Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- Jim Carey and Kate Winslet

The Gist

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Buy it here and support our blog

Joel and Clementine meet by chance someday and fall in love, their relationship ends up being true and real. Like every relationship though they have their issues, but in their case they can erase each other from their memories. What would you do if you could erase your memory of someone forever? Would you do it?

Real Teen Reviews
Reviewed by: Shorewhisperer
Run Time: 108 minutes
Rating: R

Before I watched this movie I was skeptical. I'm not usually a big indie fan but in this case I fell in love with the entire movie. All I knew about this movie was that the cinematography was amazing and that they had won an Oscar for an original screenplay. So I started watching it and what stood out for me is the characters. Being an actor I like to see character development and right from the start that's what I saw. Winslet is comedic and yet intimidating in the role of Clementine. We see so much of her character in her first scene that we feel that we already know her. Then Jim Carey becomes not only a comedic actor but a dramatic one who actually has some chops. I was very surprised by this. The acting and chemistry between these two characters was raw and intense, which made this movie even better.
Now, I said that I am an actor but I have learned a lot about cinematography (from north star) and I was extremely impressed with the cinematography of this movie. Every time you watch this movie you see a new thing that you didn't notice before. If you hadn't noticed before in all of Joel's dreams the faces which he hasn't seen like Patrick, or faces that are slowly being erased like the Doctor. Every scene has something new or creative, small details that create the world of the movie and helps the movie portray the meaning.
I've talked about cinematography and acting, but the movie actually won an Oscar for best screenplay, so we should probably look at that. The movie plot is very original, it isn't every day that we see a plot line that focuses on psychological question like this movie does. The plot line resembles that of a Christopher Nolan film like Inception or Memento. It takes you a minute to process the movie after it finishes and then finally the movie makes sense.
Finally, the end isn't a happy ending, this made me happy. I get so sick of happy endings where things become a fairy-tale. This movie sticks with its raw indie feel and the ending isn't happy or sad but it's hopeful and yet there is a sense that their relationship that the audience is rooting for is in a very fragile state and although we want to be hopeful for them, we can also see the discouraging side of their relationship.
To finish my review of this movie I want to share my first statement about this movie after watching this movie. "This movie is a 8." "Out of what, Shorewhisperer" "Out of 5!" , that's how much I loved this movie. I realize that this movie is not going to appeal to everyone. I know people who do not like this movie because it is a little strange and slow at parts, to me though it seems like this movie is deeper and more sophisticated than the indie film that most people see.

Real Teen Rating~ A: You MUST watch this movie!!!

Read More

Lincoln - Daniel Day Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones

The Gist
Throughout the civil war, President Abraham Lincoln must deal with the immense carnage on the battlefield, the struggle for morale throughout the country, and the endeavor to emancipate the slaves.

What We Think
Reviewed by Dream Catcher
Run Time: 150 minutes
Rating: PG-13
I was really hoping to like this movie. After that whole mess of a movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter I wanted things to end on a high note this year for Mr. Lincoln. And everyone was talking about how amazing it was and how brilliant Daniel Day Lewis was and what-have-you. I didn't want to be the odd man out there, either. But I was a little weary. I like historical movies, sure. But how much is too much when it comes straight from the history books, you know? Turns out I had nothing to worry about.
I cannot even begin to describe how perfect Daniel Day Lewis' performance was. Nowhere on Earth or anywhere beyond that could you find a better guy to play him. I completely forgot who he was - he just became Lincoln. Whenever his character told a story, it wasn't Daniel Day Lewis talking, it was President Abraham Lincoln. When he was trying to convince his son not to join the army I was convinced that was really his son and he honestly didn't want him to leave. When he argued with his wife, it wasn't Sally Field and Daniel Day Lewis arguing. It was Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln. He was so believable I can't even imagine him not getting a Golden Globe or an Academy Award for Best Actor. Similarly, Sally Field was amazing. She played the craziness of Mary Todd Lincoln perfectly, and I found her performance completely believable, though she never usurped Daniel Day Lewis as Almighty King of Lincoln Acting. To round out the Best Acting Nominees, Tommy Lee Jones was better than amazing. He had some great lines, and some great speeches and I hung on to every word of every one of them. He deserves an award for her performance as well. I can't think of a single way he could have played it better.
I'll move on to the script, which is also Golden Globe nominated. Sensing a pattern of greatness, huh? The script for Lincoln as so unbelievably good...I can't even talk about it. It was so good. So. Good. So good. I loved every second of what I was watching, what I was listening to, what I was seeing. It was so entertaining, historical, and surprisingly funny. I never knew it, but Abraham Lincoln was quite the story teller, and he told a few great stories throughout the film. All of them were written so perfectly. Gah, I don't know what else to say. The script was just awesome. And that's all there is to it.
I guess that's all, folks. I've only really talked about two things (acting and the script?) but those were the two major aspects of the movie that were beyond fantastic. There were other elements of the movie I appreciated (what comes to mind: the filter. The darkness in the shots was really beautiful and I think kind of emphasizes the darkness of the times) but the ones I just focused on were what made the movie truly great. The only slight complaint was that it did feel long. I was never bored, but the long-factor was getting to be a bit too much. Any longer and it would have been too long. But other than that the movie was magical. I felt as though I was watching Lincoln himself, confiding to his loved ones, grieving over his lost son, never crumbling under the stress of his proclamations. It was such a strong sort of film. So beautifully put together it made me wish I knew more about that time, more about that president. And despite the inevitable ending, there was a spark of hope, so I left the movie theater feeling full, instead of empty. I think that's how movie's should be.

