‘Sex and the City 2’
Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda are back with another installment in the successful “Sex and the City” series. After the first film made the transfer to television, its success warranted a sequel. Are Big and Carrie going to stay together? Is Samantha going to find love? Why is Miley Cyrus in this movie? All of these questions and more will be answered this summer. More fashion, sex, city, comedy and drama are no doubt in store for the four girls as they navigate love and life.

‘The Karate Kid’
Things aren’t as simple as they were in the ’80s. Hollywood doesn’t do “remakes” anymore. They make “homages” and “reboots,” and this movie is definitely one of those last two. That means that Jackie Chan plays Mr. Miyagi—er, Mr. Han—and teaches Dre Parker karate—I mean, kung-fu. Things are different now, big whoop. Will Smith’s son, Jaden, isn’t as adorable as he was in “The Pursuit of Happyness,” but he looks just as endearing. However, the trailer is a little serious for Cadenza’s tastes. Hopefully director Harold Zwart can inject some fun into the final product.

‘Eclipse’
The third installment in the massive “Twilight” phenomenon, “Eclipse,” will be released this summer, featuring sudden stars Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner. This time around, the vampires and werewolves will have to band together to fight off an army of evil vampires who are trying to kill Bella. Even within this shaky alliance, vampire Edward and werewolf Jacob will duke it out to win Bella’s heart. The romance will have teenage girls swooning and screeching to the box office all summer (and Taylor’s countless shirtless scenes probably won’t hurt either).

‘The A-Team’
They’re back! But it’s been 24 years since the show ended, so why now? There’s a question of relevancy, but there’s also a counter-argument, because everyone knows about the A-Team (if not directly, then tangentially through hummed theme songs or conversations after 1-800-COLLECT commercials). For better or for worse, the show has been implanted into our social conscious, and the movie will surely capitalize on that. Sure, there’s the fear that it could end up being the next “G.I. Joe,” but remember, it could just as easily be the next “Star Trek,” too.

‘Eat Pray Love’
Based on the best-selling book, “Eat Pray Love” follows a recent divorcée, Elizabeth Gilbert (played by Julia Roberts), as she decides that she needs to change her life. After her divorce, Elizabeth decides to travel the world, living for months in Italy, India and Bali, trying to find what her life was missing. As if Roberts and exotic locations aren’t enough, “Eat Pray Love” is directed by “Glee” creator Ryan Murphy and produced by Brad Pitt.

‘Inception’
Following his successful turn in “Shutter Island,” Leonardo DiCaprio will be starring in yet another sci-fi thriller, “Inception.” Directed by Christopher Nolan (who directed “The Dark Knight”), “Inception” follows an agent who can give people drugs in order to venture into their minds, steal their secrets and sell them to the highest bidder. While this certainly seems like an ingenious business scheme, there is no question that things will take a turn for the worst, as the mind is not something you would want to mess with. Trippy and thrilling, “Inception” will have you on the edge of your seat.

‘Step Up 3D’
The successful and entertaining dance series, “Step Up,” is going to release its third film, and this one will be in 3-D! “Step Up 3D” will be released this summer and will star “Moose” from “Step Up 2: The Streets” and Camille Gage from the original “Step Up” (she played Channing Tatum’s sister). Speaking of Tatum, the actor, who launched the series, will also appear in the third film. With hip-hop and dancing galore, “Step Up 3D” will for sure be one of my favorite movies this summer.

‘Iron Man 2’
After battling for sobriety, Robert Downey Jr. began his comeback with a splash in 2008’s “Iron Man.” What hasn’t yet been said about his fantastic turn as Tony Stark? His witticisms were perfect for the role, bringing a sense of comedic timing to a funny flick. And no, “Iron Man” wasn’t “funny for a superhero movie”; it was genuinely funny, clever and any number of superlatives. Gwyneth Paltrow’s game of push-and-pull with Downey could fill a rom-com on its own. Mickey Rourke and Scarlett Johansson will fit into the sequel nicely, but let’s not kid ourselves. The new movie is, and always has been, about Robert Downey Jr. His renaissance continues.

