins. Somewhere in the mix, David manages to pick up his former childhood sweetheart (Bilson) and meet another Jumper.

Great CG and beautiful destination shots, Jumper is still just a hop, skip, and a jump away from being a zero GOOMBA, a rating I hadn't thought existed before this movie. Poorly acted, cheesy, and continuously dumb, I purposely gave you a thorough synopsis because I know you'll be curious, but don't do it! My synopsis is better! Samuel L. Jackson, a Jumper Hunter - I shouldn't have to say any more.

Aside from plot retardation (like Millie naively following along with no questions asked, or Jackson electrocuting Jumpers just because, or Hayden Christiansen pretending to be a bad ass), the interesting concept for a story was drowned, maimed, and cindered in the span of an agonizing 90 minutes. The movie started out well. I was engaging, and I was curious to see how it would all work out. Then, that great 20 minutes were followed by the introduction of the grown-up David (AKA Christiansen). Throw in the Snakes on a Plane actor, and you've got yourself a flop.

So Jumper is not good. Don't jump!

2 GOOMBAS

One of my favorite teachers, Mr. Armstrong, taught AP European History. During the first week of class, I had been listening diligently to one of his lectures, and for one moment I focused on my notes when suddenly, he calls my name. He's waiting for my answer. The last thing he was talking about before I zoned out was Germany. The question was, "Where does he live?" So I answered, "Berlin . . ?" In actuality, the question was "Where does the pope live." And that, of course, was the wrong answer. So from then on, every once in a while, if Mr. Armstrong thought I was drifting off . . . he'd yell "Jennifer! Where's the pope!?!" And I'd answer, "The Vatican, Mr. Armstrong." But aside from learning where the pope lived, I learned about Anne Boleyn and her integral part to the Church of England.

The Other Boleyn Girl focuses on Henry VIII's affair with Mary Boleyn (Scarlett Johansson) and the struggle between two sisters over the same man. Mary is shy and beautiful while Anne (Natalie Portman) is witty and daring. In an attempt to raise their family standings, the Boleyn parents sought to make Anne King Henry's mistress. However, when her first attempt fails to get his attention, he notices the quiet, but stunning Mary instead. Mary becomes his mistress while Anne is sent off to France for some feminine refinement. Anne returns some years later, after the King has grown tired of Mary, and King Henry becomes infatuated with her. And when sisters fight over the same man, things get pretty ugly.

With two strong female leads, its a wonder that this period piece became such a revolting film. Now, I realize that this was just how it was in the olden days, setting your kids up to become royal sex toys for the betterment of the family, but I was absolutely disgusted. But that isn't so much the film's fault as it is history's fault. What was terrible was the indecisive portrayal of Henry VIII. I have no way of knowing how close the role is to the real person, but as a character, he had no depth or complexities. He was basically a sex fiend who got what he wanted or someone died if he didn't. Completely uninteresting. Same with the plot. Same with Anne and Mary. Although, I must recognize Natalie Portman's dazzling performance as the loving, yet dually selfish sister.

I must say that this article is particularly dull. I blame that on the subject. Don't watch this movie unless you want to catch a glimpse of the cute Jim Sturgess, the Boleyn Brother. Unfortunately, he gets beheaded and he doesn't sing a line. If I spoiled it for you - good. Anything to keep you from watching this film.

1.5 GOOMBAS

Morgan Freeman began his acting career in the late 1970's, and he's had steady acting gigs ever since then; averaging 2 movies a year since 1980. His kind eyes, winning narrative voice, and grandfather-ish naivety easily find him work. And Morgan Freeman will eternally be an old man. After all, he didn't start his acting career until his mid 50's. So after being a chauffeur, a convicted felon, the President, God, and a detective (multiple times over), he basically plays himself, an old man, in his latest flick called The Bucket List, which also stars former psychiatric patient and psychopath, but equally old, man, Jack Nicholson.

Aside from being old, Carter Chambers and Edward Cole are sick. They both have cancer, and it doesn't look hopeful. So, while they're in the hospital, they develop a bucket list, a list of all the things they want to do before they die. With the help of Edward's wealth, and each other, both set out to do things they would have never done given other circumstances.

