(Left to right) Molly (Alice Eve) runs into her handsome ex, Cam (Geoff Stults) to the dismay of Kirk (Jay Baruchel), an average Joe who just can’t believe that she has fallen for him in the DreamWorks Pictures comedy “She’s Out of My League,” a Paramount Pictures release. (Darren Michaels | Dreamworks)

I remember when Steven Karp was a freshman at UNEC and he lost his virginity to his floormate Lizzie on “Undeclared.” This makes me remember when Lindsay Weir decided to hang with the freaks at William McKinley High School in “Freaks and Geeks.” And this makes me teary eyed with nostalgia and furious at the narrow-minded television executives who would rather produce “American Idol XXXVII” than two of the most rewarding series to ever grace the barren wasteland of network TV. But I digress. I should focus on the present. And the present isn’t too bad now that I have just finished watching an enjoyable and reasonably funny movie that makes me believe my next girlfriend could be as hot as Alice Eve.

This conventional, but very pleasurable, teen comedy is “She’s Out of My League.” The premise is simple. Kirk (Jay Baruchel) is a goofy, directionless security guard with the Transportation Security Administration who is a complete pushover when it comes to women. He is such a wimp that he does not stop his ex-girlfriend Marnie (Lindsay Sloane) from coming over to his house to hang out with his family.

Unfortunately, Kirk’s family does not help with his self-esteem issues or lack of confidence. They consistently deride Kirk and offer him about as much moral support as Cardinal fans give to Chicago Cubs supporters.

A chance encounter at the airport results in Kirk meeting and going out on a date with Molly (Alice Eve). Molly is a gorgeous and successful event planner that looks like she should be dating Brad Pitt. But the two hit it off and they soon become an item. Their budding romance has left almost all of the people in Kirk’s life, including his goofball friends Stainer, Jack and Devon (played by the funny trio of TJ Miller, Nate Torrence and Mike Vogel) flabbergasted at the attractiveness of his new girlfriend. The rest of the movie follows a predictable storyline that tracks the high and low points of the new romance between Kirk and Molly.

Even though the movie has a predictable plot, there are some very funny moments throughout. The best parts usually involve Kirk’s friends at the airport. Devon is particularly memorable as a hopeless romantic who knows more about Disney movies than most 10-year-old girls. The group’s banter and antics, whether they are at a bowling alley or preparing Kirk to have sex with Molly, almost always bought a smile to my face produced laughter from the audience. One of the highlights of the movie is seeing Stainer’s Hall and Oates “tribute band” perform an emotionally charged set at a birthday party for Molly’s sister.

Not every movie needs to set trends or be the best movie of the year. Movies are about escaping reality for a few hours, even if you know what will happen in the end. In movies, as in life, the journey can be more important than the destination. This is unquestionably the case with “She’s Out of My League,” a movie that works within standard conventions to produce a memorable and funny feel-good comedy.

Directed by: Jim Field Smith
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Alice Eve, TJ Miller

Best Picture

Nominees

“Avatar”
“The Blind Side”
“District 9”
“An Education”
“The Hurt Locker”
“Inglourious Basterds”
“Precious”
“A Serious Man”
“Up”
“Up in the Air”

Who will win?

Paul Johannet: “The Hurt Locker” (A guess, as I’m guilty of having not seen it).
Alex Terrono: It’s down to “The Hurt Locker,” “Avatar” and “Inglourious Basterds,” but “Hurt Locker” will pull out the win in the end.
Davis Sargeant: “The Hurt Locker.”
Andrew Senter: “The Hurt Locker.”
Percy Olsen: “The Hurt Locker.” I feel so unoriginal, but then again, why fight it?

Who should win?

Paul: Rather than who should win, I’ll pitch a controversial who should NOT win: “Avatar.” This visually enchanting behemoth’s financial success has launched James Cameron into the ranks of creative directors completely void of narrative ability. George Lucas was at the initiation ceremony.
Alex: Well, in MY opinion, “Avatar” is a work of cinematic genius. It is beautiful, engaging and creative. “Avatar” for the win!
Davis: Before I saw “The Hurt Locker,” I thought of the war in Iraq as an abstract political issue. This movie should share a shelf with “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “Saving Private Ryan” and “Apocalypse Now” as a compelling examination of emotion in war.
Percy: Look, I don’t know if it’s the best movie the year, but I really, really, really want “Inglourious Basterds” to win. If you just size up the movie based on general traits (World War II epic, maybe a smidge of biopic), then it should win. But clearly, anyone who actually saw the movie will tell you it is so much more than Oscar bait. The more I think about the nominees, the more I want “Inglourious Basterds” to take it.
Andrew: There is a small part of me that wants “The Blind Side” to win. Why? So I can permanently disregard the Oscars and every terrible movie they decide to name “Best Picture” because it is popular. Or has Sandra Bullock in it.