‘Salt’
It’s unclear if Angelina Jolie’s character, the bad-ass Evelyn Salt, is working for us, the Americans, or our star-crossed enemies, the Russians. Of course, car crashes, gun fights and explosions are all but guaranteed in this thrill ride, but if director Phillip Noyce knows what’s good for him, he’ll raid Paul Greengrass’ (director of the last two “Bourne” movies) diary for tips on getting an action movie to marry a thoughtful story. We’ll see how Greengrass’ vision pans out when the movie is released in late July. Until then, we must ask ourselves, “Who is Salt?”

‘Robin Hood’
Russell Crowe. Ridley Scott. Put them in the same sentence, and “Gladiator” fans tend to sweat and roar in excitement. But what should we expect from this new exploration into the legendary figure of Robin Hood? There hasn’t been a serious movie on the well-meaning thief, his merry men or his tights in years. It’s not likely that Crowe’s Hood will have many cheery companions anyway. Think “Kingdom of Heaven,” and expect something epic with a deep message. Under the right guidance, this could be a very good thing.

1. The case against horrible acting
Most games nowadays have voice acting in some capacity, but nearly all of it stinks. You might think the suckiness is probably due to a combination of bad animations and poor acting, but just close your eyes, listen to Kratos scream like a pig and try to convince yourself that it’s good voice acting. From horror stories I’ve heard, voice actors throw all their training out the window when they hear they’re working for a video game. Pixar, and, to a lesser extent, Dreamworks, have had wonderful acting for years without the aid of A-list celebrities. Why can’t that happen in video games too?

2. Play with Perspective
Authors have been toying with unreliable narrators for centuries, and movies like “Memento” and “A Beautiful Mind” have continued the trend in earnest. It’s time for the unreliable narrator to jump to games. To be fair, the suspect narrator has made appearances in some “Final Fantasy” games, but more often than not, game stories are told from the perspective of some omnipotent being, like the sages in “Legend of Zelda” or an intelligence agency in any game involving terrorism. Imagine a first-person game with an unreliable narrator and how betrayed you would feel once you figured out your character’s ulterior motives. It has to happen.

3. The Opening of the Field
Why is it that every video game pits one super-powered protagonist against the whole world? How many movies released outside of the summer follow this trend? If games ever want to be recognized as art, they have to prove that they can be more than cheap knock-offs of Jerry Bruckheimer’s latest visual feast. Movies have flawed characters, and surprisingly enough, not every movie is about the main character’s quest to beat up everyone else. The recently released “Heavy Rain” begins to show us what games are capable of being—thrillers with amoral characters—but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Games can elicit more responses than, “Sweet!” and “Badass!”

2. Touching is good
This one is a no-brainer. Video games, no matter how generic their main characters might be, always allow the gamers to control them. Why can’t this be the case in movies? Movies shouldn’t become completely interactive—that would just be a video game, wouldn’t it? But movies could offer viewers the opportunity to get their feet wet every now and then. Maybe the viewer could choose left or right at an intersection at the beginning of a chase scene or between a punch and a kick to put an end to a fight scene. Movies shouldn’t explicitly let viewers choose story details, but subtly, every little choice the viewer makes could influence the overall plot.

MCT

Yes, I know this list is splitting hairs, since every movie ever would be better if it starred Chuck Norris. Still, the Bearded Mercenary could have benefited some movies more than others this past decade. Here’s a quick rundown. Try not to look it in the eyes.

5: ‘Walker, Texas Catwoman’

Norris’ Catwoman would not crawl. He’d stand 18 feet tall and walk in straight. He’d probably ditch the whip, too, and choose a more practical weapon, like brass knuckles.

If you’re worried that Chuck would need to buy a new costume for the role, he wouldn’t, because one, he’s sewing a new one out of flaming, spiked tires right now, and two, he could easily slip in Halle Berry’s skin-tight leather pants and bra if he wanted to. And he’d have room to spare.

4: ‘Fight at the Museum’

Sit down, Roosevelt! Nobody told you that you could become reanimated!

