My Movie Review: She's Out of my League

My Movie Review: She's Out of My League
3/5

Opening Statement: Jay Baruchel stars as Kurt a young airport security guard just getting out of a break up with an ex-girlfriend who is still a great family friend. During a security check  a young hot woman named Molly leaves her phone in security, once she meets Kurt she becomes interested, and Kurt can't find out why.


What's Good: Jay Baruchel is a very unique, charming young actor who did excellent in Sorcerer's Apprentice and voicing  Hiccup in How to Train Your Dragon. This movie is much much more raunchy, it is also very funny. She's Out of My League successfully balances the heart of a decent romantic comedy, and the comedy of an Apatow-esque film. Most of the jokes are a hit thanks to Baruchel's awkward sense of humor. It is a very situational comedy. I also enjoyed how in some scenes it seems Baruchel's friends  are more interested in his love life than their own, but that makes up in showing each of these characters actually had their own minor problems and heart warming solutions. The characters were very intriguing in that manner.


What's Bad: Unfortunately,  this raunchy humor doesn't hit hard enough to make the movie memorable. Which is sad because it is a lost cause. In fact this movie is brutally unmemorable. It just eases the craving for another Apatow hit.  The acting is below average in most scenairo's, the friend cast is like the JV of the Apatow group. It's almost like they try to be them, too hard. Baruchel is the best part but I think he works much better in Disney roles. 


The Rant: Nah.


Consensus: It doesn't achieve its goal with it's shot at Apatow-esque comedy, however it is very heart-warming and pretty funny for the most part. Baruchel is very charming as well.

My Movie Review: The Expendables

My Movie Review: The Expendables
3/5

Opening Statement: Stallone puts together an action-star dream team in The Expendables where a group of mercenaries played by actors such as Statham, Li, Coutre, Crews, ect. They are assigned a borderline suicide mission where achieving there goal requires a lot of bloody stylized action.


What's Good: On a small scale it does deliver. The couple action scenes it offers show a good amount of testosterone. There is a man on fire getting punched, knive-throwing, and everything is very well choreographed. Stallone is kind of new to the direction game, but he is a very smart man, because The Expendables does offer more story and heart than most of his testerone filled movies. I also had to fall in love with the ensemble, they all are playing there general typecast, but together, the way they all interact is so much fun. The attention span is very ADD in this film, but it also is a lot of fun when you are commited to watching it. These characters help sway your commitment.


What's Bad:  With the cast, the Expendables kind of had an expectation to deliver all these actors most badassness and create the most badass movie ever. It is far from that, I respect the fact Stallone tried to give the story some heart, which it did have some, but it seriously conflicted with the action. For once I am complaining that they did to much story and not enough action. You have about 2 or 3 actions scenes and a 20 minute finale action scene. Almost to say Stallone knew he wasn't delivering enough action and tried to make up for that in the end. The cinematography could of used some help in the action scenes as well, I felt myself telling the camera to move often cause I wanted to see more of what was going on. 


The Rant: One thing to say is, these actors are NOT to old for action, they are still fun and totally believable.


Consensus: It doesn't completely deliver what it promises, but for what it does deliver The Expendables is fun and the action scenes give out a good dose of testosterone. The performances pretty much save the film.

SUMMER WRAP UP: The Good, The Bad, The OK

This has been an interesting, yet kind of slow summer for film. We have had ups, downs and middles. It also proves as so far the best season for film this year. This short article will re-cap everything about this summer.

THE GOOD

- PIXAR
       I have to say I was skeptical about the third installment of Toy Story. I thought they should've just left it alone. But after the release of Toy Story 3 we all have the realization that Pixar can do no wrong. Which will have the academy debating wether or not an animated film can go into the main category for Best Picture.

-Special Effects
       I mostly dedicate this to Inception, which blended story with the art of special effects. They didn't need much CGI either, just like Prince of Persia (for the most part) with its swashbuckling choreography. Also the fun action of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World which showed us special effects from an entirely original perspective.

-Independent Dramdies
       I'm mainly talking about The Kids are All Right and Cyrus, which in all their indie greatness, proves that there is plenty room for heart, and strong human emotion in a quirky comedy. Spring only had Greenberg for this category.

-The Continuation of Millenium Trilogy
       The Girl Who Played With Fire continues the millenium series, real soon after the first. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see this sequel that measures right next to the greatness of the first one.