Best Actor

Nominees

Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney, “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth, “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman, “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”

Who will win?

Andrew: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart.”
Alex: Jeff Bridges is on a roll that no one can stop.
Percy: It’s gotta be Jeff Bridges.

Who should win?

Alex: Colin Firth shines in “A Single Man” in an emotion-packed, beautiful performance. Recognize!
Andrew: Jeff Bridges, who transforms what should be a Lifetime “movie of the month” into a memorable story about music and the perils of alcoholism, should take it.
Percy: Not to take anything from Bridges, but George Clooney was absolutely fantastic in “Up in the Air.” I would be incredibly surprised if he wins this year, but then again, I’d also be a little happy.

Best Actress

Nominees

Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side”
Helen Mirren, “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan, “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious”
Meryl Streep, “Julie & Julia”

Who will win?

Alex: Sandra Bullock will no doubt pull this one out. She’s the whole reason the film got nominated for Best Picture, so obviously the Academy loves her. Plus, the movie was the first female-driven film to cross $200 million. She made that happen.
Percy: Did you know that she said she was unhappy with her performance in “The Blind Side”? There should be some stipulation that you have to approve of your performance to win an Academy Award. Unfortunately, there isn’t, and she’ll take it.

Who should win?

Alex: I don’t care what anyone says, Zoe Saldana should win this award for “Avatar.” Even though she didn’t really appear on screen, her performance did, and it knocked my socks off.
Percy: Really, Alex? Zoe? Put your socks back on, this should go to Meryl Streep. Her winning percentage (two wins for 16 nominations) shows that she is consistently underappreciated.
Alex: Underappreciated? Really? 16 nominations later…

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees

Matt Damon, “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson, “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer, “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci, “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”

Who will win?

Paul: Christoph Waltz.
Alex: Without a doubt, Christoph Waltz.
Andrew: Christoph Waltz.
Percy: Agreed, it’s Christoph Waltz. Man, just writing that gave me chills.

Who should win?

Andrew: Waltz gives one of the most riveting and horrifying performances of the year.
Paul: Putting aside the ethical pitfalls of “Inglourious Basterds,” Waltz was brilliant. He colored the sadistic, cunning interrogative approach of Col. Hans Landa. Without sacrificing Landa’s perceptive abilities, Waltz made his character surprisingly inhuman, even for a Nazi.
Percy: Matt Damon really brought the goods in “Invictus”—he should win if the Academy has any sense. Nah, I’m just kidding. Waltz.
Alex: I’m going to go off on a limb and say that Harrelson should win.

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees

Penelope Cruz, “Nine”
Vera Farmiga, “Up in the Air”
Maggie Gyllenhaal, “Crazy Heart”
Anna Kendrick, “Up in the Air”
Mo’Nique, “Precious”

Who will win?

Alex: Mo’Nique had this in the bag in September.
(Silence)
Alex: So no one’s going to argue?

Who should win?

Alex: Anna Kendrick really shone through in “Up in the Air.” She was my favorite part of the movie.
(More silence)
Alex: Seriously, guys?

Best Animated Feature

Nominees

“Coraline”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”
“Princess and the Frog”
“The Secret of Kells”
“Up”

Who will win?

Paul: “Up.”
Alex: “Up” is a Best Picture nominee, enough said.
Andrew: “Up.”
Percy: “Up,” and it won’t be close.

Who should win?

Paul: “Up.” The film begins with a 15-minute montage of truly beautiful storytelling showing the relationship of Carl and Ellie.
Alex: Pixar can’t go wrong, and “Up” is no exception. It is beautifully made and completely adorable.
Andrew: The best picture nomination says everything.
Percy: But I don’t think we can forget about “The Princess and the Frog.” Yes, “Up” was the better movie, but Disney’s first hand-animated film in years dazzled, while bringing back a flood of childhood memories about “The Lion King” and “Aladdin.” It even made me have an emotional moment (and I’m not keen to admit that.) “Up” deserves it, but wow, that is some tough luck for “The Princess and the Frog.”

