Reviews

The Coen Brothers are stalwarts of the film industry. Since their first movie, Blood Simple., was released in 1984, the directing duo has rarely settled for anything but greatness. Most recently, the Coens wrote and directed Inside Llewyn Davis – a film about a week in the life of a struggling singer trying to create a name for himself in the Greenwich Village folk scene of 1961. Like many Coen collaborations, the film left some people nonplussed. Where was the resolution? It is a factor that some viewers – unenlightened ones, if I pretentiously do say so myself – find infuriating. Many of these films have similar threads running through them. Often, the familial filmmakers make noirs, a genre essentially extinct, save for mediocre attempts to revive it such as The Good German. The likes of Double Indemnity do not exist – at a high level, at least – in the modern era, except when the Coens decide it's time. Their works are paradoxical. At times, the gist will be clear: there is a God, or some higher being doling out justice. However, just as the viewer deems this to be true, Joel and Ethan throw some amalgam of existentialism and doubt into the mix. Wait, this isn't what I thought it was going to be, is it? This leaves the viewer to decipher what the meaning really is, if there is one. Another one of their trademarks is to include things that add absolutely nothing to the crux of the film. Don't read into the films too much, ya hear?

In Inside Llewyn Davis, the Coens reverted to what made O Brother such a success. Music and movies are the core of popular culture. In 2011, the two industries accounted for $17.5 billion. As a result, many musicals/ movies with music-themes do extremely well. Most recently, one should recall Disney's Frozen. However, there are those films that wade underneath the mainstream. Llewyn Davis is one of those films.

While Llewyn Davis was never as hyped as The Wolf of Wall Street or American Hustle, I believed it would garner some acclaim. I mean, it's the Coen brothers. Celebrated directors in their own right. True enough, many top critics have given the film solid marks. However, hoi polloi has not embraced the movie as warmly. Additionally, and unsurprisingly, the Academy failed to recognize the greatness of this folk tale about a folk singer.

Inside Llewyn Davis was nominated for two Oscars. Best Cinematography (Roger Deakins) and Best Sound Mixing. Exhilarating, right!? I take back the sarcasm for Deakins' sake. The man is responsible for some of the most beautiful displays of cinema in the past twenty years. The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and Skyfall are a few examples. He's also worked on every Coen brothers' film since Barton Fink (1991). But, Sound Mixing? C'mon! Oscar Isaac deserved a nod for his soulful, back-breaking performance, Justin Timberlake and other writers for this little number, and the Coens proved their Oscar- worthy directing in the very first scene. The film opens with Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) on a stage. Not a large one. Maybe, maybe 75 people watch and listen as Llewyn plucks his guitar and intones the lyrics "Hang me, oh hang me. I'll be dead and gone. Wouldn't mind the hangin' but the layin' in the grave's so long, poor boy." The entranced crowd slowly taps their feet, ashing their cigarettes on down beats, taking for granted the talent a paper plane's flight away. Davis continues his incantation while the mastery of the Coens ensues — I wouldn't be surprised if the seven other people in the theater thought we were watching the performance live. Seamlessly, the Coens transition from perspective to perspective, placing the viewer at the heart of the performance. A waitress walks by, blocks the camera as she passes, and moviegoers shift their heads to the left – as if it would actually change their view. First impressions may not be everything, but they count for a lot. The first scene left me enchanted.

The film would have failed without a talented actor at the helm. Ethan and Joel made no mistake in picking Oscar Isaac. He was able to embody the tortured artist, desperately wanting to be successful in playing his music while shooting himself in the foot the whole way. The film focuses on one tumultuous week in Llewyn's life. He lives in the moment, couch-to-couch, playing his guitar where he can. He has a couple friends, though he's not a great friend. He's prone to drink, lose his temper, and knock-up girls. His life is that of a rolling stone.

The Coen brothers have done much to advance the scope of cinema. Inside Llewyn Davis is no different. While it is under-appreciated now, I believe the picture will stand the test of time. Go see it. Thanks, Joel and Ethan.