-Jonah Hill
      Usually he is a typecast for that sarcastic chubby side character of the Apatow crew, this summer he is expanded his horizon with Cyrus as a highly dysfunctional character and he also played the main character in Get Him to the Greek and he played him well.

-Originality
       From Inception, Winter's Bone, The Kids Are All Right, and Scott Pilgrim. Most of the films this summer were adaptations or reboots, while the original ideas that were out there flourished.


THE OK


-Jerry Bruckheimer
       You know, that crazy rich producer who is constantly financing big budget mindless action flicks. This time he throws Prince of Persia and Sorcerer's Apprentice at us, however they aren't completely mindless, actually they both deliver a good amount of fun.

-Horror Films
        I'm talking Splice and Predators primarily. Splice was a truly bizarre look at a creature that didn't belong in this world, it was very interesting and haunting. While Predators makes the best of the series with its fun brutal action, and great acting talent.

-CGI
        CGI has become a cuss word in the world of film criticism. I usually don't think it is the most effective way of conveying special effects but it's use in movies like The A Team, Sorcerer's Apprentice, and The Last Airbender used it to a belivable manner of entertainment.

-TV Show reboot's
        Moderately good films The A-Team and The Last Airbender seem to bring their own personalities from the show, both movies may not have completely honored its source material, however it didn't do them an injustice either.

-Video Game reboot's
       Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is said to be the best reviewed movie based on a video game, probably cause it is ever so loosely based. However the game does surpass it a lot in storytelling, even when the movie honors its charisma.

-Disney
       Disney fantastic with Toy Story 3, however it only did ok with Prince of Persia and Sorcerer's Apprentice.


THE BAD

- Steve Carrell
          Such squandered talent from Steve Carrell was conveyd in Dinner for Schmucks, not as badly as Date Night though. He also voice Despicable Me which lacked heart that it tried to have.

-Animated Films (Not Pixar)
         Despicable Me and Shrek: Forever After weren't good for two seperate reasons. Despicable Me suffered from an identity crisis while Shrek just wanted to steal audiences money, shame on them.

-Iron Man 2's ego
        Just because the first one was good doesn't mean no matter what script is thrown together Faverau will make magic. He obviously doesn't in this waste of talent sequel.

-Dreamworks
        So upset with Dreamworks because of Shrek: Forever After, an obvious scam for money. Especially when I know they are capable of movies like How to Train Your Dragon.

-Short Films
         Jonah Hex was 72 minutes long. What the hell.

-Comic Book Adaptations.
         -Not including Scott Pilgrim...however Jonah Hex and Iron Man 2 seriously hit rock bottom.

-Freidberg and Seltzer
         - Two people who are about to be rich, from a pile of trash.

My Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

My Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
4/5

Opening Statement: Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) directs Scott Pilgrim vs. The World based on a graphic novel series starring Michael Cera as the dead pan Scott Pilgrim, a young man who dates a girl named Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) until he finds out she has a series of evil ex's that he must defeat.


What's Good: The best thing about Scott Pilgrim is it's originality and inventiveness. I really loved this movie, I loved all the video game references, the artistic effects, the perfect comic timing. I loved all the cast Michael Cera is staying in his comfort zone but I think this is his best performance since Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. What Edgar Wright does is perfectly blend his visual effects, the teen angst, and all the video game references. Scott Pilgrim is by far one of a kind. Not to mention I loved the music, which also stays game based at times. The movie itself works as a video game, with levels, fighting, when bad guys die they turn to coins. It's as if he is attempting to rescue his own princess Peach.


What's Bad: The hardest challenge Wright probably had was to make sure he didn't tire his ever so original feel of the film. Which he never really did, but at times the feeling puts itself on hold and cliche's the Cera romance, but once the ADD motions, transitions and fights start back up, you don't worry anymore. I also felt it might've been a tad too long.


The Rant: This rant is for the benefit of Michael Cera. I can't tell you how many times I have read on the internet people whining about Michael Cera. Waaah he plays the same role each time. Well stop and think. Do you want Michael Cera to play a person with a different accent, a real dramatic crying character. Michael Cera got into cinema primarily from SuperBad, in fact he turned dead pan into an art throughout his films. So when casting the film Scott Pilgrim, a dead pan character, matched perfectly with Cera. This is what we call a typecast. I do wish sometimes Cera would shoot for the stars and see how he does in something different. But is it really something to criticize or complain about. Each character he is given is dead pan, he plays that character (acting is his job.) So he keeps getting these roles which fit his comfort zone. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. And it is certainly not something to whine about.