Hold on a second. Did I say “Steven Spielberg,” implying that this man, the creator of “E.T.” and so much else, had something to do with “The Land Before Time”?

Your eyes do not deceive you, dear reader. The original “Land Before Time” (1988) was produced by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, directed by Don Bluth and even played in theaters! Six years later marked the onslaught of 12 direct-to-VHS copycat sequels that lacked the original creators’ participation. And they are certainly a force with which we must reckon. So, before we do that, let’s lay down the grounds for evaluation. The first “The Land Before Time” is ineligible for entry on the grounds that it is the granddaddy of all “Land Before Time” (LBT) videos and will most certainly monopolize first place. Because I cannot assume that every student has time to leisurely absorb 12 videos, I’ll constrict my review to the top five sequels.

Let the reckoning begin!

5: ‘The Land Before Time XII:
The Great Day of the Flyers’
This jewel from 2007 makes it to the list simply because there is a feathery dude who shows up, doesn’t know what he is, thinks he is unique and draws a lot of attention to himself—and his name is Guido.

4: ‘The Land Before Time IV:
Journey Through the Mists’
This installment introduces Littlefoot’s lover, the beautiful girl-child longneck named Ali. A true love seed is sown as Littlefoot discovers his heterosexuality, and, even though Ali’s herd leaves the valley, we are left with the promise that she will one day be reunited with the gang. This never happens, so I assume she met a steamy end in lava soup somewhere and/or was eaten.

3: ‘The Land Before Time XI:
Invasion of the Tinysauruses’
Well, heck, who doesn’t love blaming everything that goes wrong on tiny people? The Tinysaursuses are LBT’s version of the scapegoat, as well as an indication that the writers’ ideas were running out by No. 11. These smallish Longnecks eat every single tasty “treesweet,” apparently having forgotten what they learned in kindergarten about sharing. In an effort to redirect the blame game to the appropriate party, Littlefoot takes the gang to see the Tinysaurs in their underground lair. Until this point the plot is rather dull, so why include No. 11 on this list? Well, here’s the kicker: The leader of the Tinysaurs is named Big Daddy. He’s bossy, ugly and tiny, but his big ol’ personality earns him that name. Big Daddy really saves this movie, which otherwise really has absolutely nothing else vouching for its legitimate existence.

2: ‘The Land Before Time VII:
The Stone of Cold Fire’
The writers really can’t take all the blame for LBT’s narrative restrictions. Indeed, they do a rather nice job avoiding the fact that all the little dinosaur friends could die at any minute, not from a Sharptooth, but from, say, a meteor shower. The stone of cold fire mentioned in the title is actually a meteorite. It is not dangerous—no, never that—but is something more along the lines of “magical” or “mysterious.” Some oldster in the valley is a bad, bad dino and wants to use the magic stone to take over the world. He doesn’t succeed and instead is banished. Seeing as no one gets blasted to bits or boiled in the volcano, I commend the writers for creatively avoiding the facts of science and history in order to keep things G-rated. (NB: remember the children next time you care more about fact than fiction.)

1: ‘The Land Before Time VI:
The Secret of Saurus Rock’
Of all twelve movies, why on earth does this one deserve the top spot? Taken in its entirety it could be outrun by one of its copycat counterparts, but one song in particular catapults it to the top. Always the optimists, the gang sings “When a Sharptooth finds you all alone that’s bad luck (bad luck!),”or my translation, “In the event that a Velociraptor attacks, it sucks to be you.” What a philosophy!

So Kevin Smith makes great comedies, but does he make great satires? More on that later. With “Cop Out,” Smith has his biggest budget in six years (well, since “Northeastern Lass”), and what does he do with it? The answer is complicated, so let’s start at the simple end of things. “Cop Out” hired some star power. Tracy Morgan plays a less-than-serious cop named Paul Hodges, and Bruce Willis is the slightly-more-serious cop Jimmy Monroe.

In the words of a tagline, “Their methods are…unconventional.” In the film’s opening minutes, Hodges finds himself chasing a perp while dressed as a giant cellphone, with Monroe just behind the two, driving his dirty car. See, if Monroe were a serious cop, he’d keep his car clean. That’s how you know he’s only slightly more serious than Hodges.