Real Teen Rating ~ A : You MUST watch this movie!

Read More

Elementary - CBS

The Gist

Elementary
Buy it here and support our blog

Sherlock Holmes is a recovering drug addict living in New York City. He's also a consulting detective from Scotland Yard in London who's working with the NYPD while he finishes his rehab. Assigned to him by his father is a sober companion named Joan Watson, who got more than she bargained for with an overly logical, unemotional, and closed off patient who drags her to bloody crime scenes and forces her to think in new ways to help the police solve the toughest crimes.

What We Think
Reviewed by Living Destiny
Number of Seasons: 1
This show at first glance appears to be an attempt at beating out the BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, titled Sherlock. I haven't actually seen Sherlock, so I can't compare them, but as soon as I watched Elementary I was pretty sure it would be able to stand alone. First of all, Watson is a girl. And when I first saw the ads, I hated that fact. I mean, I love Lucy Liu, but John Watson was written as a man, and the character is a man, so why change that? Also, people already think Sherlock and Watson should end up together in Sherlock, where both characters are men. Turning Watson into a woman would just add fuel to those thoughts, and I don't think Sherlock and Watson should be a couple. Upon watching the show, I realized that it works. The character Joan Watson, not John Watson, needs to be a girl. It's hard to picture a sympathetic but stern sober companion as a man. She has to be a woman to balance out this version of Sherlock. And as I said, I love Lucy Liu, and she does a great job. The star of the show, however, is Jonny Lee Miller. He plays Sherlock, and he's absolutely brilliant. He's aloof, obnoxiously intelligent and self assured, breaks all the rules, and is never wrong. It's perfect. Watching him play Sherlock is the highlight of the show. The plot almost doesn't matter, although the plot is also good. Miller and Liu have great onscreen chemistry, and they play off of each other incredibly well.
It's an interesting twist to an old story that Sherlock is a recovering drug addict. In Sir Conan Doyle's books, Sherlock occasionally did cocaine to stimulate his mind. It's hinted at in the modern movies with Robert Downey Jr. But it's never addressed as a serious issue. It's sort of acknowledged that he does drugs, but never fixed. In this version, it's a Sherlock without drugs, getting over his addictions and being a detective anyway. I like the healthy him, who doesn't need to do drugs. He has a brilliant mind, and though he doesn't seem to struggle with his rehab, the threat is there in some of the episodes, and he always contains himself well. Watson, who is usually a doctor, as a sober companion makes the character more necessary to the plot. The doctor Watson can come and go as he pleases, but the sober companion Watson has to stay with Sherlock at all times, not only to keep him out of trouble, but to keep him away from relapse. It's a good creative decision for the show to make Sherlock a recovering addict, because it changes the dynamic between the characters for the better.
The story lines themselves are pretty typical. It is a cop show, after all. There are only so many crimes that can be committed. Nothing extraordinary there. It's the dialogue and characters that make this show so stellar. Sometimes it gets a little predictable, but again, it is a cop show. But it's a higher end cop show. A classy cop show, shall we say. Jonny Lee Miller really steals the show, and it's a show that has me hooked.

Real Teen Rating ~ A: Definitely check it out!

Read More

Wreck-It Ralph - John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman and Jack McBrayer

The Gist

Wreck-It Ralph
Buy it here and support our blog

Litwak's Arcade is a place where kids go to play games and forget about their worries.  At the arcade there is a game called Fix it Felix Jr. and it has been one of the most popular games for 30 years.  There is just one small problem.  The villain of the game, Ralph, doesn't want to be the bad guy anymore.  He wants the people of his game to like him and appreciate who he is.  While celebrating the 30th anniversary of the game the characters don't invite him to the party and he vows to them that he will prove he is a good guy and that he will come back with a medal showing that he is a hero.  So, Ralph sets off to find the medal and prove that he is a good guy after all.  