Consensus: Michael Cera is Scott Pilgrim, the supporting cast also shines its colors. Overall Scott Pilgrim shows us something we have never seen before, granted the film has a target audience (which includes me) but it does 100% exactly what it wants to do, and it is very inventive and entertaining.

My Movie Review: Paper Man

'




































My Movie Review: Paper Man
3/5

Opening Statement: Jeff Daniels stars as an author with writer's block after his first novel failed. Him and his wife, played by Lisa Kudrow, go out to live in the country where he meets a teenager girl played by Emma Stone. Meanwhile during Daniels' depressed state he is accompanied by an imaginary friend he's had since childhood called Captain Excellence (Ryan Reynolds.)


What's Good: As far as emotional involvement is concerned, I really cared about these highly dysfunctional characters. Both Emma Stone and Jeff Daniels have different imaginary friends for completely different reasons. Kieran Culkin plays Stone's imaginary friend, and he does it quite well. In fact, this whole cast was very impressive. Daniels, Kudrow, Stone, Reynolds. The best performance given to Stone. As you all know I am a sucker for the quirky dysfunctional dramedies. Well, I throughly enjoyed watching the interactions between these two damaged characters and how they helped each other through their depressed state-of-minds.


What's Bad: As far as dysfunctional character movies go, this can be put on the back burner. Toward the end of Paper Man it seemed they tried to hard to really hype up the "strange". The weirdness of their relationship was kind of odd, the use of imaginary friends to symbolize their own repressed emotions, was odd. Those were good odds, then you have the quirk such as building a couch out of copies of his failed novel. The quirk I think is what when a little too far and out of the original identity of the film. I enjoyed the emotions behind the dysfunction entirely, just not behind the quirk.


The Rant: Really not as bad as critics let on. I really do think Paper Man can be worth your time, these are very fun characters.


Consensus: 'Paper Man' feels a little unbalanced compared to other dysfunctional dramadies. However, the fantastic performances from the ensemble, and how they make you care for the characters is a work of art.

My Movie Review: Solitary Man

My Movie Review: Solitary Man
4/5

Opening Statement: Michael Douglas is back as the Solitary Man. An older guy who is told bad news at a doctors office, and then spends his life trying to live it up causing catastrophic things to his career, marriage, relationships, and overall his ability to cope with the world.


What's Good: I loved this movie. Such great screenwriting, with well-written dialogue said by such a great ensemble. One thing you must know about Solitary Man is it deals with a character who is NOT MEANT TO BE LIKED. I mean how the hell am I suppost to care about an old man who manipulates and sleeps with college girls and neglects his family? Oh wait I know the answer. I am not. I didn't care about Michael Douglas' character, but I did ever so care about his journey through self-relization. The psychological effect of the possibility of death truly damaged this character. Douglas plays the character he plays best. One cast member i'd like to give a shout out to is Danny Devito. I miss this guy, and he is such a talented actor who has an ability to do many different roles. Another actor to add to my list of actors to see win an Oscar before I die. 
                What really tied me to this movie was the way this character acted. I often questioned why he would do such a thing like that, than I realized, this could be one of those moments where I am actually too young to understand. I understand that the older you get, the more death corrupts your mind and changes your outlook on life.  You can call this Wade's Life Crisis Theory. The biggest life crisis you have is of course, the mid life crisis. However I also believe you have a crisis sometime in your teen-hood about starting your life, and at the end of adulthood the crisis before you die. This movie aspired that theory upon to me. 
               Not much of a musical score is with-held in Solitary Man, there are a couple peaceful tones through our characters enlightenment but that's about it. The technical aspects of the film are held low, which is why this is an independent film. Such a great cast, a fantastic script, I loved it.


What's Bad: At times early on the pacing may feel a little slow. Throughout the film Michael Douglas is ranting on an on about his theory on certain aspects of life. I can honestly see how that might get dull for people, it wasn't for me. Besides that my negative criticism for this movie is pretty low.