Where does their goofy cop-bad cop dynamic fit in the pantheon of buddy-cop movies? Somewhere between Jackie Chan-Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan-Owen Wilson. Morgan and Willis are both too goofy to straighten the other one out, just like how we’re told that Chris Tucker is supposed to be the “crazy one” while we watch Jackie Chan smiling and beating up a guy up with his tie.

And now we get to the harder question: What does Smith do with his budget? The answer: you’ll laugh at the movie, but you won’t know why.

When Tracy Morgan drops five f-bombs in 30 seconds, what are we supposed to laugh at? Are we laughing at the lowly criminal he’s interrogating, who gets more scared with every drop of spit that falls on his face? Are we laughing at Tracy Morgan’s character, because we all know that Morgan is crazy enough to think he’s cool enough to drop the f-word at will? Or are we laughing at the entire crime-thriller genre?

I want to assume I was laughing at a satire, because Smith has that “smartest-man-in-the-room” aura, but then again, when has Smith ever made a satire? It’s hard to tell what tone Smith is going for. It’s clearly a comedy, but at what level? Is it being straight with us? Is it ironic? “Cop Out” is unfocused, and the viewer can’t get a bead on the larger picture. One second, Willis will break down because he can’t pay for his daughter’s wedding, and the next he continues his quest for a lost baseball card.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s call it a sloppy satire. That being said, you will probably laugh all the way through. Morgan is funny as usual, but Seann William Scott steals the show as a thrill-seeking, dumb-as-rocks, parkouring criminal. Make sure to stay after the credits.

Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart star in “The Twilight Saga: New Moon.” (Kimberley French | Summit Entertainment | MCT)

There’s a six-foot tall cardboard cut-out of Edward Cullen in my younger sister’s bedroom.

It wobbles when she hugs it. She wraps her arms around his shoulders, and one of her hands scrapes his unfinished back. My mom smiles at me from behind the flashing camera, and I turn away.

“Vampires are in now,” my sister informs me. I have to wonder when wizards became “out.” There was a time, six years ago or more, when the two of us would sit as siblings in front of a “Harry Potter” movie. The magic, the creatures— I drank it all in.

“Look at that spell!” I’d exclaim.

“Look at Ron Weasely,” she’d reply. I guess that should have been my first clue. Appreciation on two levels can widen a movie’s appeal, but the hotness factor soon outweighs all else. My friends would soon follow suit.

“Man, I love ‘Wingardium Leviosa,’” I’d tell them.

“I know what you mean,” my friends would reply. “Hermione is so frickin’ hot.” It wasn’t until the fourth movie that I understood what they meant.

But even though my friends could recognize general attractiveness before I could, my younger sister outpaced us by years. When we were freshmen, and my sister was in fourth grade, we were just beginning to Google-image-search Britney Spears on our cell phones, and she already had plans to marry Billy Joe Armstrong from Green Day. Yes, Robert Pattinson is younger than Armstrong, so at least she has her eye on someone more in-her-range nowadays, but the movies he stars in are far…sexier than anything Green Day will ever put out.

That’s because Pattinson isn’t just Pattinson; he’s Edward, a sickly-pale vampire with greasy hair and an instinctual urge to suck out all that blood wasting away in your veins. He wants to love, but he can’t. He doesn’t want to fight, but he must. So what does that make him? An animal, inhuman, not worth our attention. And yet, he is constantly in our view. But why?

“He’s hot,” my sister says.

Oh that’s right. Screw everything I just said, because he’s hot, and that’s a true-fact. Edward is the alluring vampire with a six-pack, and his sunken gaze will steal your heart, right after he’s done eating it. And that’s all you need to know about Edward to understand what comes next.

Students at Wash. U. framed their childhood around “Harry Potter,” tales of familial love, of an evil that tests and strengthens friendships and, as always, of “Wingardium Leviosa.” We revered the texts, for they were good to us, and we haven’t forgotten them.

And what does my sister’s age group get from their “Twilight”?

“He’s hot,” my sister reminds me.

They get an experience they’ll quickly forget. Mark your calendar, the new sex-symbol approaches, ready to fill that gap that will empty unceremoniously when Pattinson turns (approximately) 25. The new fling could be a teenage centaur, or maybe even a provocative cell-biologist.

He will be whoever the movie industry decides to dangle as teenage bait, and then it’s “Move aside, Edward; hello, luscious plumber.” So I guess I can’t blame my younger sister for the situation she’s in. It’s the industry’s doing, isn’t it? And as I read “The Prisoner of Azkaban” for the fourth time, I just feel bad that she can’t get out of the cycle.