Norris wouldn’t take any of Roosevelt’s crap. He’d probably light up a blowtorch and melt down Roosevelt’s *wise-ass wax-ass* before he had the chance to be rambunctious.

Ben Stiller couldn’t tame the museum, but I know Norris would keep things in check. He’d start small, with dunce caps and eraser beatings. Except his dunce caps would be made out of shattered glass. And his eraser beatings would involve less actual erasers and more roundhouse kicks to the faces of revered and treasured artifacts. It all boils down to this question: Why wouldn’t you want Chuck Norris as your security guard?

3: ‘Million Dollar Norris’

When Norris’ opponent delivers a cheap shot that knocks him off his feet and his neck is careening toward a horribly placed bench, what do you have your money on: the bench or his neck?

Norris’ neck would crush through the wooden legs like they were blades of grass. Then he’d hurl the bench’s splintered remains at his opponent like throwing stars, tell off the ref for disqualifying him, bend the ref into the shape of a heavyweight belt and raise it above his head, and then pose for the photo that would soon don Wheaties boxes all over the country.

And the movie would win 12 Best Pictures.

2: ‘America’s Stomped-Hearts’

Imagine if Billy Crystal’s character had been played by Chuck Norris. Crystal was too busy fighting a dog for most of the movie to notice the Julia Roberts-John Cusack-Catherine Zeta-Jones love triangle. A relationship this romantic would never get past Norris. He would only need one whiff of the interconnection tangle to know exactly what to do. He’d look each character in the eye and tell them exactly whom to love.

1: ‘The Chuckbob Punchpants Movie’

What’s always been the great thing about animation is that it can take every unfathomable Chuck Norris karate move and pump it to the max. Chuckbob doesn’t laugh, or, if he does, you can’t hear it over the roundhouse kicks. Also, when Chuckbob swims in the ocean, he doesn’t get wet. The water gets Chucked. 500 Best Pictures.

Take the ’80s: the generation where most of our cool uncles came of age, did lots of drugs and sat around in basements. Everybody who grew up in this decade remembers “The Breakfast Club.” Why? Because it represents the angst Generation X felt at the time. As the cultural revolution of the ’60s was long gone and replaced by the stuffy conservatism of Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority, kids had nothing to fight for anymore. I mean, they wore jean jackets. Dude.

Here is the plot, for those who grew up under a rock: Five kids—representing five high school stereotypes—come to detention on a Saturday morning and forge unexpected friendships. But the part that the youth of America held up and revered came when Badass (Judd Nelson) tells his principal to “Eat. My. Shorts,” to which Principal Vernon replied “You just bought yourself another Saturday.” Finally! Something for the disaffected youth of the ’80s to fight against, even if it was just the principal. Yet times and tastes change, and while today’s viewers can enjoy “The Breakfast Club,” they must see it as totally dated. Such is the cycle of generational movies—from relevant to relic.

In our time, a new type of movie has emerged, widely referred to as the Bromance. I know the word is a worn-out cliché in our social lexicon, but it perfectly describes these films in best friend-love often overshadows man-woman love. I know, your mind just took you the scene in “Superbad” when Jonah Hill proclaims to his best friend “I just love you. I just wanna go to the rooftops and scream: ‘I love my best friend, Evan.” He then proceeds to lovingly poke him on the nose and famously coo “boop!”

This is the essence of the Bromance: two dudes realizing their inexorable bonds with one another in hilarious fashion. These movies—such as “Old School,” “Wedding Crashers,” “The Forty Year-Old Virgin,” “Anchorman,” “The Hangover” and even older ones like “American Pie” and “Top Gun”—all depict journeys of friendship and the notion of some collective achievement, even if it’s just getting your buddy laid. And yes, ladies, I acknowledge that these films are complete boys’ clubs and possibly proffer an anti-feminist agenda, but that’s another column. I am more interested in why people love these movies so much. What feature of today’s society makes us enjoy Bromance so much that we watch these movies repeatedly and quote them incessantly?