I remember some time last year I saw the trailer for Cloud Atlas. It caused enough excitement that I pulled many of my friends into the lounge to watch the trailer. They all agreed: It was going to be a great movie. It created so much interest in me that I began to investigate it. I found out that it was based on a novel. For weeks I wanted to acquire it and read it, as I like to read novels before seeing the adapted films. However, the drive to read the book eventually passed as the semester, and life, unfolded. Until the movie came out. As I had been accustomed to seeing with many highly anticipated movies, it was receiving less-than-desirable reviews. Consequently, my urge to see the film diminished and I decided the viewing could wait. That is why I just saw the film.

After completing the film, one word came to mind: ambitious. The movie attempts to accomplish so much in just under three hours. (Needless to say, I will not be including a plot summary with this review.)

The first 15-20 minutes of Cloud Atlas dragged. It wasn't because it was something that is the norm; this movie is certainly not that. Rather, it dragged because it appeared to be a typical science fiction film (just plain weird) that did not offer anything completely riveting or profound that demanded my attention. Eventually that changed, thank goodness.

It took me awhile to get used to the flow of the movie. That might be because there is an absolute lack of a "flow." There are six stories told throughout the film, each of which take place in a different time period. The catch is that all of the stories are, in some way, connected. All of the main actors in the film play various characters. Some of these roles cross genders and actually surprise you once you realize who they are. SPOILER -> (Halle Berry is white in one of her roles.)

The crux of Cloud Atlas is that a person's legacy, and love, ripple throughout time. When a person dies it is not the end, rather a door opening. It is not hard to notice the connection to the idea of reincarnation. Aforementioned, each actor appears in every time period. However, in every time period the actors have a different relationship with each other; the dynamics change.

I will admit the film was enjoyable. Many emotions were evoked in this production and the visuals within the movie were stimulating. I am not saying that it was great, just that it provided entertainment. I did appreciate how each of the six stories was essentially a different genre. There was action, comedy, science fiction, music, and mystery. By the end (as I suspect was one of the producers' intentions) I felt that I had just finished something epic. (I use that in the literal sense.)

I have a feeling that this movie is much like poetry. Many of my poet- friends say that you take something new away from a good poem each time you read it. Additionally, poetry is open to interpretation, much like this film. I've made many positive points, but there was much room for development.

There had to be a less-confusing way to present the six separate stories. At times the concentration needed to comprehend the interwoven tales was enough to cause a headache. (Let me assure you, I am not saying that movies have to be simple, just that they shouldn't cause physical pain.) Some of the actors' talents were stretched pretty thin with some of the roles they played, especially, though not limited to, (SPOILER) Tom Hanks as an Irish gangster. Furthermore, some of the "sci- fi-ness" seemed to be present just for the sake of being strange…

Overall, I would say Cloud Atlas is worth a watch. Maybe two. However, I would not buy it for my collection. 7/10

I begin this post with a vow: I will not, no matter how tempting, make a pun based on the title of Rush. To my surprise, even creative writers such as Bill Simmons employed such a method. But I will not. I will rise above the appetizing pun. Last weekend I saw the film Rush. Let me tell you, it was a rush. (Sorry).

I took the bait. Like many other movie-lovers, I had been waiting for Rush to come out for quite some time. It was directed by Ron Howard, and considering his last two films were less than subpar, it had to be good; he was past due. Beyond that, the trailer was a mess. A good mess. As I have shared before, Blake and I have a theory: ambiguous movie trailers produce great films. Of course there are always exceptions but I believe there are a lot of good examples. The next film I believe will fit this bill is The Counselor. Watch the trailer. You probably have no idea what the movie is about but I reckon it'll be pretty darn good. I felt similarly about Rush. I knew it was about racing and philandering, but not much else.

Rush had a rudimentary story; there was nothing too complex about it. In many circumstances that would be considering a shortcoming, but excellent acting and precise storytelling made the basic plot impressive. As with most racing movies (Days of Thunder, Talladega Nights), this film was about a rivalry and a traumatic accident.