What We Think
Reviewed by The North Star
Run Time: 108 minutes
Rating: PG
I saw this movie today after hearing that it was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature and I had wanted to see it for a long time because it looked adorable.  I was so glad that I did see this movie because it was adorable. One of the things that I really loved about it was that fact that it was completely new and never thought of before.  When I first saw the commercials I thought wow a movie that isn't based off a book and it has an original idea.  Disney always seems to amaze me with their ideas.  Who thought of to tell the story of characters in an arcade but not only that but the villains perspective.  It would have been way easier for them to tell the story through Felix's eyes but instead they decided to show it through Ralph's eyes and how he deals with the situation.  I applaud you whoever works at Disney.  
Speaking of the story, this was a really great kids movie.  If I knew someone under the age of ten and I wanted to take them to see a movie I would 1000% choose to take them to this one.  It was witty, adorable and had a very happy ending.  The perfect ingredients for a children's movie.  I love children's movies too but something seemed to be missing from this movie.  The second half of the movie at points a little too childish to me.  Almost like they spelled things out a little too much.  Granted it was made for a younger audience in mind but Disney is usually good about making movies good for the parents to watch along with their kids.  The whole movie was not this way but there were points where it felt very little kidish to me and they were parts that could have been made non-little kidish.  The one other thing that I wished for this movie was that they traveled to other games because they only really traveled to a couple.  The ones that they traveled to were fine but I wish that they added one or two more because the couple that they went to seemed like they spent to much time in the games that they went to. Other than those parts though the film was full of things that I enjoyed even as a teenager.
On a different topic the voice acting in this movie is perfect.  I applaud the casting director because they couldn't have gotten better actors to play the roles.  John C. Reilly was the voice of Ralph and I loved how innocent he made the character sound without making it seem like Ralph complained a lot or was even weak.  Sarah Silverman was the voice of a little girl that Ralph makes friends with along the way and I NEVER guessed that it was Sarah Silverman's voice.  I only found that out after the movie when I was researching who played who.  She did an amazing little kid voice and again was perfect for the role.  Jack McBrayer voiced Fix it Felix and I know him from 30 Rock because he plays the adorable page, Kenneth.  He had a very good tone to his voice to make it seem like Felix could be a kid but he could also be an adult which is very much what the character of Felix was like.  Not quite a man but also not quite a boy either.  Finally, Jane Lynch.  I was afraid when I heard about her being the voice actor because her voice is so distinctive and I didn't think that the two would be able to be distinguished.  I was so wrong.  They made the character look a lot like Jane Lynch so they didn't try to hide the fact that she was the character.  I thought this was ingenious because since she has such a distinctive voice and they worked with that so that she could still be in the movie and be amazing. 
In short, this was a fantastic children's movies and if you have kids you should take them.  I also think that it should win Best Animated Film in the Oscars because besides the parts I didn't care for I thought that it was extremely well done and there were some part that I couldn't stop laughing at. 

Real Teen Rating ~ B : Rent it to save for a rainy day.

Read More

Django Unchained - Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio

The Gist

Django Unchained
Buy it here and support our blog

Dr. King Schultz, bounty hunter, buys Django out of slavery to help him find three white men who used to work on the plantation where Django had just been sold from. When Django shows a natural talent for bounty hunting, the two men strike up a partnership, spending the winter killing criminals for money. As they get closer, they decide to go on a search for Django's wife, who was sold away from him when he was sold. Their search brings them to the plantation of Calvin Candie, where they have to pull off a crafty scheme to save Django's wife from the cruelty of the slavery system.

