I’ve seen comedy movies that deal with serious matters, and I’ve seen serious movies that incorporate comedic elements, but never before have I seen a film that could be considered both of these genres at the same time. Until I watched the dark comedy In Bruges, of course.

In Bruges circles around Ken and Ray, two hitmen who are sent to Bruges, Belgium by their boss, Harry Waters, after completing a job in London. Harry orders them to stay put and lay low until he’s able to call them with further instructions. With nothing to do but sight-see and visit the pubs, both Ken and Ray begin to rethink their lives as professional killers.

As you can probably observe from just the brief premise, the script was very original and fresh. I thought it would lean more towards one genre than the other, as most films do, but the blending of drama and comedy was surprisingly balanced. It was odd to feel shocked and scared one moment, and then laugh out loud the next. And it’s not just a movie that freaks you out and cracks you up – it’s a movie with a distinct underlying message. It’s one of those films that you can’t watch fully until you’ve seen it a couple times and caught all the subtle foreshadowing and symbolism. And what moviegoer doesn’t love a film you can watch five times and still see something you hadn’t before? 

I will warn you though – a lot of the film’s jokes can be taken a little offensively. To be fair, it mocks almost every class of people, not just one specific group, but some scenes were a little overstuffed with crude humor. I didn’t really have a problem with it, but those easily bothered by discriminatory jokes would probably be unable to truly relax and enjoy the plot.

Which is a shame because not only was the script great, the acting was brilliant as well. Colin Farrell is one of those actors who is basically awesome in every role he takes, even if the overall film isn’t that great, so I wasn’t at all surprised to see him bring the character of Ray so boldly to life. I hadn’t previously seen much of Clémence Poésy, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes (a.k.a. Fleur Delacour, Mad-Eye Moody, and Voldemort in the Harry Potter movies), or Jordan Prentice (Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle), but I’m happy to say that they performed hundreds of times better in In Bruges. Each character was so multi-dynamic that it was hard to dislike any of them, even though they all had some pretty nasty pasts.

The directing of Martin McDonagh (Six Shooter) and cinematography of Eigil Bryld (Becoming Jane) was also amazing. Having the director be the writer as well really helped in keeping everything visually in sync with what was on the page. The way they revealed some events, like what occurred during the job in London, was very nicely done. I hope the two work together again some time in the future.

I’m still debating whether In Bruges is one of my favorites, but it’s definitely high on the list. It’s refreshing, it’s scary, it’s amusing, it’s intelligent…I guess I’ll just have to watch it one or twelve more times before I decide. I suggest that all other film buffs do the same.

I based my decision to watch this film almost entirely off of what I saw on the DVD case. Shia LaBeof…creepy, menacing binoculars…I’m interested. Unfortunately for me, I was drawn in like a fly to a bug light because, contrary to what the front cover says, Disturbia is anything but “a scorching nail-biter that will have you jumping out of your seat”. Allow me to explain.

To begin with, the storyline is not exactly original. Kale, a teenage boy deeply affected by his father’s death, is put under house arrest after assaulting a teacher at school. With nothing else to do, Kale begins to routinely observe his neighborhood and soon witnesses some strange events occurring inside one man’s house that drags Kale and everyone he cares for into life-threatening danger (…Hitchcock’s Rear Window, anyone?). 

And when I say “drags”, I mean it. For being labeled as a thriller, Disturbia has very little thrill involved. The advancement of plot is so slow, I was about three fourths of the way through before anything frightening occurred, and even then it is very overdone and very unoriginal. The overall feel of the film ends up being more teen-flick-y than anything else. After a while, I found myself only half-caring about what happened to anyone in the end. Even if it wasn’t so closely related to Hitchcock’s film, I don’t feel like writer Christopher Landon or director D.J. Caruso did a proper job in making Disturbia stand out on its own.

The fact that Steven Spielberg had been an executive producer was a complete surprise for me. There are a few moments of amusement throughout that remind me a little of Spielberg’s humor, but besides that, this film really doesn’t feel connected with his expertise at all.

The original soundtracks also lacked a strong, unique quality and made me more annoyed than freaked out. Disturbia mostly uses the method of music shrieking when something pops surprisingly onto the screen, which works, but if it’s used too often on things that aren’t even scary (i.e. the character turning around and seeing their best friend instead of a murderer), it gets a little redundant and makes me question if the director really knows how to scare an audience.

I was generally disappointed in the acting as well. It wasn’t that it was bad, it just felt very generic and flat. I had seen good things from Carrie-Anne Moss (The Matrix trilogy) and had heard good things about David Morse (The Green Mile), but neither seemed especially electrifying in their Disturbia roles. It may have had something to do with the way the characters were written, but it just felt like the mother was a mother and the creepy man was a creepy man, nothing more.  