James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) is a handsome English free-spirit who enjoys his booze and women. Willing to risk his life, he often makes moves on the track others would not dream of, progressing him through the ranks of professional racing. Then there is Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl). Lauda is a calculating, cold individual who views racing as a mathematical equation. Despite the threat of losing the right to the family fortune, Lauda becomes a racer. Hunt and Lauda first meet in Formula 3 racing, two steps below Formula 1. Their personalities clash. Hunt pulls a risky move, winning him the race and knocking Lauda out. Lauda develops animosity.

Despite his initial failure in Formula 3, Lauda takes out a personal loan and buys his way into Formula 1. Lauda excels and Hunt eventually follows suit. Their rivalry ripens in Formula 1 until Lauda gets in a fiery wreck. Because of tumultuous weather conditions, Lauda wanted to cancel the race. However, Hunt swayed the other drivers to vote to race despite the less-than-ideal weather conditions. Throughout Lauda's recovery, Hunt gains formidable ground in the standings while developing an admiration for Niki. Ultimately the season comes down to the last race. Hunt is still three points behind Lauda, but can secure a World Championship with a top 3 finish so long as Niki receives zero. Battle wounds and all, Lauda participates in the final race while another torrential downpour ensues. After a couple laps, however, Niki pulls into the pit and decides he is finished; the film suggests it was for the love of his wife. In dramatic fashion, Hunt finishes third and secures the World Championship. Months later Hunt and Lauda run into each other at an airport. Hunt tells Niki that he has no reason to race anymore since he has reached the top, but Lauda implores Hunt to stay in racing. The rest of the film includes informational text over actual photographs of James Hunt and Niki Lauda. If you want some actual historical context, look here.

One may hear this tale and decide that it wasn't very original and/ or compelling. Normally I would agree with that sentiment. I am all for fresh perspectives and stories that have not been told before. Yet, no matter how much Rush reminded me of other tales, it was compelling. Many racing movies appeal to a certain type of moviegoer; the Transformers 2 super-fan-type. They are a special breed, not in it for the story line or the character development, but for the explosions and over-the-top sixty-minute ultimate battle scenes. They are the type of people that prefer the episodes I, II, and III of Star Wars (just despicable if you ask me). Rush, amazingly, was able to be a movie both for the aforementioned individuals and those with a more sophisticated palate. (Wow, I hope I don't sound too much like a snob). Ron Howard did an amazing thing: he took a very basic story and created a fascinating drama intertwined with titillating race sequences. He made an old story appear crisp. Obviously this was not without some help. Another reason you should definitely check out Rush is because of the acting. I had seen Chris Hemsworth in a few roles before Rush but none of which hinted that he was capable of the performance he displayed. On more than one occasion, I thought that this could be a breakthrough role for the young actor. It is not as promising when you look at what films are on deck for him, however. He has the second Thor movie, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Snow White and the Huntsman 2. Don't get me wrong, Thor and The Avengers were decent movies; they're just not roles that generate acclaim for being a great actor. There is always the chance he will break from his current mold soon, though. Rush was a taste of that. Alongside Hemsworth was Daniel Brühl.

Overall, Rush was a fun film. It masterfully balanced many different aspects of cinema in one production. It was a great example of how to execute storytelling. I would definitely see this again, though I would want to make sure I had a large screen television and surround sound. 9/10

Alright, my fellow Americans, Sherlock premiered in the good ole U S of A last night. As with previous Sherlock seasons, the show will broadcast on PBS' Masterpiece on Sunday nights. For those who have been patiently waiting, I hope you found yourselves satiated. And for those who have yet to join the Sherlockian bandwagon, what the heck are you waiting for? I, Saying Something's Brent Glass, will be covering each episode following the American air date. Hope you will join me.

The episode that fans have been anticipating for two years, "The Empty Hearse," was sheer perfection. Sherlock's first and second seasons ended with mammoth cliffhangers. At the end of the first, viewers were left wondering how Sher and John would escape the clutches of Moriarty, while the second season ended with the staged suicide, leaving fans confounded with the question: How did he survive?