In some ways, the ease of communication in our world makes us less self-sufficient and more reliant on our friends. As a college student, contact with friends from home isn’t a monthly, 12-minute conversation on the dorm pay phone—it’s a casual text or the ever-random g-chat. Or even more weird—but completely status quo—a cursory glance at his Facebook pictures to make sure he’s chillin’ just as much as you are. When all people had were snail mail and landlines, it was much less hard to generate human contact. Without literal Rolodexes at their fingertips like we have today in our cell phones, people were inherently more self-sufficient because they had to be.

Today, we are much more invested in our friends’ lives because we have more windows through which to observe them; you can “bro out” through six or seven different forms of communication. I do not mean to say that technology has improved friendships; rather, I believe technology has given us more of a reason to affirm our friendships. Case in point: It’s much easier to tell a friend you love him or miss him (or anything else girly-men say) in a text than in person. But in these movies, it’s cool to love your bro—and society has followed suit.

“An Education”

Opens Nov. 6

If you’re a fan of “High Fidelity” or “About a Boy,” “An Education” is sure to please, as the clever Nick Hornby penned the screenplay. “An Education” takes place in suburban London in 1961, as brainy 16-year-old Jenny (Carey Mulligan) falls for the older, dapper suitor, David (Peter Sarsgaard). Jenny is an excellent student who has been striving to get into Oxford, but when she meets David, who introduces her to a world of culture that involves running off to Paris for the weekend or going to hip jazz bars, Jenny must decide what is most important to her. Emma Thompson and Alfred Molina also star.

“Pirate Radio”

Opens Nov. 13

“Pirate Radio” already came out internationally a few months back under the name, “The Boat that Rocked.” Like “An Education,” this film takes place in England in the 1960s (I must have a thing for this period in history) and centers around eight DJs who broadcast rock ‘n’ roll from a boat in the middle of the Northern Atlantic. Breaking British laws for their love of music, these DJs defined a generation and drove the government mad along the way. Phillip Seymour Hoffman leads the pack playing The Count and Bill Nighy stars as Quentin, Radio Rock’s owner. This comical band of rebels plays the best of classic rock and tells an interesting tale of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll at the same time.

“Brothers”

Opens Dec. 4

A film that stars Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman has already done right by me. But just to be sure, Jim Sheridan directs this remake of Susanne Bier’s 2004 film “Brødre.” Decorated Marine Sam Cahill (Maguire) goes missing overseas, and his troubled yet charismatic younger brother, Tommy (Gyllenhaal), moves in to take care of his brother’s wife, Grace (Portman), and his children at home after leaving jail. Grace comes to care for Tommy, and when Sam miraculously arrives home, most likely with an extreme case of PTSD, it makes for an uncomfortable dinner table.

“Nine”

Opens Dec. 18

Even though I didn’t love “Chicago,” I’m eager to see Rob Marshall’s latest musical feat, partly because the late Anthony Minghella helmed the screenplay. Inspired by Federico Fellini’s autobiographical film “8 ½,” “Nine” is sure to be a lavish experience. Few films this year could even conceive of putting the cast together that “Nine” has assembled. Daniel Day-Lewis stars as film director Guido Contini, who faces a midlife crisis that is repressing his creativity and causing him to become entangled in a web of romantic affairs. He struggles to complete his latest film and is forced to balance the many women in his life, including his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard), his mistress Carla (Penelope Cruz), his muse Claudia (Nicole Kidman), his confidant and costume designer Liliane (Judi Dench), an American fashion journalist (Kate Hudson), a prostitute from his youth (Stacy Ferguson) and his mother (Sophia Loren). This is sure to be a major contender for the Oscars.

“It’s Complicated”

Opens Dec. 25

Aside from the fact that I am a huge Meryl Streep devotee, “It’s Complicated” is appealing, as it’s directed by Nancy Meyers, master of the rom-com, who brought us “Something’s Gotta Give” and “The Holiday.” Streep stars as Jane, a divorced mother who owns a successful bakery. Though she has been divorced from Jake (Alec Baldwin) for a decade and has three grown children by him, Jane and Jake still have chemistry that is difficult to deny. This is difficult for Jake, who had an affair with the much younger Agness (Lake Bell) and left Jane to marry his mistress. Jane also falls for her architect, Adam (Steve Martin), who complicates this triangle. Acting alongside the triumvirate of talent that is Streep, Baldwin and Martin is John Krasinski, Rita Wilson and Hunter Parrish.