My sister places a fedora atop Edward’s windblown hair, which frames his pasty face. I turn away, laughing.

“He doesn’t like the sun,” she explains. “Mom, take another picture. Mom! Give me the camera!”

This sort of tension is indicative of most of the work in the show. The exhibit’s centerpiece, aptly titled “Lunch Break,” is an 83-minute film with one eerily slow and uninterrupted tracking shot that traverses a long corridor of the shipyard as employees eat, read the newspaper, nap and chat with coworkers. The film has been drastically slowed down; six minutes go by before the camera passes the first figure, and another seven before it reaches the next group. As a result, every minute detail and action is brought into focus, adding an aura of sublimity and severity to the workers’ most banal actions. This might reflect a romanticized notion of how we can imagine the workers viewing their lunch break: as a short but sacred escape from the doldrums of manual labor in which every moment of rest has an elated and extended significance. Yet what undermines this reading is the film’s soundtrack, which was a collaborative effort between composer Becky Allen, filmmaker James Benning and Lockhart herself. To make this, Lockhart recorded the ambient noise of corridor in real time, which was then turned into a composition on an electronic keyboard and paired with harmonic frequencies of the machines in the corridor. This culminates in a dense drone of fragmented speech and mechanical modulations, creating a pervasive sense of suspense or even anxiety to the slowly moving piece. This unease is strengthened by the juxtaposition of the slow-motion cinematography and a seemingly real-time soundtrack, suspending our sense of the passage of time. All of this coalesces into an unclear picture: If the emphasis is on defying the banality of the lunch break, of bringing the most mundane tasks into a special significance, then all the cinematic suspense seems to get in the way.

While there is some humor  in certain moments, like when one worker slowly removes a bag of popcorn from an off-screen microwave, it is very unclear what that irony means. Should we be amused? Scared? Awed? The scale and ambition of Lockhart’s collaboration—both with the factory workers and with the other artists—is an impressive feat, but I fear that the inclusion of all these disparate elements creates an irresolvable, idiosyncratic product that falls short of any clear message.

The second film in the exhibition, “Exit,” is more successful. A 41-minute study of repetition and variation, the film depicts workers leaving the Bath Iron Works factory over five consecutive days. The continuity here is preserved by a fixed camera position. Each day is captured in an eight-minute segment of a mostly male working class happily unshackled for the evening, conversing and swinging their now-light coolers as they exit the facility. Whatever is lost by the Hollywood dramatization of “Lunch Break,” “Exit” maintains. Because it lacks the formalist over-composing that is prevalent in the rest of the show, “Exit” retains a sense of integrity and believability more reminiscent of Lockhart’s earlier work.

Ultimately, the exhibit “Lunch Break” is a portrait of an artist in transition. On one hand we see Lockhart the researcher/documenter. On the other we see Lockhart the formalist/composer. While she seems quite adept at both skill sets, there seems to be a certain number of complications that arise as she begins to combine the two.

First, I have to admit that the plotlines of these movies leave something to be desired. The dance movies are the pinnacle of the underdog story line. At least one dancer is ridiculously talented, but isn’t getting the respect he deserves. The dancer then works his or her way up, eventually achieving whatever goal for which he was striving. Yes, this story line might be cheesy or overused, but it is certainly inspirational and engaging. No matter how many movies have this same exact plot, people will watch and enjoy them. I will always be one of those people.

One of my favorite parts of these dance movies is the music. Usually comprised of hip-swaying, booty-shaking hip-hop/R&B songs (with one or two ballads for good measure), the soundtracks to these movies are top-notch. Just as they get the protagonists up and dancing, they will be certain to force you out of your chair and onto the dance floor. The “Step Up 2: The Streets” soundtrack alone featured Flo Rida’s No. 1 single “Low” and two Missy Elliott rump-shakers, “Ching-a-Ling” and “Shake Your Pom Pom.” Its predecessor housed Ciara’s hit “Get Up,” along with club-bangers from Yung Joc, Petey Pablo and Kelis. In truth, these soundtracks (namely “Step Up” and “Honey”) are my favorite soundtracks ever; I like to move.