On the other hand, Shia LaBeouf (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) probably brought the most believablity to this film for me. It’s ironic, considering he use to make a living in teenage media as Louis Stevens on Disney Channel’s Even Stevens, but had I not watched that TV show, I would’ve never believed him to be the same actor. LaBeouf’s ability to conform so smoothly to a character is probably the reason why his career has come out of Disturbia unscathed. He is definitely an actor to keep an eye on.

To be honest, unless you’re a diehard LaBeouf fanatic, I would not recommend this movie. There really isn’t anything in it that we haven’t seen before. You’d be better off sticking with Rear Window and catching Transformers or Indiana Jones for your LaBeouf fix.

At first, I hadn’t even intended to watch this movie. The trailers made it appear mediocre at best, and I had heard next to nothing about it from anyone. But I was bored and it was there, so I gave Mad Money a shot. And I was happily surprised.

The story begins when Don and Bridget Cardigan, an average middle-age couple, find themselves unemployed and in need of financial aid. With her outdated college education and very weak grasp on today’s technology, Bridget winds up as a janitor in the Federal Reserve. Soon her money-hungry mind starts running and suddenly Bridget and two fellow employees find themselves concocting and initiating a fool-proof plan to steal piles of old, tattered cash otherwise headed for destruction.

Now the premise doesn’t sound like much, but actors Ted Danson (Becker), Diane Keaton (Because I Said So), Katie Holmes (Batman Begins) and Queen Latifah (Bringing Down the House) did with their roles what their roles did with the money – took it and ran. All of these actors have years of experience under their belts and it showed. They did a superb job in presenting their characters as plain, everyday people who couldn’t turn down a perfect opportunity. I actually found myself being reminded of people I know in the real world while watching the movie, and that fact kept me engaged and interested (and also made the plot slightly more amusing). 

The writing itself probably circled more around “mediocre”, but not annoyingly so. I’d imagine it’d be quite challenging for Mad Money writer Glenn Gers (Fracture) to formulate a new and believable way that a few American citizens could rip off a highly-secured federal building. Fortunately I think Gers did a satisfactory job in that case. However, there were a couple of scenes that I felt could’ve been cut out and have little to no effect on the comedy or quality of the movie at all. But Hollywood produces a lot of movies that way, so I really didn’t see it as a significant problem. It just took away from any edge or originality this movie could’ve held.

There’s really not much else to say about Mad Money. It wasn’t anything special, but was certainly a very entertaining surprise for me. Anyone open to have a few laughs should definitely give this movie a chance.

True terror in a scary movie is one of the hardest feelings to successfully create and, ironically, one of the most popular to experience. More often than not, people of all ages would rather be scared witless than laugh at a comedy or cry at a romance. Cloverfield is one of the many films that encourages audiences to feel that horror that never gets old.

Cloverfield takes place in Manhattan, during a going-away party for a young guy named Rob. His best friend Hud is given the job of documenting the night on a video camera and gets more than he bargained for when the ground starts shaking, buildings start exploding, and a strange creature at the heart of it all is captured on his footage.

The entire movie is viewed through the eye of Hud’s (although technically it’s Rob’s) video camera. While at times the jerky movements can make you a little dizzy (people prone to motion sickness might want to avoid the running scenes), I definitely think the filming choice gave a lot of character to the movie. Before watching, I was a little skeptical at how they were going to ensure that the audience saw what they needed to see during certain events. The character holding the camera throughout the entire movie is far from being a filmmaker and is constantly in situations where the choices are to A) get a good view of what’s going on and die or B) forget the video, run away, and live. Surprisingly though, director Matt Reeves did a great job giving the audience what they needed visually while still making Hud a believable character.

And depicting the story visually was extremely important because Cloverfield contains almost no background music (the only exceptions being the music played at Rob’s party and the original score that begins a little over a minute into the ending credits). I personally enjoyed the lack of music because there was no build-up towards a scary event. It just happened. And that made the event even more shocking and scary.

The acting unfortunately wasn’t the best. During my first viewing it wasn’t too noticeable, but the second time through, I felt like the quality of the performances fluctuated a lot. It could’ve been a lot worse, but it also could’ve been better.

Also, as with the majority of creature-attack movies, the monster’s appearance in this film was ultimately not that frightening. It was too obviously CGI-ed, and the noises it made were way overdone. I think I would’ve liked it better if we never got a good or even semi-good view of what the creature really looked like. The human imagination will always be able to create a better monster than any special effects team could anyway.

Something that I also think could’ve been improved is the title. Cloverfield is a cool name, sure, but if the filmmakers would’ve included the word “Cloverfield” in the actual movie at all or switched to a name more significant to the plot, the title would’ve been much cooler.

Basically, it has its moments but also its flaws. If you’re looking for a little fright to spice up a late night with friends, go for it. If you’re a horror junkie searching for the next original terror film, you’ll probably want to pass.