What We Think
Reviewed by Living Destiny
Run Time: 165 minutes
Rating: R
This movie is so long. So. Long. It's nearly three hours long. I'm having a hard time getting past the sheer length of this film. It probably doesn't help that I went to see a 9:45 showing, so I got out at almost 1 in the morning. But seriously, it's so long. And the worst part is that it feels long. A three hour film can go by in no time if it is absolutely captivating and fast paced. Django Unchained, despite all of its hype, wasn't. There were a ton of little montage shots, and even some whole scenes, that could have been cut from the movie entirely, and it wouldn't have suffered. The thought process behind a movie is that every detail has meaning. If it doesn't characterize or progress the plot, it has no purpose. And some of the shots did characterize, but still felt unnecessary. Most of them didn't do either, and that gets me neatly to my next point.
This movie is directed by Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino is very much a hit or miss director. His most famous movie is probably Pulp Fiction, which most people either love or hate. Basically, he gets strong reactions. But he's so excessive in his effects. Characteristics of his movie are lots of swearing, lots of blood, and lots of explosions. And that's usually too much, but he somehow manages to outdo himself in this movie. I'm not affected by the sight of blood in the least, and even I was cringing at this one. Gunshots that would in real life produce practically no blood, on the screen produce gushing streams that shoot five, ten feet out from a body. It's totally unrealistic, and honestly it's just gross. And some of the scenes are wicked graphic. Fights to the death, whipping, a man literally being torn apart by dogs. There's no purpose to it except to shock the audience. That's really all Tarantino can do. Flashy, shock movies that are intended to get a rise out of the viewers. This is the first movie I've seen of his that had serious potential as a script, and all he could do was drag it through the mud. Granted, it did have some redeemable qualities, even some good scenes, but I would chalk that up to a fluke, and not give credit to Tarantino. Also, there was way too much use of the 'n' word. I know it's set in 1858, and that's slavery time, but it was so much. I think any word has value, but overuse of a word devalues it, and that's what happened here. They said the 'n' word so much, it ended up doing nothing at all. Which brings up a question: is this movie supposed to be a satire?
So, is it? I couldn't tell, and that frustrated me. Sometimes it leaned that way. The excessive gore, coupled with the Mark Twain-esque use of the 'n' word, made it seem like a satire. There was even one scene involving the KKK that was actually funny, and clearly poking fun at racism as an organization. But that was the only funny part of the movie. So maybe it wasn't a satire at all, maybe it was supposed to be serious. A hard hitting drama with a powerful message. So why was that funny part in there? And what's with the grotesque amount of gore and foul language? It would appear that this movie is trying to be two totally different types of movies, and ends up being a confusing mess. 
But there's a good side to every story. The script of this movie, minus the gratuitous swearing, was actually well written. It was an interesting story, although I think realistically it should have been broken into three movies, because I think there were three distinct sections of the story. Which makes it surprising that it wasn't split into thirds, given the recent trend in Hollywood to stretch every plot line out to kingdom come. It was a good story that could have been made into a truly great movie. The acting was also, for the most part, really well done. Jamie Foxx was ok, but I'd say the stars are Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Samuel L. Jackson. Christoph Waltz, the German man, was fantastic. He was probably my favorite character, because he was cunning and he knew exactly where his morals lay, even if they weren't the typical morals of society. Leonardo DiCaprio was the perfect bad guy, which was surprising to me, because I've never seen him play the villain. He was wonderfully greasy and sleazy, and he made me hate him more than I thought I could. Samuel L. Jackson was more of a minor character, but he was powerful. He played the slave master of the house, basically the head slave, whose allegiance was in more with Candie and the white folk than his own people. He was clearly intelligent, but knew his place, and his character stole the show as the real bad guy in the story. He was incredible. The only actor I really didn't like was Kerry Washington, who played Django's wife Broomhilda. She screamed too much. And I know she was a deeply abused slave, but seriously. Every time someone looked at her funny she screamed. It got as old as all the blood. 
Overall, I'm disappointed. This could have been so good. There was so much potential just waiting for a spark. And then Quentin Tarantino threw copious amounts of blood all over it, and the spark went out. The acting was good, but that wasn't enough to redeem the movie as a whole. This movie should have stayed chained.

Real Teen Rating ~ C: If there's nothing else to see...

Read More

Les Misérables - Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway and Russell Crowe

The Gist

Jean Valjean has been in jail for 19 years for stealing bread.  He has finally been released but before he leaves he is informed by Javert, a policeman, that he must carry around a paper saying that he was in jail and that it would be virtually impossible to find a job.  Javert also lets him know that if he breaks any laws he will hunt him down and throw him right back in jail.  Jean Valjean leaves and soon finds out that what Javert says is true.  No one will hire him or even take him in.  One night he stumbles upon  a church and the priest lets him take shelter for the night.  During the night Jean Valjean steals silver from the priest and runs away.  As he runs away he is caught and send back to give the priest his silver.  When he goes back the priest informs the officers that he gave Jean Valjean the silver and that he did not steal it. The priest lets Jean Valjean know that this is his chance to start again.  Jean Valjean leaves the church with a purpose to his life, rips up his papers and decides to start his life as a new man with a new name.  