A potentially great movie on friendship, The Bucket List can kick the bucket for all I care. Though both actors are supposedly playing characters, its hard to see a difference between themselves and the real man. They play who you'd pretty much think they'd be in real life - Morgan Freeman, the reserved, but kind grandfather and Jack Nicholson, a dirty old man. And their friendship was just about as believable as the CG. I felt no long lasting bond between them, no closeness or camaraderie, and they might as well have had a moving backdrop.

Meant to be sentimental but instead, ending in mediocre cheese, The Bucket List should have had the word "RV" plastered over its title because The Bucket List is about that bad. Save your Netflix queue for something a little less sob story, but even if you were looking for something like that, the only tears you'd see would be from pity - pity for yourself for watching this flick.

2 GOOMBAS

SYNOPSIS: Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal star in this politically charged film, Rendition. Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi is an American woman with a son and another on the way. As her Egyptian-born husband flies home from a business trip, he's kidnapped, taken to another country, and tortured by the American CIA for information on a middle-eastern terrorist group. This act is known as extraordinary rendition.

The GOOM: Insightful, Rendition is another example of filmmakers and actors voicing their political opinions through film. Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal turned in great performances, and the film tellingly portrays the upholding of American idealism and how it can be demolished.

The BA: It was sort of hard to follow. It reminded me And it's a movie about terrorists and America exerting its dominance by using unprincipled means. It's typical. It's boring. It's un-extraodinary rendition.

2 GOOMBAS

P.S. I Love You was advertised as “this year's best romantic comedy” - I can’t help but wonder if that movie critic was on crack. Did he see this movie? What part of having your dead husband leave you post-death, love notes is funny? To whoever wrote that review, you make me angry.

Previous experience has taught me that a fantastic cast does not necessarily equal a quality film. So here is P.S. I Love You, a perfect example, starring Academy Award winners Hilary Swank and Kathy Bates, and former, yet still hunky, Spartan, Gerard Butler. This film follows the life of Holly following the death of her Irish husband Gerry. Before passing, Gerry writes encouraging letters (which are delivered to her throughout the course of the film) to Holly in an attempt to help her cope and begin rebuilding a new life without him.

Simultaneously morbid and romantic, this flick brought on the tears. However, please picture me sobbing as I yell "this movie is so bad!!!" at the TV. Surprisingly, P.S. I Love You prodded the soft spot in my heart and concurrently, promoted irate feelings. Holly is an absolute pest of a character. I have absolutely no idea why Gerry would be in love with her. Second, why in the world did Gerry think that his notes were a good idea? His attempt to help her let go and grieve is completely backward. (Joe, this is not a good idea. You are not allowed to do this.) Some things just need to happen cold turkey. Lastly, the filmmakers' attempt to foster a new love interest is totally insensitive to the intense love story that they've already cultivated and committed to depicting. There's no way the audience will buy any other love story other than that of Holly and Gerry.

Something good I can say about the movie is its ability to evoke heartache. The filmmakers used the brilliant technique of intermingling Holly and Gerry's happy story with Holly's post-Gerry life. This yields the greatest impact to the viewer, as we are able to see/feel what Holly has lost instantly. And when Holly receives a new letter, we are again reminded that loss. P.S. I Love You is in no way a romantic comedy. It did a good job making you feel terribly somber and terribly depressed, and it did great at being just plain terrible.

2 GOOMBAS

2.5 GOOMBAS

So I've heard that the reason why Denzel Washington is good-looking is because his face is perfectly symmetrical, which makes it aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I can agree with that rational. I mean, he isn't overtly handsome (to me), but yet he's nice to look at - even when he plays a bad-ass gangster or a corrupt cop. However, something must be said about his performance in his most recent flick, The Great Debaters. His glaringly insensitive and distrustful portrayal of Melvin Tolson definitely made me see the ugly in Denzel.

Set in the 1930's and loosely based on a true story, the 'Great Debaters' are a group of young, educated individuals from the historically black Wiley College. Under the supervision and guidance of Melvin Tolson (Washington), four debaters are chosen for his elite team, James L. Farmer Jr., Henry Lowe, Samantha Brooke, and Hamilton Burgess. This film, produced by Harpo Productions, takes this team through one year of debate competitions with other black colleges in the South. After beating all notable schools in the area, Tolson begins to seek out white colleges to compete against, but in this heavily racist era, this is no easy feat. Throughout this film, their travels and experiences take them through a number of issues that affected the times (lynchings, racism, communism) and adolescence (first love, coming of age). This film also features Academy Award winning Actor Forest Whitaker.

