In short, if you like poorly written movies filled with cheap, sleazy, schlock, you’ll like it. The only bright spot was the battle of the networks near the close of the movie with a great cast of A List actors. Other than Will Ferrell, the acting was sub-par at best, especially the son. However, this is one of the few movies of the holiday season which exhibits excellent character development in Ron Burgundy. Although the movie lacks in so many ways, it ranks high in entertainment value for the high school and college students it’s geared towards.

Martin Scorsese has done it again! With a film like this, it’s difficult to know where to begin. It was Sir Walter Scott who put it best when he penned the famous words, “oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” The movie is almost entirely about deception and greed. It shows the audience how one man can become so encapsulated with the idea of more. that he can build an army of deceivers and greedy salesmen to grow an empire. But like any Shakespearean or Greek tragedy, it doesn’t end well for nearly everyone, often times, including the central character. Di Caprio’s performance is definitely one of, if not his best! Absolutely amazing delivery. Although Scorsese likely did an accurate job (if not a little exaggerated) at showing what “that” world is like, the movie did not have to include the nudity and drug use to the extent it did in order to advance the plot throughout the narrative. One of the shortcomings of the film was the poor ADR (dialog replacement). Many times it was quite noticeable. The editing also seemed to be less than seem-less at some points. Definitely a candidate for a Best Actor nomination, as well as Best Adapted Screenplay.

“her” is a movie set in a futuristic Los Angeles about a recently separated greeting/love card writer (Phoenix) and his estranged relationship with his artificially intelligent OS (operating system). Joaquin Phoenix delivers an excellent performance as Theodore Twombly; however, his performance did not require extraordinary measures from him. As for the cinematography and editing (with the exception of about 1-2mins of black during an intimate scene), both are exceptional! The best thing about this film is the commanding and gripping dialog; furthermore, this film does a fantastic job at communicating character development and exposition. The film is also an excellent representation of how art direction and colors can be used to convey emotion. Unfortunately, the plot doesn’t fair so well. Any first-year filmmaker knows that in addition to the internal conflict a protagonist experiences, there needs to be an external/opposing force or embodiment of the internal conflict in order to help audiences follow the storyline. The ending leaves the audience in a precarious place, a middle ground so to speak, between joy and sadness.

Looking for a screwball comedy farce? Look no further than “American Hustle!” It appears in this film, David O. Russell out-Scorseses Scorsese. Like a well-orchestrated musical score, Russell uses whips, pans, and tacky slow-mo (but still entertaining) to tell his story. Metaphorically speaking, this film could be likened to a Vegas style slot machine that keeps winning! Although the movie states it’s based on true events, it’s loosely based on the life of Melvin Weinberg, at best. Adding to the comedy, this film features the best in 70s hair and the worst in comb-overs in cinema history, as showcased by Christian Bale’s character of Irving. It is easy to tell that Russell worships the women in his film, with plunging necklines and voluptuous fur coats. The dialog is well-written and demonstrates a strong knowledge and use character development and exposition in terms of advancing the plot. Russell’s actors showcase giving their all to the characters they portray. The cinematography is excellent and so is the editing. The only negative critique is the movie’s pace was a little too slow for the content. Over all, the film is an outlandishly entertaining screwball dark comedy.

A fantastic movie for a date. In short, it was like Woody Allen and Nicholas Sparks decided to make a movie together. You begin watching one movie, then before you know it, you’re watching another. The screenwriter did not follow a traditional structure, but the writing was solid with some funny moments. McAdams plays an all-too-familiar role and is ironically “ageless” in a movie about time. Character development (character arc) was pretty well non-existent; the characters are very static. There is quite a bit of narration by the protagonist; however, it still feels like a movie and not a book. Cinematography was adequate, but there was a little too much shaky cam. The direction was a little predictable, but still enjoyable. It was nice to see a healthy father-son relationship in an age where many fathers seem absent from the family. The movie is as much about the father-son relationship as it is the protagonist-love interest relationship. At the end of the day, it’s a movie that will make you laugh and cry. Definitely an enjoyable movie-going experience.