The dancing stars who grace the screens of these movies also never disappoint. “Honey,” for example, stars Jessica Alba as the eponymous character who tries to cement herself in the hip-hop music video world as a dancer and choreographer. Let’s face it: Alba is hot. She has topped numerous lists proclaiming just that, and “Honey” was her first big role. Without it, who knows where she’d be. The same film also stars Mekhi Phifer from “8 Mile,” Lil’ Romeo, Joy Bryant and Missy Elliott, all of whom only improve the film. Similarly, “Step Up” launched the career of eye-candy Channing Tatum, who is now a bona fide film star, having half-carried the new movie “Dear John.”

Of course, the most important part of the dance movie is the dancing. That is, in fact, the point. Without the dancing, there would really be no point—I admit that. I would have no interest in any of these movies without the promise of some killer dance moves. With each choreographed routine, my heart skips a beat. Every time a dancer does a flip in the air, my soul does one to match. The dances are exhilarating, explosive and extreme. Talented (and attractive) dancers dance awesomely choreographed routines to high-energy hip-hop songs. If that’s not enough to entertain you, then I don’t know what is.

“Honey” and “Step Up” are just two in a series of entertaining, heartening, groove-inducing dance films. They star hot actors, hot music and hot moves, but most of all, they inspire. The stories themselves inspire as the underdogs climb their way up the professional ladder, while the dances inspire in other ways. After each movie, I wish for nothing more than the ability to dance just like Channing Tatum or Lil’ Romeo. While I have never actually followed up on those feelings, I will always be inspired nonetheless. It’s this inspiration that really propels these movies to the top and makes them the quality movies that they are.

Ever since the release of Weezy’s first rock single, “Prom Queen,” I have heard almost nothing but poor reviews from both my friends and music critics. Everyone shouted the same ideas over and over again: “Lil Wayne needs to stick to what he’s does best,” or “Why did he try to fix what wasn’t broken?” These questions bring to mind striking comparisons between Lil Wayne’s rock record and Kanye West’s 2008 pop album, “808s and Heartbreak.” Both artists are widely considered two of the greatest rappers of the past decade. Both were at the top of their game before an extensive transformtion. And both of their albums deviated from the artist’s customary skill set that millions of fans have worshipped and revered. But most importantly, both “Rebirth” and “808” left hip-hop fans—including myself—disappointed.

But I’ve come to learn that I was wrong. It is perfectly acceptable to dislike the new musical fashions that Kanye and Wayne experimented with, but it is not acceptable to dislike them for doing so. I realized that I had forgotten music’s most basic feature: its tendency to evolve. Music is about creativity and innovation. We all know that our grandparents can’t stand our hippity-hop and gangster (emphasis on the ‘r’) rap songs, and most of us rarely tune into the big bands our grandparents cherished. But we too often fail to realize the almost unavoidable possibility that we will detest our grandchildren’s musical tastes, and they will probably hate on rap music in return. This evolution is rooted in music’s central qualities: its ability to transform, to expand, and to ebb and flow. If I am a true fan of music—whether it be hip-hop, rock, pop or any other genre—then I need to respect the fact that the legacy of music depends on its nature of change.

I now realize that I can’t criticize Kanye and Lil Wayne for their musical deviations. To do so would be unfair to two of rap’s greatest artists, to music, and to the lover of music inside me. Mr. West and Weezy are only doing their job: furthering the legacy and spirit of music. I may give “Rebirth” and “808” a zero-star rating, but I certainly give them a 10 out of 10 in the props department. We hear rappers continuously focus on money and fame, but these two musical masterminds put their reputations on the line. Wayne and Kanye must have recognized that their fans might dislike their new musical form. But they also must have assumed that the fans would still appreciate the musician. So while it may kill me to listen to Lil Wayne’s rock album and Kanye West’s pop record, I will no doubt defend them to the death.

Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures

Last semester, we wrote a heap o’ articles on our favorite movies, genres and “America’s Next Top Model” cycles from the last decade. They were a big hit, and nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted the ride to end. Well, we’ve got news for you, fellas: The decade is over! So it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue ranking the past. You see, we here at Cadenza are all about the future, and to say hello to the teens, we’re going to slowly put together a comprehensive list of all things arts and entertainment that we know are to happen this decade. Call us what you want: lunatics, time-wasters, Jacob from “Lost”—we’ve heard them all before, and we don’t care. We already know how awesome we are. We’re about to predict the future, *dammit*!  So here are what are sure to be our favorite movies of the next decade.