I didn't like this movie. It was a jumble of political and social issues that were suppose to be facilitated by the plot, but actually became the side story to the plot. Or maybe they were suppose to be the side stories? I'm not quite sure . . . and this ambiguity does not bode well. There was just too much going on for it to be any good. It was a coming-of-age story, but then it wasn't. It was a educational film on racism, and then it was a period piece, and then it was a sports film. All these different aspects in a film, but yet all under-developed.

As for Washington's performance, the man is just good. However, his character contributed to the indecisiveness of the plot. He was a underground revolutionary, a Communist to be exact, and yet I couldn't quite tell if the film meant to portray this as a good thing or a bad thing. He had terrible character flaws. He liked to cheat in the debates. He wrote all of the arguments while the team did the research. He was insensitive and at times, cruel. He lies and creates uncomfortable tension, and yet he mentors these young minds and tells them to believe in themselves. He can be kind, but yet is terribly ruthless. He's such a huge contradiction that I can't see him as being a very good role model. So, though Washington gave depth and complexity to this multi-layered character, it deepened the obvious flaws in the already unfocused plot.

This could easily make the Hallmark Classics shelf, but not mine.

2.5 GOOMBAS

3 GOOMBAS

My first experience with French film was Ma Vie En Rose, a movie I had to watch for a gender in culture class, and I must say that I was quite surprised by it's flair. And every French film thus far had been the same, so what a drastic change it was to watch La Vie En Rose, a drab and simple film on the life of Edit Paif.

A biography of the famous 1940s French singer, La Vie En Rose (The Life in Pink) stars Marion Cotillard who won an Academy Award for her performance. At an early age, Edith Paif was left in a brothel to be raised by prostitutes and learns of her talent for song; already strange. As she matures, she begins signing on the streets of France and is soon discovered. After she makes her debut in a modest, but packed bar, the crowd's enthusiasm for her singing ensures her lengthy career in show business. As her success sky-rockets her to the top, her personal life and health become victim to her scrappy and lush lifestyle.

Unrefined and rough, Edith Paif fit my imagined impression of Lucille Ball in real life. She was bossy, fierce, stubborn, and crazy about man who had eyes for more than one. Now, to portray a character with so much personality is a feat unto itself. But have you seen Marion Cotillard as he real self? She seems sweet and delicate, yet even her body language was drastic transformation from her slink down the red carpet. This was truly a remarkable performance.

However, other than this artistic achievement and the believable make up and costume, this movie was pretty boring. Yes, Edith Paif was quite a woman, but Man, could I not wait for this movie to end. It was dark and uncharacteristically French, with its non-hallucinogenic style, and you couldn't wait to get to the subtle climax that is distinctive in biographical films (kind of like a climax in a documentary).

I love to sound cool when I say I've watched a foreign film that no one's really heard about. Sadly, I don't know if I'd actually recommend this film, and sadly I'm not cool either. But I would watch it if you're hip, stylish, live in the Village and just want to brag on your artistic sophistication.

2 GOOMBAS

3 GOOMBAS

I wonder if Tim Burton ever gets tired his look; his film look. I mean, it is slightly different each time, depending on its mood. Sometimes it's sad and darkly over exaggerated, sometimes it's happy and darkly over exaggerated, and other times it's madly gruesome and over exaggerated. But the costumes and scenery are always loud and attractively strange. It's almost like M. Night Shyamalan and his necessity to add twists to the ending. I wonder if it ever gets old to him. It surely doesn't get old for me as an audience member, but I guess an artist can only have one style.

Tim Burton's teams up with his #1 fan, Johnny Depp, in his latest, madly gruesome, musically tart flick, Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. In a past life, Benjamin Barker was happily married to a beautiful woman and had a beautiful daughter. Unfortunately for Barker, his wife's beauty attracted Judge Turpin, who then vindictively puts Barker in prison so he could swoop in and take Barker's wife for his own. Upon Barker's return (now calling himself Sweeny Todd) we find, through the magic of music, that he's given up on that life and vows to open up a barber shop on Fleet Street. Eventually, with the aid of his landlady Mrs. Lovett, he begins to kill all his customers via a single blade razor, while Mrs. Lovett turns their remains into meat pies.