Bloggers blog, and in the years between "The Final Problem" (S2E3) and "The Empty Hearse" (S3E1) there were myriads of theories – some bad and some good – about the methods Sherlock employed to ensure his clean, deathless suicide. While a few theories were partly true, none completely captured the acumen. Good news: I will not reveal the actual way he did it.

The third season begins with an over-the-top action scene explaining Holmes' survival. Returning to the moment just before Sherlock jumped from St. Barts, the viewers watch a complex system of people Sherlock put in place work to make the death happen. Two shady men abscond with Moriarty's limp body, transporting him to a lower level of the hospital. Sherlock makes the jump, John is knocked to the ground by an intentional biker and, whilst John lay unconscious, Holmes smashes through a hospital window – thanks to the building-colored bungee cord – where Molly Hooper is waiting. He flips his hair and kisses her. (What!?) Meanwhile, Moriarty's body was fitted with a lifelike Sherlock mask. His body was placed on the cement. When John returns to consciousness and runs to check Sherlock's pulse, it is Moriarty's contorted body. Unlike any other moment in the Sherlock series, fans had to feel just a bit… off. Those fans were right. Come to find out, Sherlock's fan club (in the show) have turned into a cultish band of misfits, led by Holmes' former nuisance, Anderson. Remember him? Anderson, don't talk out loud. You lower the IQ of the whole street. Yeah, he now loves Sherlock and believes in him. That crazy sequence at the beginning? That didn't really happen. That's Anderson's latest conspiracy theory. Oh Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss (Sherlock creators). How clever of you.

The rest of the episode fixated on the reuniting of doctor and sleuth. In (what I'm convinced is) one of TV's greatest comical scenes, Sherlock reveals himself to John – just as he is about to propose to his girlfriend, Mary. Antithesis of apropos. Unsurprisingly, John is upset. Don't worry, they get engaged by the end of the episode… I won't detail the rest of the opener. I want to spend the rest of this piece applauding the writers.

While I have had no reason to doubt Gatiss and Moffat, one just never knows. They could have tried to ride solely on the successful dynamics of the first two seasons, but they didn't. They changed it up. Now, John's love interest (both in Sherlock and real life) is a factor. John won't live with Sherlock anymore which means they can't be mistaken for gay lovers anymore. Where is the fun in that? Also, Sherlock will have to share his precious John. He won't have him available at his every beck and call. How will he ever function? Now that he's done tearing apart Moriarty's global network (yes, that's what Sher's been doing for the past two years).

All joking aside, this episode was great, and, next episode we have a wedding to look forward to!

Last night I watched the movie 42. My interest had been piqued ever since I finished reading 7 Men: And the Secret to Their Greatness. Obviously, one of the featured "7 men" was Jackie Robinson. I had always known of Jackie Roosevelt Robinson's (little known fact: he was named after Teddy Roosevelt, a president who liked black people most of the time) life story, at least at the surface level. However, I never fully understood the magnitude of his sacrifice and tenacity.

The film begins with a brief narrative of the state of baseball and society in 1945. 42 's first memorable scene occurs when Mr. Rickey tells some of his associates that he is going to bring a negro into the major leagues. One of them openly states that it would be a failure while the other just slyly smirked, which could've been interpreted as a silent approval or, conversely, a sarcastic bidding of good luck. Essentially, this is the scenario of the entire movie: Branch Rickey wants to integrate African-Americans into major league baseball, meeting dissidents at every turn while Jackie Robinson fearlessly takes on the insults of a thousand lifetimes.

(Do not let my over-simplification fool you; I thought it was a good movie. To me, it is always difficult to create a ground-breaking biographical movie since, if one is attempting to stick to the facts, there really aren't any surprises – except for the ones that occurred naturally, of course. Lincoln is certainly an exception to this.)

I have an unorthodox way in which I write movie reviews. This one will be no different. Because of the biographical nature of the film, I am simply going to discuss some positive aspects of the film, my thoughts for improvement, and my take-away.