The Rant: I was about to break off into a tangent in my "what's good" section but I saved it for here. Much like Greenberg, critics don't like the anti-protagonist. I hate how a character has to be complete likable to be our protagonist. Well the writers behind this obviously found an interest in the development of this character, and that is what it really is about. At no point are we suppost to fall in love with this guy. We are suppost to study him, observe how he acts in certain situations and what causes him to act that way. It's like insulting a movie if it doesn't follow a specific rising action, climax, falling action structure. It's truly a psychological view on human behavior in certain situations. It is also very entertaining watching this character grow for better and for worse.


Consensus: Solitary Man is a great view of the final "crisis" in life. Michael Douglas is solid in his performance as the anti-protagonist, and we grow to love his characters development throughout the film.

RANTING: If a movie is MAINSTREAM it is automatically BAD

      It is 7 A.M. on a friday morning here in Orlando, Florida. I have yet to sleep because my mind is throbbing. Lately I have encountered many pompous people and engaged them in conversation about movies/actors/ ect. that we like and dislike. Some of these conversations are usually fair, there have been some that like to argue a lot. Movies like 'Inception' and 'Scott Pilgrim' of course get brought up. I have received, almost in accusation form, that I seem like the guy who would love Scott Pilgrim based on other movies I love. I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim yet, my expectations are set, and it looks like a lot of fun.
      I am not the kind of guy that falls for Hollywood's tricks into "mindless entertainment." I loved Inception, and I state my reasons clearly in the review. There are a lot of movies out there better than it, but in my opinon it is still perfect. This is an opinon I will not change. I love all genre's comedy, drama, art, romance, mystery...and I judge them based on how they affect the target audience (which in this case is me cause I love all genre's) and how well they complete what they are trying to do.
     I agree with the 'hipsters' that Avatar was a bit overrated. Critic's loved it because they knew the general audience would love it. The 'hipsters' don't make up the general audience. In making Avatar the story hit familiar territory. However the effects were phenomenal. Cameron's goal was the eye-popping visuals. He achieved that goal. So I stand by me 4.5/5 review for Avatar.
     It seems these 'hipsters'  automatically label anything mainstream bad now, most independent and art films focus primarily on story. I believe the story is vital to the viewing experience, however there still has too be an "experience." This pertains to cinematography, artwork, ect. Winter's Bone had an excellent story, excellent character development and everything, it also kept nice cinematography and set design, I loved this viewing experience. Just like I loved my experience with Avatar.
     I understand I am fighting an unwinnable war. This frustration that I am looked down upon, my intelligence being insulted because I like mainstream movies is ludicrous in every manner. Whenever someone asks me if they think i'll like Scott Pilgrim, I simply say: From the reviews it looks like the movie does everything it wants and effects its target audience. If I actually believe it to achieve that goal, then I will give it a positive review.
      I do find it funny that my three favorite films of the year go from Inception to Kick-Ass to Winter's Bone. I'm sorry that I don't believe in hating a film because a bunch of other people enjoy it. I write my review out thinking, will the general audience like this? Well the general audience loved Inception, Kick-Ass, and Winter's Bone. Not many people will see Winter's Bone, but I truly wish they would. Cause the general audience that sees that movie will love it.
       In conclusion, I love all genere's and all types of movies. I can not be labeled as a mainstream junkie, or even and independent pompous jerk. I open my mind to all forms of art.

My Movie Review: Dinner for Schmucks

My Movie Review: Dinner for Schmucks
2.5/5


Opening Statement: Based on the French film "Le Diner de Cons" Dinner for Schmucks is the story of Tim (Paul Rudd) your average businessman trying to get promoted. In order to get the promotion he seeks he must attend a dinner his bosses schedule where the make fun of idiots. Tim debates if this is morally right before he runs into Barry (Steve Carrell) a dimwitted man who specializes in turning dead mice into works of art.


What's Good: First of all, it is funny. At times it is even hilarious. I have to say the best thing about this film is the characters and the actors who play them. Directed by Jay Roach the master mind behind "Meet the Parents" who stays within the same type of comedy as those films. Paul Rudd does well as Tim, you really care about this nice character who is trying to maintain his cool while the world is collapsing around him. At time the humor gets brutally awkward and you can't help but laugh. The most noteworthy performance is obviously Steve Carrell as Barry, the schmuck. Carrell makes this character incredibly silly, but at the same time warm hearted with good intensions. I really came to like these characters.