I don't know why I laughed. Maybe because it was just so insanely gross and graphic that I must have needed to alleviate my involuntary cringing and repellence. Like always, Burton's attention to detail is stunning, and Depp's ability to look demoniacally crazed while still maintaining the ability to carry a tune is remarkable. And on the killing - the neck is such a delicate area that the chosen method for murder makes it seem more brutal, yet the actual murders were still kind of graceful. Until, of course, he pulled the lever that dropped the bodies down to the basement on their heads; then it was funny.

Sweeny Todd's character is tragic and romantic, yet wretched and pathetically evil. So sad for him. The ending's a dilly. Sweeny Tood will take you into his world and make you see internal struggle splattered across the screen. I wouldn't skip it if you're not into musicals. You can't really tell it is one. I would skip it if you're squimish or if you dislike meat.

3.5 GOOMBAS

SYNOPSIS: Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) is part of a group who provides support and protection - through coercsion - to a community dominated by poverty, drugs, prostitution, corrupt cops, and troubled youth. He's an American gangster. Eventually he becomes the leader and raises his gang through the corrupted hierarchy by buying cocaine from the source, smuggling it into the country via the U.S, military, and selling "Blue Magic" at a competitive price. It's up to Detective Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) to catch "the man above the mafia."

The GOOM: I thought this film was very interesting. It did a good job portraying mafia-type politics, and if I were a Political Science professor I would have shown this in my class for fun day. It was easy to follow, provocative, and exciting. An overall quality film.

The BA: No matter what Denzel does, I can't see him as a bad guy. I always see his foe characters as people who make poor choices but can always be redeemed; never just evil for the heck of it. So when Frank Lucas shoots a man straight in the head with no remorse in his eyes, I say "Well, that sucks. It's okay, I'm sure he didn't really mean it."

I also had issues with his wife's character. I don't think the movie illustrated whether she is just a gold digger or if she just doesn't care that her husband is a murder.

3.5 GOOMBAS

I have trouble watching scary movies by myself. Hence, I tend not to blog about them because I've seen so few. I'll eventually try and rectify this deficiency because I made a new friend at work who happens to like horror/slasher films. She's 60 years old and still loves to be scared. I guess we can be scared together then. So No Country For Old Men had to be watched with company. I've been warned that this film can be very disturbing.

Winner of the 2007 Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, No Country For Old Men is a suspense thriller about a greedy opportunist who finds himself in a sticky situation. While hunting out in the valley, Llewelyn Moss, comes across the remnants of a gun battle, and as he takes in the situation, he discovers a case full of money. Deciding to keep the money, he becomes the mouse in an elaborate chase for the fortune; the cat being a deranged serial killer with a crazy haircut.

Well thought out and intelligently crafted, No Country For Old Men is like Moby Dick; genius, yet entirely un-entertaining. I'm not saying that it was dull. The suspense and disturbing tension that predominates the film is 5 star, but as the ending approaches, the film increasingly becomes Coen-esque (i.e. weird). Conventional, key scenes slowly become omitted from the track, and I for one, almost lost the ball on the plot. "What, did she die? Huh? Did he die? What just happened? Where is he going?" were all questioned that I asked out loud. There was also a seemingly abrupt ending, accompanied with a seeming lack in resolution. However, for the Coen Brothers, it's always about motif, commanding themes, and prominent symbolism; usually never about the actual plot.

Each character in No Country For Old Men is a Coen-commentary on the people in our society and what our choices mean. The serial-killer, hit man - the epitome of evil (he's got the haircut to prove it; not to mention his weapon of choice establishes his complete detachment from normalcy); the cowboy, Llewelyn Moss - a man who makes bad choices (and is basically a bad person) but has a conscience; and Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a worn police detective who is a model citizen but has given up all hope on humanity. Each of the main characters is symbolic, and the ending is esoterically complex and original.

With all that said, I enjoyed the movie as much as I enjoy Mondays; not much. It was creepy and disturbing in all the right places, mostly due to a crazed Javier Bardem, but this film is for a very fine palette; one that I do not have. It's for the film artist, the complex thinker, and the Indie die hards. Not really for the movieGOOMBA's taste.