What We Think
Reviewed by The North Star
Run Time: 160 minutes
Rating: PG-13
I have been a fan of this musical ever since I heard "On My Own".  After listening to the song about 100 times I decided to listen to the rest of the CD and I found that I loved all of the songs and not just the one that I had listened to over and over again.  A year or so later I got to see a local production and I fell in love with the show.  As the years went by I continued listening to the soundtrack and never stopped loving it.  Then about a year ago I heard that they were finally making the musical into a movie.  I couldn't wait to see it.  For a year I patiently waited for the movie and as soon as I could I went to go see it.  I wasn't expecting for it to be just as good as any other movie-musical and that is all that it was.  I love the music and the story to this musical a lot more than other movie-musicals but it was nothing that I wasn't expecting.
First off, something that I found out a couple of weeks before seeing the movie was that all of the actors are actually singing.  On the set they were recorded singing the song and when editing the film together they used those recordings.  Nothing was mixed in the studio after the fact. It would be the same as if you saw it on a stage.  The actors are really singing and are not enhanced in any way to make themselves sound better.  The was a cool fun fact but it definitely raised the grade for me because it shows that the all-star cast could actually sing instead of just act. 
When I first heard about them making the musical into a movie I heard of who was rumored to be the leading roles and I was very disappointed because with the exception of Eponine and Marius all of the actors were household names that people knew.  I was especially upset when I heard that Fantine was going to be played by Anne Hathaway.  I don't particularly care for her as an actor and Fantine has some of the most famous songs in the show.  Going in with that mind set I walked out with the complete opposite thought in my head.  After seeing her performance I think that she deserves the Oscar.  She played Fantine to near perfection.  Her performance was so raw and real.  When she started singing "I Dreamed A Dream" I couldn't look away from the screen.  She had brought meaning to that song that I never knew existed.  She broke down crying in the middle of a line and took a second to catch her breath which is what would really happen if you were in her situation.  Most of the times that I saw someone perform that song they would break down at the end of a line which isn't necessarily realistic.  In short, Anne Hathaway was amazing and deserves to be recognized for her role.  
The other actors were actually pretty good as well.  Hugh Jackman was a great Jean Valjean but not amazing.  He had an amazing voice and was a great actor and he did better than I expected.  Russell Crowe on the other hand struggled.  His acting was stellar but his singing not so much.  It wasn't horrendous but the character of Javert has some of the greatest songs and he butchered them.  He was a better singer than I thought but I wish that it was better.  His acting and looks made up for the singing, so that was ok.  The girl that played Eponine (Samantha Barks) didn't reach the bar.  "On My Own" is one of the greatest songs from the show and it fell completely flat.  It didn't feel like she sung her heart out or put any emotion into the song for that matter.  Marius (Eddie Redmayne) was another unknown in the cast but he did really well.  Usually the character of Marius is kind of a weenie because he is so lovestruck but Eddie played him really well and made the character seem more manly which was a refreshing change.  Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter played the expert scammers and they were amazing.  Their parts were very small but they were amazing in the few parts that they were in.  They are the comic relief of the movie and I am always grateful when they come on because the show is so heavy.  Overall, the acting in the film was very strong.
While looking at the Golden Globe nominations I saw that this movie was nominated for best original song and I was confused because this show already had SO many songs.  Then I saw the film waiting for the song and it was completely unneeded.  I could tell that it was added only so that it could be nominated for that category.  Don't get me wrong, the song sounded pretty and was well-written but to me it seemed very out of place.  It made me very upset to think they had to add another song just to get nominated for another category.  The music has been known as legendary ever since the first showing of the musical, there is no need to add a new song now.  
The last thing that really bothered me about this film was the cinematography.  The cinematographer only used a couple shots.  Extreme close-ups, shots that awkwardly cut off people's boy parts like foreheads or arms and shots where the character was only in one third of the screen and the rest was all just te background.  All of these are good shots to use when making a film but they shouldn't be the only shots that you use for the entire film.  I wish that they would have broadened the horizons and done something different every once in a while but they didn't.  Although, I did appreciate the use of the long shots.  Those are very difficult to do and to do well so I applaud the cinematographer for those.
All in all, I thought this movie was very well done and will be remembered and I will probably end up buying it on DVD or even seeing it in theaters again.  It lived up to my expectations and nothing more.  At points it took my breath away but as a whole it didn't exceed what I was expecting and that is why I can't give it an A. 

Real Teen Rating ~ B+ : Worth Watching!

Read More

Anna Karenina - Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson

The Gist

Anna Karenina
Buy it here and support our blog

Anna Karenina is an honorable, married woman with an important husband and a son who is dear to her. And she is, for the most part, content with her life. It doesn't matter so much to her that her husband is twenty years her senior or that he doesn't care to spend time with her and their son; he is a good man. When her brother, Stiva, writes to her for help she leaves St. Petersberg for Moscow immediately, altering her life forever. There, after convincing Dolly (Stiva's wife) to forgive him for cheating, Anna is persuaded to attend a ball. Her sister-in-law, Kitty, is certain she will be proposed to there by one handsome officer named Alexei Vronsky. Much to Kitty's displeasure, at the ball it's not her Vronsky can't take his eyes off of; it's Anna. It becomes clear to both Anna and Vronsky after only a few dances that they have a connection. Unable to shake her feelings for Vronsky, Anna faces more than just scandal in response to her ensuing love affair.