In a way, it’s a test of endurance. In another way, it’s self-inflicted torture. So let’s get started.

For the series’s maiden voyage, I’ve decided to review “Pocket Ninjas,” which clocks in at a 1.4 out of 10, horrible enough to be IMDb’s worst movie of all time. Personally, I haven’t seen every movie ever, but I have seen this movie’s DVD cover, where the kids strike menacing poses with their broom, plunger and Simple Green. I’m fairly certain the cover models are not the actors from the movie.

In fact, I don’t know why the movie is called “Pocket Ninjas.” The main characters are not, sadly, pocket-sized. And if I’m supposed to take the title another way, their outfits don’t even have pockets, so that’s another dead end. Plus, for most of the movie, they’re referred to as “dragons.” Red Dragon. Blue Dragon. Yellow Dragon. Led by White Dragon. They are karate masters, and they rollerblade for justice.

The premise seems simple. Three karate students at the Shorin-Ryu Karate Dojo—right between Lee’s Barber Shop and the LIQUOR store—have been trained to defeat the evil Cubby Khan (Rick Rabago), the 10-year-old protégé of the even eviler Cobra Khan (Robert Z’Dar). Two of these three “pocket ninjas,” Damien (Joseph Valencia) and Tanya (played by Sondi. No last name, most likely for the sake of future generations), are probably in love. The third one, little Steve, is played by a young Brad Bufanda. He asks all the tough questions, like why his comic books are written in Canadian. You know, that’s something I’ve always wanted answered, too. Does that make him the comic relief, or the voice of our generation? I can’t say.

But the rest of the movie is beyond comprehension. The plot has something to do with The Stingers, who are these bad guys who hang at immoral places, like convenience stores or abandoned warehouses, and how they’re corrupting the city. They’re led by Cubby Khan, who answers to Cobra Khan, a bad guy who may or may not exist. Or maybe he does, but he probably doesn’t. Except that he might. I think. On top of that, there’s this corrupt CEO who wants to dump his toxic waste in the ocean. For obvious safety reasons, he stores all of his toxic waste in barrels labeled “Poison.”

“Pocket Ninjas” isn’t sure what to make of all these societal problems it throws at the viewers. Pollution, corporate fraud, gang violence, excessive loitering. That’s a full slate, even for a pocket ninja to understand. The poor kids become overwhelmed by their responsibility to fight all varieties of crime. Shell-shocked little Steve wonders aloud why he can’t rollerblade at the beach anymore.

“I didn’t stop it because of no toxic waste,” he says. “I stopped because there was a gang that used to hang out there!”

“The Stoners?” Tanya asks (what happened to The Stingers?).

“I heard the guy who’s their leader is 7 feet tall. He supposedly only comes out after the sunsets. And he drinks human blood,” Steve says.

What cruel person is forcing these 10-year-olds to rid the city of corruption? Their psyches are broken, their innocence taken. When Damien watches The Stingers kidnap his mom, not 20 feet away from him, he doesn’t chase after them. He doesn’t even show emotion.

“Mom. They took my mom,” he says, and suddenly it’s Steve’s job to keep Damien from cracking.

In all seriousness, “Pocket Ninjas” isn’t “so bad, it’s good.” It’s so bad, and good in spurts. But to watch the whole thing in one 78-minute-long session…it’s not healthy. And I swear, half of the movie is spent on training scenes, sequences in which the good ninjas and the bad guys stand in a line, punching and kicking at the air for minutes at a time. They’re unintentionally hilarious the first time, baffling the next 20.

But like I said, it’s amazing cinema in small, random spurts. Watch some clips on YouTube, if you don’t believe me. Also, Joseph Valencia is clearly camera shy, so keep an eye out for that.