3 GOOMBAS

As I watched this movie, I reflected back on the first time I’d seen someone I knew play Black Jack with real money. Vegas: August 2004. In some smoke smelling, alcohol ridden casino, Joe, my fiancé, puts $40 cash on the table. The dealer explains the general rules. He's given the equivalent in chips. Then, two seconds and 4 hands later, it was gone. My friends and I groaned, we patted him on the back, and off we went play something not as disappointing. Now, $40 seems like Shrewt Bucks (1/100 of a penny) compared to what the kids in the Kevin Spacey film 21 coughed up.

Jim Sturgesse stars as the hot yet nerdy Ben Campbell in this teen audience targeted flick, 21. It first seemed to appeal to a wider audience, but I think that was a product of the marketing. No, this film is youthful and kind of MTV, trendy-edgy, especially in regard to its shot techniques. Though it dominated the box office in the recent weeks, it’s mainly because it’s the “coolest” movie out there. . . and your other choices are either that, Leatherheads or Horton Hears a Who.

So, what is this movie all about? It’s about making money, the shady, smart way. Ben Campbell is intelligent and hardworking as they come. A senior at MIT, Ben happens to impress one of his professors (Spacey) and is soon invited to the professor's secret Black Jack team. They count cards, hustle money from casinos, and make obscene amounts of cash. As Ben gets wrapped up in the world that is Las Vegas, his character takes a hit while his ego becomes gargantuan.

I thought the special effects in this movie were neat, and it glamorized the seemingly infinite possibilities that money can offer; the special effects were seamless, as effects should be, and it was kind of fun watching people my age swim in luxury (probably the same guilty reason why I read celebrity gossip magazines). However, the plot was soooo utterly predictable. As fun as it was to watch, I can’t honestly say that this is a good movie. Spacey’s performance was seedy and dirty (as in old man), but otherwise, it definitely wasn’t one of his best. I did like staring at Jim Sturgesse, and was thoroughly impressed by his ability to hide his British accent and camouflage it with a Boston one. But the impression he left on screen is as much as Kate Bosworth eats these days - not a lot. He should stick to singing.

Overall, I’d watch this movie again with a group of friends who don’t want to think too much about a movie. This film was made entirely for entertainment purposes. Any more expectation and you’ll bust.

3 GOOMBAS

I'm an indoor kind of girl. I grew up in a suburb of LA where the idea of nature was going to the neighborhood park and feeding the ducks in the man-made lake. The great outdoors? That was venturing out to my backyard, where the bugs lived. I've only been camping once, and it had bathrooms and actual showers. Remember Troop Beverly Hills? I would have fit right in, so the notion of burning my money and seeking a vagabond, hippie, sleeping outdoors kind of lifestyle just isn't quite appealing to me. But apparently to Christopher McCandless, this is nothing short of ideal.

A film adaption of the novel Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, which is based on the real life adventures of Christopher McCandless (AKA Alexander Supertramp), Into the Wild is a story about a lifestyle so simple and carefree, something seems wrong with it. Following his college graduation, McCandless donates 90% of his lifesavings and leaves town to become a wandering road tramp and to eventually make it to Alaska. From his travels, he meets a series of charaacters who shape his perspective and affirm his deliberate choice in the vagrant life.

Hopefully, before you continue reading this, you already happen to know the ending. It's not really a surprise. The film even takes the audience's premium knowledge on the ending into account, but I'll try my best to not be too obvious.

Alex Supertramp (Chris's alias) is the anti-consumer. He takes what needs, eats off the land, and lives for life experience. He's an economist's worse nightmare. He's free from red tape, societal responsibility, and instead of career worries, financial burdens, or relationship issues, his problems are about survival. Alex Supertramp wants a meaningful life, and the film depicts him as a charismatic and inspiring person. Yet I felt like he got punished for his drastic and radical choices. I'm not sure if this was the filmmaker's intent, but that was my interpretation.

Emile Hirsch was amazing as usual and Sean Penn did a superb job directing. Yet as much as I rooted for Alex and the message he lived, I couldn't help but say, "What the hell was he thinking?!?" Man has evolved to live as a society for a reason, and though some may have lost sight of the simple pleasures in life, a person has the ability to make choices. Making the decision to maintain a balance of both material and immaterial seems like the best option, given the movie. It's never a good thing to be a diva or a caveman.