What We Think
Reviewed by Dream Catcher
Run Time: 129 minutes
Rating: R
My first reaction, directly following the credits, was That was the most depressing movie I've ever seen. And though I've amended my statement to be simply one of the most depressing movies ever, it doesn't change the fact that the movie as a whole is ridiculously sad. Very tragic, really. But I shouldn't give away the ending.
Let me first say something of the score, which is Golden Globe nominated, because I'm listening to it as I type. It is so beautiful. It just makes me want to leap up and dance some traditional Russian Waltz. Equal parts elegance and melancholy, always with a great deal of lamenting violin. I want to play them as I go to sleep so I can dream of something romantic and sad. If it doesn't win Best Original Score I'll be very upset. My favorite song might be the one to go along with the credits, Curtain, or maybe the one to start off the whole movie, Overture, of perhaps the symphony of when Vronsky and Anna fall in love, Dance With Me. I don't know. It's so hard to pick. They're all so wonderful.
Speaking of wonderful, the art direction, which I usually keep out of the review, was just amazing as well. The whole thing was made as if being performed on a stage, in an abstract way. Doors of offices would open to reveal grassy fields or ballet stages. It was crazy, entrancing, and completely unique. I'd never seen anything like it before. I thought it added something to the film, distinguishing it as something greater than just a romance movie. Though the plot may not be anything beyond that, I feel as though the art of the movie itself makes it worth seeing.
I might as well say something about the plot and script while I've brought it up. Though the book it's made from is really in-depth, the movie is not. It is, simply, a romance. A fantastical, heart-breaking romance, but nothing more. This, with critics and fans alike, left something to be desired. What is there beyond scandal? Beyond affair and forbidden love and shame? Well, there's nothing. This is a story of love, of passion, of mistakes and regret and shame. Though the book dives deeper, it has longer. Who wants to watch a four-hour long movie as the script attempts to delve into the inner mechanisms of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina? You could read a few chapters of the book every so often, finish it eventually, and think, Wow, Tolstoy really hit the nail on the head. But he didn't have two hours to do it, did he? People are searching for something that can't be there: substance beyond romance. I thought it was a superb romantic-tragedy, a tale-of-woe perhaps, but philosophy of life? Not there, my friend. And it wasn't intended to be there. The screenwriter didn't accidentally leave it out of the script, or forget to write it in. It just wasn't what everyone expected. My advice: if you want a simple, elegant romance, better than some romantic-comedy, watch it - anything beyond that...read the book. One major complaint is that it felt like Anna and Vronsky fell in love too quickly. They danced all night at a ball (oh, the scandal!) and suddenly they couldn't bear to be apart. Does love work that way? Does dancing work that way? I dunno, maybe in Imperial Russia it does.
I guess last and not least is acting. I thought Keira Knightly as Anna was great. She played all of Anna's emotions well. When she was missing her son, crazy with uncertainty, longing and in love, desperate and sad. I know a lot of people thought she was fickle, but I would describe her more as confused, innocent maybe. I thought, after what she'd been through, her emotions didn't seem so irrational, and I think Knightly's portrayed helped with that. Jude Law as her husband was really good, too. He hardly ever showed much emotion, but in that he made the character very believable. The only other I'll mention is Aaron Taylor-Johnson, the guy who played Vronsky. I thought he played the part well, too. His character was well-bred and full of pomp, giving an air of elegance himself, despite his (let's say) womanizing beginnings. This, I daresay, isn't very hard to play - nevertheless, Taylor-Johnson played him well enough, and there's really not a lot to say about it. The entire cast was decent, and even good, but none Oscar or Golden Globe worthy.
In conclusion, I think the movie should be more known for its art direction, costuming, score, and cinematography - all of which were beautifully executed. Though the script left a little something to be desired, for what it was - a romance - it was very good. I would recommend it, but not to everyone. I think it was a little long for some people; if you're one of those who notice a movie's length and are bored beyond two hours, I wouldn't say you should see it. But if you'd like to see a tragic love story with beautiful backgrounds and stunning costumes and elegant dances, give it a try. I don't think you'll be sorry.

Real Teen Rating ~ B : Rent it to save for a rainy day.

Read More

Partners - CBS

The Gist

Louis and Joe have been best friends since they were little kids. Now they own an architecture firm together, and they perfectly balance each other out. Their friendship is as close with each other as they are with their romantic partners, Ali (who is engaged to Joe), and Wyatt (who is dating Louis), which can occasionally cause problems. But nothing can come between a bromance like this, and it brings the four of them all together through all the ups and downs of life.