What's Bad: The movie comes up as average. You will laugh, you will talk about like two scenes for a week. Then it will vanish off the radar. It is hard for me to criticize Roach for lack of creativity when he is being so mindful by staying in his comfort zone.  There is just so much more that could've been done with these awesome characters. There is nothing really that bad about "Dinner for Schmucks" only that it makes a goal of an average comedy, and achieves it. 


The Rant: I'm not too wired about anything in particular. However I do want to point out that the trailers might be a little deceiving. It makes the film seem primarily about making fun of the schmucks and acts as that is the only source of comedy. It is not the Schmuck we are laughing at, but the situations the Schmuck causes. At times the film does make you laugh at the Schmuck. A lot of critics accused this as an "identity crisis." Roach's approach seemed more about dragging the mean business executive type out of us. So it's not that i'm angry that the critics accused it of this, however I think it would all be easier if we knew Roach's motive.


Consensus: "Dinner for Schmucks" strikes the average comedy. The same old Jay Roach material. 

My Movie Review: The Girl Who Played With Fire

My Movie Review: The Girl Who Played With Fire
4/5

Opening Statement: Lisbeth Salander is back in the second part of the Millenium trilogy. This time it is about a year later and she is being framed for a triple murder she did not commit. This catches eye to Blomkvist our protagonist from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as he tries to help her and develop a deeper understanding to who Lisbeth Salander truly is.


What's Good: I am falling in love with this trilogy. It maintains the same star rating I gave the first one, but to be honest they are both good in two completely different ways. The Girl Who Played With Fire picks up some of the pacing and  I love that we are learning more about Salander. I believe that Lisbeth Salander is my favorite heroine in the history of cinema. She is trying to maintain a normal life but is constantly having to run from her past. While Blomkvist is going on with his life after his jail sentence, and he seems almost completely intrigued by Lisbeth. The movie doesn't stray away from the fact that it is just telling a story, no matter how sexual or disturbingly violent things may get and I love that. This is a no holds barred mystery flick that throws more and more surprises at you. The mystery genre does not get much better than this.


What's Bad: Some of the soul is lost from the first one. It makes up for most its losses. The symbolism, mystery elements, and originality were so much more subtle in the first part. At times you may feel you are being jerked around by the straight forwardness and would like the movie to chill a bit.


The Rant: No Rant for this one! Everyone should see these movies though.


Consensus: It loses and gains things from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but altogether this is one hell of a trilogy, and Lisbeth Salander is one hell of a character.

My Movie Review: Vampire's Suck

My Movie Review: Vampire's Suck
0/5

Opening Statement: From writer/ directing team of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the same assholes who brought us Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie. Comes Vampire's Suck which aims its parodies at the recent media fads mainly Twilight.


What's Good: Absolutely Nothing.


What's Bad: Now I understand my job as a film critic I am suppost to critique the film. Which means pointing out its faults, praising what is good, and offering suggestion on how it could've been better. Well there is nothing good About Vampire's Suck. There is no ambition to make this film better than the recent bombs, the jokes are basically the same, just more annoying than the others. I am apart of the group that would love to see Twilight fans get knocked down a couple of pegs. However, not even Twilight deserves this fault. Actually, I take that back the Twilight saga is so much better than (excuse my language) this piece of shit! The team behind Twilight shouldn't bat an eye at this parody. Seltzer and Friedberg are now just being jerks, making money on audiences who don't know better, and being complete assholes. I tried to eat a sandwich while watching this, I couldn't do it. Why? Because this film is so grotesque. I wanted to turn this off more and more after every joke. I knew I couldn't critique it until I saw the whole thing though. 
          It is said that with the Fight and Flight response of the brain we run from things that put us in danger. Sometimes we get super human strength. Well, if someone were to tie me to a chair and try to make me watch this I would develop super human strength and bust free. I honestly fear for Seltzer and Friedberg's safety, people are going to kick their asses if they keep releasing these films. Once again my job is a critique is not to spew negativity but to offer suggestions. I suggest to Seltzer and Friedberg to find another job and to stop scamming the unknowing tweens out there. They are going to hell for this movie, not even Jesus has enough power to save them now. 


The Rant: Pretty much covered above, even if as a critic I am assigned to watch these movies ever again...I won't.


Consensus: Vampire's Suck is the worst of the worst. Seltzer and Friedberg make Ed Wood look like Steven Spielberg. I now feel the need to do everything in my power to stop people from seeing this movie. Stop your friends from seeing it, get the word out!