‘Avatar 5: Red, White and (gasp!) Blue’

The president of the United States has gone missing from the White House’s annual Space Barbecue and Potato Sack Relay Race Team Building Exercise, and the only man who can find him is special agent Jake Sully! There’s only one problem: Agent Sully has also been framed for the kidnapping!

In a space epic that spans several worlds and at least four dimensions, Agent Sully has to find the missing commander in chief, testify in court to clear his name, and make it home in time to help Neytiri prepare their famous enchiladas for their Super Bowl party. A dramatic turn from Peyton Manning adds a human touch to a cast that honestly consists mostly of puppets.

‘The Arrested Development Movie’

After years of anticipation, Mitch Hurwitz releases his baby to the public, and it is an international hit. It becomes the highest-grossing movie of all time, even if you figure in inflation. The movie sweeps the Oscars—literally. It wins every category, including Best Animated Picture, due to the return of Mr. Banana Grabber (His catchphrase remains, “Look, a She-gull!”).

The movie is loved by everyone…well, almost everyone. Most Dunderheads decide to skip the movie, opting to watch “The Office” alone in their bedrooms.

‘Iron Man vs. Sherlock Holmes: Partners in Time’

In the acting challenge of his career, Robert Downey Jr. must channel a young Lindsay Lohan to play two certified geniuses who live in different times and were separated at birth. Naturally, Iron Man and Holmes go through the classic stages of sibling rivalry at first, but they soon push their issues aside when they realize that a 19th-century crime syndicate has acquired a nuclear weapon and is holding the world ransom…in two different time periods! The two heroes must utilize their unique strengths to save the world. Holmes has to use his smarts and his brawn to lay the smackdown on crime, while Iron Man must use his intellect and his physical strength to show the criminals that crime never pays.

MCT

The first time I saw a preview for the new movie “Dear John,” I wondered why they would name a supposed love story the term used for break-up letters. All throughout the preview, the main female character, Savannah (Amanda Seyfried), writes letters to her army boyfriend John (Channing Tatum), all beginning “Dear John.” As could be expected, the title—and the use of this line—foreshadow a major plot point.

Rewinding back to the beginning, the movie starts as John meets Savannah on a beach in North Carolina, while she is on spring break from college and he is on leave from the Army. The two have an intense love-at-first-sight, two-week romance, after which they go back to college and the Army, writing numbered letters back and forth. After 9/11, John decides to re-enlist into the Army, devastating Savannah. A while later, she stops writing to him, leading up to her real “Dear John” letter. After the letter, the story continues to unfold its twists and turns, leading up to a fairly predictable romantic-movie ending.

Being someone who has seen parts of Nicholas Sparks’ (the writer of the book that inspired the movie) biggest hit movie, “The Notebook,” I wasn’t expecting much out of this one, except maybe some unintended laughter. “Dear John” managed to exceed those modest expectations by a few baby steps. The plot of the film was predictable, over-dramatic and cheesy. The script was equally dramatic and sappy but wasn’t as awful as would be expected.

One aspect of the film that was surprisingly good was the acting. It’s true that Seyfried has already proven that she can act well, as she does in “Big Love.” For her, it wasn’t as much of a surprise that she could successfully bring her character to life without being over-the-top. Tatum, on the other hand, had not previously shown any of his real acting skills, appearing in “Step Up” and “G.I. Joe.” He was much more convincing in the romantic lead role than I had thought he would be. He shows that he is more than just dancing, gun-slinging eye candy; he is a real actor.

The movie itself is also unexpectedly well made in its cinematography and editing. It may not be award-worthy, but it is certainly artistically driven, a feature not usually seen in romance movies. Also positive is its inclusion of intense emotional issues, like war, cancer and Asperger’s syndrome. By far the most emotional of these stories is the subplot of John’s father, a coin collector who lives by a strict schedule. When Savannah tells John that she thinks his father has autism, he overreacts, reverting back to his violent past. As the film continues, John comes to terms with what Savannah says and tries to help his father any way he can, a storyline which really allows Tatum to show some of his acting range.

“Dear John” is not bad, by any means. It is entertaining, well acted and well shot. In no way will it be everybody’s cup of tea, but its sappy love story isn’t overpowering enough to turn most away. In the end, the movie is what it is supposed to be: a dramatic “chick flick” that will no doubt have some viewers in tears.

Rating: 3/5
Directed by: Lasse Hallström
Starring: Channing Tatum, Amanda Seyfried