What We Think
Reviewed by Living Destiny
Number of Seasons: 1
First and foremost, I apologize for the gist. I've never been very good at them, and lets be honest, it's a sitcom. You try to summarize Friends as anything other than six friends who live in New York City, and you'll figure out how hard explaining a sitcom is. I'm a winner here.
Anyway. So the theme song is awesome. It's a little detail, but the theme song is "On Top of the World" by Imagine Dragons. The playful words and upbeat music fit the comedy of the sitcom, and I honestly just love the band, so anything that uses their music is already great. 
The characters are great too. Louis is my favorite. He's a loud, flamboyant gay man who has no boundaries, and thinks mostly of himself, but really cares about his friends and loved ones. It's almost how I picture myself if I were a gay man. Michael Urie (the actor playing Louis) is just adorable, and he has fantastic comedic timing. He's the funniest part of this show. He and David Krumholtz (who plays Joe) have great onscreen chemistry, and they just work well together. Joe is much more tight laced, but he's still funny in a sarcastic, almost dry sort of way. Because he and Louis are so opposite from each other, they make good foils for one another, and their scenes always had me laughing out loud, much to the chagrin of my sleepy parents. Ali and Wyatt aren't exactly smaller characters, but I thought of them that way, mostly because I liked them slightly less than Louis and Joe. Wyatt's character is funny because he's completely stoic. He hardly ever smiles, even when he thinks something is funny. If he purposely tells a joke, no one really knows until he says it's a joke. He's so deadpan all the time, it's fun to watch. He and Louis are a cute couple, and they obviously really care about each other. The same goes for Ali and Joe. The characters were written really well, so that a relationship between all of the four main characters is seen with the other three as a pair. If that makes sense. Ali was my least favorite relatively, but even she was good. She didn't make me laugh as much as the others, but it's not like she ever detracted from a scene. I think she was funny because she would question Joe's relationship with Louis, and it caused interesting conflict. 
That's it. Four main characters. There are a few bit players, sure, but there are just four main characters. I really love that. A show doesn't need lots of people or intense action to be entertaining. Look at Friends. Yes, I'm making another Friends reference, but it's been stuck in my head lately. There were six recurring characters in that show, and it was immensely popular. People still love it today, and it ended in 2004. What's necessary is lovable characters and interesting conflict, which I think Partners has. Some of the episodes have more serious issues, like financial problems, and some are completely fickle, like sleeping with a celebrity, but they're always amusing, and they always highlight the complexities of adult relationships. I can't say enough good things about this show. 
The plot lines were interesting. I know I just said that, but it's really true. They had creative ideas. The best part of the plot is definitely the conflicts caused between Joe and Louis, and their thoughts on how relationships work. Obviously, most of their differences of opinion come from the fact that they are very different people, but some of them stem from the simple fact that Louis is gay and Joe is straight. I appreciate that difference. It seems to me that there is a trend appearing in modern sitcoms where they have to add in a gay character. Whether that's for social diversity and acceptance, or because writers think gay characters can be funny in a more stereotypical-for-gays-but different-than-straight-guys way, I don't know, but I do know that it's usually done in a hit or miss way. Gay characters can work, but sometimes they're just too over the top to even be believable. And I've seen some over the top gay people, so that's legit. This show does gay well. Louis is loud and silly, but that's more of his personality, and less of his sexuality. Wyatt, however, seems much less like the basic idea of a gay man. He's quiet, reserved, doesn't flaunt his sexuality - although he is very proud of his boyfriend and loves him very much - he's even a Mennonite, which I just had to look up to get facts on, but is a religion that isn't very supportive of homosexuality. Passing him on the street you wouldn't expect him to be gay, you'd notice him because he's ripped and looks like Clark Kent. The comparison between Wyatt and Louis' relationship and Ali and Joe's relationship is a big part of the show, both in how different they are, and also how similar. Most of the contrasting elements come from the people in the relationships, not their sexualities. Some of it, as I've said, is the gay/straight difference, but it's really because they don't act the same. They're both loving, supportive, caring relationships. It's nice that the show can clearly contrast two dissimilar lifestyles, and show how similar they actually are. It seems to me to be a great way of promoting the idea of acceptance and equality by showing how totally equal Joe and Louis, and Wyatt and Ali, really are. 
There's really nothing wrong with this show. Some of the humor is brash, inappropriate, or just plain silly, but it's funny, and it has lots of affection as it demonstrates the real relationships that grow between two close friends and their romantic partners. And that is why I was so devastated and confused when it was canceled after only six episodes. I sincerely considered finding the president of CBS and shouting at him until he put the show back on the air. The ratings, apparently, just weren't up to the standards of the station, and so Partners was cut midway through the first season. It was a tragic loss to my night time television schedule, as it left me with only one show to watch, which ended its season about a month ago. I can't describe how angry I was. I became very attached to this show, and then it just disappeared. I read the story lines for the seven episodes of season one that didn't air, and I just became more upset, because they sounded hilarious. This review, it would appear, is too little, too late, but this show shouldn't have been canceled. It was one of the funniest shows I've watched in a long time. Television isn't very funny anymore, and this made me laugh out loud, which doesn't happen often. It's disappointing, and there isn't anything I can do but pout. It should still be on the air, because the characters and relationships are well developed, the conflicts are creative and interesting, and the dialogue is witty and well written. It's a loss to the entertainment world, and I wear black to mourn in its honor.

Real Teen Rating ~ A+: Most definitely should watch!!! You know...if it were still on...