My Movie Review: Winter's Bone

My Movie Review: Winter's Bone
4.5/5

Opening Statement: Based on a novel by Daniel Woddrell of the same name, Winter's Bone is the gritty story of a 17 year old girl played by Jennifer Lawrence who has been taking care of her sick mother and younger siblings. Her father is no where to be found, and when he doesn't show for a court date the house is up for grabs. Now this young girl is on a mission to journey through her corrupt, drug-peddling family in order to find the truth to where her father exactly is.


What's Good: The little film that could. This very well-done adaption conveys so much strong emotion and characterizations. One thing that truly stood out to me was the cinematography and art/ set direction. From every magnet on the refrigerator, to the broken down cars sitting in the front lawns. This is one beautiful, oscar-worthy film. Never have I felt a place was so real. It is easy to convey sets/ art to things the average American doesn't know much about though. This a realistic depiction of the dark side of the country in the United States of America. There is very little music/ score to maintain the ominous mood. There is one sequence toward the end that really feels disgusting and dirty. The fact that you learn to care so much for these characters, mainly our protagonist Ree, only makes you hurt more inside whenever dark truths get revealed along the way. Lawrence and Hawkes really drew my attention to their acting. I couldn't tell you a movie either of them have been in off the top of my head, however I want to see them in many things to come. These are top notch Oscar calibur performances. Theses actors aren't just acting, this is real. I can barely tell the difference. The film was directed by Debra Granik, she's newer to the movie scene, and another powerful female director, much like Bigelow for The Hurt Locker. 


What's Bad: It may feel a little slow at first, or a little too cliche' independent style with its symbolism. However the more you think about it, the more Winter's Bone feels like its own movie. 


The Rant: Give it a chance. I know with ADD action packed films out there like Salt and Sorcerer's Apprentice you are going to put Winter's Bone on the back burner. That really makes me sad. Please listen to me when I say SEE THIS MOVIE. I beg you to see it, do your self a favor and save yourself from the Transformers 3 and Twilight cult!


Consensus: Winter's Bone makes for a perfect adaptation by using forms of tone, mood and depth in methods that I have never seen before.

My Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

My Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

4/5

Opening Statement: Julianne Moore and Annette Bening lead an all-star cast in The Kids Are All Right. Which also includes Mark Ruffalo, Josh Hutcherson, and Mia Wasikowska. The story revoloves around a family that contains two lesbian mothers (Moore and Bening) who have two teenage children (Wasikowska and Hutcherson.) The children decide they want to meet their sperm doner father Paul (Mark Ruffalo) whose interactions with the family begin serving more as a complication than a hallmark moment.

What's Good: A lot. Go ahead academy give the Oscar's to Ruffalo, Bening, and Moore. I don't usually mention the acting first thing, but damn. One thing you have to realize this is being advertised as kind of a family comedy. Truthfully it is a very dark film about a family crumbling apart in different ways. The movie express its own sexuality in very diverse ways. This is one of those dysfunctional family films that doesn't act subtle to show you its point. These are very open characters. It is very interesting how these characters act toward each other in hilarious awkward situations, and in dramatic, moving situations. Which brings me to the best part about The Kids Are All Right, it is funny. It is hysterical. Every attempted awkward joke is a success. My theater was in thunderous laughter as was I.

What's Bad: My only problem with The Kids Are All Right is it doesn't stick. I'm glad this is independent because it wouldn't stick with a mainstream audience. The movie makes its point, a point in which is similar to very very many other movies. However, it does a way better job of making that point. Much like Cyrus with its not-so original storyline but demonstrated in a very original way. In all reality there is nothing wrong with The Kids Are All Right, except the fact it might not stick with you for that long.

The Rant: What is the problem guys? There is so much controversy surrounding the issue of lesbian activity in this movie. Much like Brokeback Mountain. It surprises me that so many people could be so simple minded. The Kids Are All Right is not about homosexuality just because homosexuals are in it. Even so there is no reason at all homosexual and heterosexuals should be insulted by this movie in any way, yet they are. I just don't get it.

Consensus: The Kids Are All Right is a very dark, yet heartwarming comedy. You will laugh, you will cry. Its sophisticated use of humor might go over some audiences head, but it gets its point across in a very human manner.