Lionel Hann | MCT

Yes, I’m defending Megan Fox, the 23-year-old sex symbol/actress who has been impossible to avoid these past few months. Fox’s currently supernova-ing celebrity might make you think that she doesn’t need any sort of defending, but I disagree. As long as people like Princeton Hynes are deriding her as a “skank” in our very own college newspaper, I will be there to come to the defense of the woman I have lost my heart to for all eternity.

One of the first complaints people make about Fox is that she hasn’t proven herself as an actress. Well, no one, including Fox, denies her fame has nothing to do with her acting. She is upfront about the fact that the Transformers films are not about the “acting experience,” and she has told GQ, “Really, my only job is to look attractive.” Fox is famous because she was lucky enough to be cast in “Transformers,” and Hollywood, the entertainment media and the public immediately anointed her America’s newest sex symbol. Our culture has a long tradition of turning women into sex symbols regardless of talent, and to hold this tradition against Fox is simply irrational.

Furthermore, the various pejorative insults launched against Fox—that she’s trashy and a “skank”—are completely unwarranted. Unlike the trainwreck girls who dominated the tabloids for most of the decade, Fox keeps out of trouble, and is never seen wasted and coked out like Lindsay, Britney or Paris were in their prime.  By all accounts, in her private life Fox is responsible and behaves respectably (especially compared to some of her peers).

Fox may be less promiscuous and less prone to binge-drinking than a large percentage of Wash. U. students, but Hynes still has a problem with what Fox chooses to wear on the red carpet. Fox’s outfits are consistently over the top, flagrantly acknowledging the sex appeal responsible for her career in the first place. To Hynes, this is unacceptable, but in my opinion it’s a smart move. It demonstrates that Fox is aware of her celebrity persona and that she knows how to manipulate it. This is America, and Hollywood is a business—why blame Fox for playing the right publicity cards?

Fox’s red-carpet aesthetic is also an honest reflection of the culture that put her in the spotlight. It’s an unapologetic, in-your-face display of a truth most people would prefer to ignore: Our culture still loves to objectify its women. Fox has no intention of pretending that isn’t the case, and, considering the source of her fame, it’s ridiculous to expect her to. Fox is honest, even in her dress, and that’s a trait that’s getting harder and harder to find in the media these days. Personally, I find it refreshing. Fox doesn’t sell the Disney fairy tales Hynes wants her to, but that’s not her job, and the expectation for her to do so is completely outmoded.

But enough about Fox’s appearance. In addition to having perfect bone structure, Fox is one of the funniest starlets to grace magazine covers in a long time. Fox has a biting, sarcastic sense of humor, and she doesn’t censor herself in interviews. When asked by an Entertainment Weekly reporter what she thought could be the worst-case scenario for her career five years in the future, she responded, “Umm…that I’d be on ‘The Hills?’” She dryly describes her first movie, “Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen,” as “one of the cinematic greats.” She claims to be Alan Alda’s doppelganger. Her take on “High School Musical” is surreal: She told “Esquire,” “Let me tell you what it’s really about. ‘High School Musical’ is about this group of boys who are all being molested by the basketball coach, who is Zac Efron’s dad. It’s about them struggling to cope with this molestation. And they have these little girlfriends, who are their beards. Oh, and somehow there’s music involved.” Oh, and she adds, “You have to get stoned and watch it.” What’s not to love?

“Taking Woodstock” has many pieces that are loosely held together by the main character, Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin). Elliot, a semi-closeted gay artist, has struck out in the big city in terms of both a career and love. He has now returned to the Catskills to help his parents run a financially failing motel, the El Monaco. Seeing a possible way to save the motel, he, as president of Bethel’s Chamber of Commerce, offers the town as the setting for Woodstock after a neighboring town gives it a disapproving boot.

Demetri Martin’s natural comedic skills enable his character to avoid becoming bogged down in all the serious issues he’s dealing with, e.g., coming out to his parents and deciding what to do with his life. This balance, however, acts as a negation and renders his performance unremarkable.
Elliot’s parents, Sonia (Imelda Staunton) and Jake (Henry Goodman), immigrants from Russia, are also going through a rough patch. The failing motel is hindering not only their livelihoods, but also their spirits. The younger generation that Woodstock brings is thus beneficial in more ways than one. The festival also betters Billy (Emile Hirsch), a childhood friend of Elliot and a disaffected soldier back from Vietnam.