Positive: The best aspect of the movie, which to most will seem ridiculous to even mention, is the story. It is difficult to hear the story of Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson in this day-and-age and not be impressed and inspired. Within that, I appreciated how the movie did stick to the facts. I was surprised that the film mentioned the faith of both Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson. Near the beginning of the film, Rickey decides on Robinson. "He's a Methodist. I'm a Methodist. God's a Methodist," Rickey says. Also adding humor in the statement, Mr. Rickey started the film by identifying the centrality of faith in both of their lives, as is factually correct. Building off of that: Harrison Ford was great in his role as Branch Rickey. They did a great job in transforming Ford into a hardened Methodist. The cigar permanently lodged between Rickey's pointer and middle fingers seemed natural for the veteran actor and I loved it. Also it was nice to see Billy Riggins (Derek Phillips) from Friday Night Lights in something else.

Negative: Acting. While Harrison Ford did an excellent job as Branch Rickey, Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) was not up to par, in my opinion. However, I will not criticize him too much since it was his first movie as the leading role. There were many instances where my "cheese-o-meter" went off the charts. i.e. When Robinson proposes to Rachel. Time was also an issue. At times, the movie really dragged, making it seems much longer than the 2 hours and 9 minutes that it was.

Take-away: 42 was a good sports movie. However, it was not a great sports movie. There were a lot of fun parts but room for improvement. 3.75/5

On screen, Larry David's luck sucks, this is clear. If you have seen HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm you are privy to this idea. In "Curb," as many fans call it (myself being one of them), Larry David plays himself. He is a grade-A jerk whom most people can identify with in some way. At the very least, people admire some of the qualities he possesses, such as his unabashed honesty. From what I understand, David is not characterizing himself that much. He really is kind of an off-putting person. But does he really have bad luck? I mean, there is no way a successful writer/ actor has that much bad luck. That is what I thought, at least, until I saw Clear History where David, again, plays a person much like himself who has a knack to get stuck in unfortunate events.

Clear History is a story of a disgraced former marketing guru, Nathan, (David) who plots to get revenge on his boss, Will (Jon Hamm). Nathan owns a 10 percent share in an electric car company. When Will reveals the name of the car to be "Howard," Nathan protests that he cannot market that name. Being the bull-headed individual that he (and apparently real Larry David) is, he offers Will an ultimatum of changing the name of the vehicle or selling back his ten percent stake. Will buys back the shares. Soon after, Nathan's wife (soon to be ex-wife) tells him to go get his shares back. Unfortunately for Nathan, Will refuses. In the not-so-distant future, the "Howard" takes off and Nathan's ten percent stake became worth $1 billion. The media catches word of the partner who dipped right before the break-through and look to interview him. In typical "Davidian" fashion, Nathan humiliates himself on national television. The disgrace ruins his marriage (David can't keep a wife) and forces him to change his name and go into solitude.

Nathan finds peace on an island from Southern California. That is, until Will and his wife (Kate Hudson) begin building a massive house in his neighborhood. Will does not recognize Nathan because he is no longer bearded (like above) but looks like classic Larry David. Also, his name is now Rolly. Rolly recalls his former hate for Will and decides to get back at him… by blowing up his house. It is the journey to this event, where we meet familiar faces.

Rolly does not know the first thing about blowing up a house so his best friend Frank (Danny McBride) introduces him to some regular crack-pots, Rags and Joe Stumpo (Bill Hader and Michael Keaton), who go into cahoots together. For a moment, Rolly believes that Will's wife, Rhonda, has a hidden desire for him. He switches his plan to stealing Will's wife. When this does not pan out, the initial plan is reenacted until Rolly finds out that Will has been looking for him for the past ten years. Why else does Will want to find Rolly, aka Nathan, but to repay him for the wrong he did him ten years ago? Oh, and that house he was planning to blow up? For terminally sick kids. Finding out Will's true intentions, Nathan rushes back to the mansion, but it is too late. A bus load of children watch the house explode. Three years later, Nathan, Rags, and Stumpo are released from prison. Nathan decides to go by Rolly indefinitely and becomes a sort-of hero on the island. No one really liked the monstrosity of a house Will had built.