Read More

Silver Linings Playbook- Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro

The Gist

Silver Linings Playbook
Buy it here and support our blog

Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) has just been released from a mental health facility after being treated for 8 months.  His mother (Jacki Weaver) made a deal with the court that he could return as long as he visited a therapist every week.  Pat has bipolar disorder and was sent to the facility after finding out his wife, Nikki, was cheating on him and nearly beat her lover to death.  Now that he is out of the hospital he is determined to win her back and prove that he has become a better man worthy of her love.  He trains day and night to show friends and family to give him a second chance and possibly lift the restraining order that Nikki had placed after the incident.
While he is training Pat reconnects with his friend who invites him over for dinner.  While at the dinner Pat meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). The dinner quickly takes a turn for the worse and Pat and Tiffany decide to leave.  As the days go by Pat and Tiffany grow closer, when Tiffany reveals that she may be able to give a letter to Nikki from Pat if he would like.  The only catch is that Pat must compete with Tiffany in a local dance competition.  
As all of the this goes on Pat's father (Robert De Niro) tries to connect to him through football and tells Pat that he is his good luck charm.  As long as Pat watches the game with him the Eagles will win.  This becomes more and more difficult as Pat blows off his dad for various reasons. 
Pat must now decide whether or not he can trust Tiffany with her deal and if he can please his father at the same time.  

What We Think
Reviewed by The North Star
Run Time: 122 minutes
Rating: R
Every year my family and I go see a film on Christmas Eve.  This year we looked really hard for a film to go see and I had heard so much about this film that I somehow convinced my family to go see it with me.  When we got there, there was only two other people in the theater.  As it became closer and closer to the actual time the movie was going to started large groups of people filed into the theater.  By the time the film started there were only a few seats vacant. I was completely surprised because this film had been out since before Thanksgiving and on top of that it was an independent film, indie, and most times no one goes to see indies in theaters.  They wait for them to come out on DVD.  The second that the movie started I knew that I was going to like it and that I could understand why it had been nominated for four golden globes.  
Before I go into specifics that golden globes that it has been nominated for are Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy, Best Actor - Musical or Comedy - Bradley Cooper, Best Actress - Musical or Comedy - Jennifer Lawrence and Best Screenplay - David O. Russell.  
This post is going to be broken down into the different awards because this is what the critics are giving the movie praise for.  First off, the acting.  Going into the movie I had only seen Bradley Cooper in movies like Limitless and Valentine's Day.  In both of those movies he wasn't anything special and I never really thought of him as a serious actor.  After watching this film all I can say is that he truly deserves that Golden Globe possibly the Oscar.  He played the role perfectly.  Often with movies that involve mental diseases or disorders the actor with the disorder will overplay the role and make it seem extremely unrealistic.  Bradley Cooper never came close to that.  He always played a character I could believe and made me forget that he was Bradley Cooper but instead that he was this completely new person, Pat Solitano. Then, we move on to Jennifer Lawrence.  Coming into the film I knew that she was going to be good because she is consistently good.  Even in The Hunger Games which is a big budget film where acting doesn't necessarily matter she was amazing.  This movie was no exception.  Even though she wasn't the MAIN character she still had a huge role and in my opinion she stole the show.  Her character also had a mental disorder, which is never specifically stated but I think it was some sort of anger management or fear of abandonment.  She also played this very realistically.  It was very understated and very true to what someone with that kind of disorder would act like.  Every line pulled me closer and closer to her character and by the end I felt as though I could perfectly understand her and it was as if I had known her my whole life.  Again, I forgot that she was Jennifer Lawrence and I 100% believed that she was Tiffany.  Her comedic timing in the film was perfection, same with Bradley Cooper and although there were other characters in the movie their acing didn't even compare to these two.  If they don't win some sort of high award I will be completely shocked.  
Now, onto the screenplay.  At the end of the film during the credits it said that it was based off of a book.  I didn't know that and so as soon as I got home I looked it up.  The film was adapted to a screenplay by a man by the name of David O. Russell.  After looking at the plot line of the book I found that at lot of the things didn't match up with the movie and for once I was glad that I had seen the film first.  It seems that some of the things that I really liked in the movie were different in the book.  I do not want to give away any spoilers but I think I would see the movie first.  Anyways, I thought the script was brillant.  I was never bored and I never had the urge to start staring at the ceiling or check my phone to see what time it was.  It was funny but never pushed a joke so much that it was hitting you over the head.  The jokes very subtle and clever.  The only thing that I would have changed was a part with the therapist at the Eagles game.  It seemed unrealistic and unneeded.  Other than that I thought the script was one of the best that I have seen in a LONG time and I hope that it wins but there is a lot of competition this year.
All in all I liked almost everything in this movie and I highly recommend it.  There are only tiny things that I would have changed but overall I see it winning a lot of the big awards this year.  I will definitely be one of the people rooting for it at the award shows. 

Real Teen Rating~ A- : See it with some friends!        

Read More