A noteworthy Liev Schreiber plays Vilma, a wise cross-dressing Marine. Vilma acts both as mentor to the Teichberg family and security for the motel turned Woodstock base. The Earthlight Players who are staying in the El Monaco’s barn also deserve mention. This outlandishly strange but amusing theater group is just another piece to tie into this already crowded film.

The film’s tempo is almost as varied as its colorful characters. “Taking Woodstock” starts off almost purposefully boring. It picks up with a literal giant “X” marks the spot made of bed sheets. Here land helicopters and a mass of producers, including Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff), Woodstock’s main promoter. Lang, one of the most charming hippies and hippest negotiator I’ve ever seen, then gets in contact with Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) the farmer, whose land becomes the site of the festival.

After the helicopters touch down, the viewer gets pulled into the whirlwind of organizing what becomes a concert of over half a million in the short time of three weeks; you see everything from the unsanitary rooming to the backup highways and extensive rain. This whirlwind is heightened by use of multiple split screens and old-fashioned-esque footage. But apart from this fun buildup, the film is punctuated by quiet moments that make sure the film never gathers any speed.

The climax of the film occurs at the festival, which is briefly shown from afar in a neat shot as a shimmering spectacle, heavily lit and surrounded by an unending, oscillating sea of people. Elliot never gets closer because he decides to randomly join VW Guy, or Paul Dano, for an acid trip in an unnecessarily long drug sequence.

“Taking Woodstock” saunters from start to finish and never culminates into anything substantial. All its pieces, from its mass of characters to its theme, are left open ended. But this pleasant film’s dedication to the depiction of Woodstock’s creation gives the viewer a genuine feeling of being a part of this unique process, and one cannot help but be drawn into its alluring topic, Woodstock.

3/5 stars

Directed by Ang Lee

“Taking Woodstock” is a pleasant dedication to the creation of Woodstock but never culminates into anything substantial. (Courtesy of NBC Universal)

May

Star Trek

4 1/2 stars

In many ways, “Star Trek” caught me by surprise. Despite the fact that it was directed by J.J. Abrams, despite the fact that the trailer was, in a word, “epic,” and despite the fact that I included it in my Summer Movie Preview, it still caught me off guard. Blame it on bad instincts or blame it on an Episode I, II and III hangover—my expectations were low.
But then I actually saw “Star Trek.” And I saw that Chris Pine had the goods to play the cocky Kirk, that Zachary Quinto turned out to be the logical actor to play the rational Spock and that Abrams made the screen shimmer. And all of a sudden, “Star Trek” was the movie of the summer…and it was only May! With brilliant pacing, jokes that brought the house down and authentic drama, “Star Trek” was a perfect space opera and a summer movie masterpiece.

Up

5 stars

Every Pixar movie has a broad message: “Don’t grow up,” said “Toy Story.” “Anyone can cook,” said “Ratatouille.” And yet, the animation studio keeps their broad messages subtle, surrounding allegories with great plots.
“Up” is no different. I think it says worlds that whenever anyone talked about “Up,” they mentioned the goofy bird, little Russell or the funny dogs, and not the film’s unspoken message: “You don’t have to travel the world to live a fulfilling life.” And appropriately, now that the summer is over, any mention of “Up” first reminds me of an image that’s as silent as the movie’s meaning: thousands of balloons holding up a floating house over the edge of a cliff.

June

The Hangover

4 stars

You’ve probably heard this one before: A fiancé, a ladies’ man, a devoted boyfriend and the village idiot go to Vegas in hunt of a massive bachelor party. The sun comes up, and the fiancé is missing.
That’s it, right? Joke over? Ba-dum-chh? Not so fast!
At first glance, “The Hangover” appeared to be a one-joke wonder, but as the film clipped along, you saw that the hangover-induced memory loss transformed into the perfect setup for the summer’s most frenetic punchline. The jokes screamed by like technicolor bullets. Some called it random, but most didn’t care. “The Hangover” wasn’t “good for a dumb comedy.” It was a good comedy with occasional dumb moments and a side-splitting ending.

Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

2 stars

Mediocrity, thy name is “Pelham.” John Travolta tried his darnedest to keep this remake of a subway hijacking movie humming along, but the “super cool” editing and direction made the film into a sloshy two hours. Denzel Washington looked dopey in his thick glasses and high-waisted pants, and every attempt at political satire was overwrought and forced. The plot was hyper-conventional, and the movie’s twist might as well have been revealed in the opening minutes. Ironically, it seems that my interest in “Pelham” was derailed—sorry—because the plot got too cozy with the set track.

The Proposal

1 star

I saw “The Proposal” with four girls and one guy. Two of the girls liked it; the rest of us didn’t. It was five minutes in when the other guy began to vocalize his hate for the movie. “I don’t like it,” he whispered. “This is so stupid. We have to get out of here. I don’t like it.” You can’t blame him. “The Proposal” threw the kitchen sink of romantic comedy clichés at the viewers, from the wacky family to Sandra Bullock. The one time we, the haters, laughed was when the grandma had a heart attack.

Away We Go

4 stars

When you think of the phrase “Away we go,” images of exclamations, ships embarking and historic journeys cross the mind. But in “Away We Go,” the very opposite happened. The movie started with Burt (John Krasinski) discovering that Verona (Maya Rudolph) is pregnant because she tasted different—and they’re off with a whimper, wandering aimlessly through the mellow towns, looking for a place to start their family. The execution was sometimes excessively cute, but the depressing atmosphere evened things out, and every performance was memorable.

The Hurt Locker

5 stars

Director Kathryn Bigelow turned “The Hurt Locker” into an intense ride. The bomb-heavy story obviously intensified every situation, but a lesser director would have bungled the execution with a heavy hand or a flippant viewpoint. Bigelow let “The Hurt Locker” artfully blend the physical and psychological drama of war, in the process creating the war film viewers were craving. “The Hurt Locker” didn’t need any star power to make it the best movie of the year (so far).

July

(500) Days of Summer

4 stars

“(500) Days of Summer” provided me with my happiest moment at the movies this year when Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) played house with Summer (Zooey Deschanel) in a model living room…and then a model kitchen…and then a model bedroom. But “(500) Days of Summer” was not all rainbows and sunshine, and it also provided me with my saddest moment at the movies this year. Later in the film, when the couple is on the outs, there was a scene in which Tom shared a moment with Summer at her party. It was a fleeting moment, but it was of enough substance to convince Tom that they might still have something left in the tank as a couple. But at the same time, you and I knew that they were never going to end up together. “(500) Days of Summer” was equal parts bliss and depression, and it had just enough tongue in cheek to get away with its predictable ending.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

4.5 stars

Action! Suspense! Awkward teenage romance! (“Your shoe is untied.”) If any of these exclamations caught your fancy, then “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” was the movie for you. Daniel Radcliffe normally steals the show just by the nature of his role, but “Half-Blood Prince” was the first “Harry Potter” where he actually deserves all the pedigree that comes with being “the boy who lived.” Radcliffe’s portrayal of Harry Potter finally does justice to Potter’s tragic roots, and surprisingly, Radcliffe, not Rupert Grint as Ron, keeps the jokes coming. And be warned: “Half-Blood Prince” was rated PG, but it may be the darkest film in the series.

Brüno

4 stars

“Brüno” was crude and unstoppable, a lambasting of everyone in the movie and everyone watching the movie. I think that’s why “Brüno” wasn’t the hit that “Borat” was; Sacha Baron Cohen assaulted us viewers by hyperbolizing all that makes us uncomfortable. I can’t really recall the film’s opening. Looking back on it, I think I was in some sort of shock. But after I shook it off, I ended up enjoying “Brüno” a great deal. I think the movie was more cohesive than “Borat” ever was, and from the midpoint on, “Brüno” is absolutely hilarious. Ultimately, “Brüno” achieved a polarized reaction from the audience; first we squirmed, and then hopefully we laughed.