Overall, Clear History is worth a watch. However, if they released it on DVD/ Blu-Ray, I would not buy it for my collection. While I enjoy Larry David being Larry David, it can get soporific. If you have seen any of Curb Your Enthusiam, you know David's character in this film. Danny McBride's and Bill Hader's characters, while amusing, were typical performances of the actors. Jon Hamm's performance was unorthodox for him and, consequently, enjoyable. Furthermore, Michael Keaton managed to be entertaining through an offbeat role, as he pulled off in The Other Guys. 6.5/10

Talk about an all-star cast. Ry-Ry (Ryan Gosling), Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, and Ray Liotta. I remember watching the trailer thinking that The Place Beyond the Pines would easily be one of the best pictures of 2013. I want you to watch it, intently, and enjoy the experience. I'll provide a brief summary and offer some insights and comment on some of the strengths and weaknesses of the film.

The Place Beyond the Pines is a three-part saga. Each of the three distinct stories are connected and reverberate similar themes such as fatherhood, justice, revenge, and the frailty of humankind. The first of these stories involves Ryan Gosling's character, Luke, who is a talented motorcyclist. Discovering he fathered a son with Romina (Mendes) last year when in Schnectedy, NY, Luke decides to quit his traveling stunt-act and provide for his child. Because of his unique set of skills (Taken reference, boom), he cannot find steady work that enables him to edge out his competition: Romina's new lover. The natural response for Luke is to begin robbing banks. In short, this life choice puts him on a path to crossing rookie-officer Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper). From their initial meeting, their lives were intertwined.

The second story focuses on the rise of hero-cop Avery Cross. The son of a New York Supreme Court judge, Cross disappointed his father when he became a police officer, despite his having a law degree and passing the bar. However, when cataclysmic events create an opportunity for the quick and resourceful officer, he finds a way to rapidly ascend the latter of success. Most of the this occurred, of course, at the expense of his family.

The third story (or act, as one may call it) primarily focuses on the new friendship of Avery Cross Jr. – aka AJ (Emory Cohen) – and the son of Luke Glanton, Jason (Dane DeHaan). A son of divorced parents, AJ leads a life absent of a strong father figure and, as a result, falls into alcohol, illegal drugs, and smugness. When he moves to Schnectedy to live with his father for his senior year, he meets Jason. The two misfits form a bond. Unknowingly, AJ's and Jason's lives are far more intertwined than they could have imagined. When these demons begin to reveal themselves, lives change. I hope that tease was enough to entice you to watch the movie; there were many strengths.

Strengths: Obviously, the most prominent plus of the film was the acting prowess. Each actor has previously proved themselves to be in the upper-echelon of Hollywood; particularly Gosling. As he has displayed in other films, Gosling is magnetic on screen (beyond his striking good looks). He is able to convey a lot of different emotions and thoughts without uttering a word; a talent that Bryan Cranston has epitomized in his role as Walter White on AMC's Breaking Bad. The directing and cinematography were sensational. Additionally, the music was top-notch. The score bolstered the emotions of each scene, while careful to never overpower the actors.

Weaknesses: The third act. The first two acts were masterpieces of story-telling. The themes were relevant and the execution was flawless. However, something seemed to be lacking in the third section. It is difficult to pinpoint what was problematic but I believe it could be something to do with the fact that it was driven by young actors and, while they are certainly not terrible, they do not possess the same experience as the veterans that dominated the first two sections. The juxtaposition of different experience levels of actors hurt the film, I believe, because it exposed the detriment of the young actors. Furthermore — and this is completely subjective — one of the lines by Luke's friend, Robin, really bothered me. If you ride like lightning, you're gonna crash like thunder. I expected more. I thought it was cheesy. Maybe the line itself was okay but the delivery was all wrong. I don't know. I do know, however, that I didn't like it.

While I would rank Beyond the Pines in the top films of 2013 thus far, it did have some disappointing aspects; it was not the flawless film that I preemptively decided it would be. I believe that film lovers and story-tellers should see this movie. If you liked Blue Valentine, you will like this movie (same director, Derek Cianfrance). This is definitely a movie I will someday buy for my collection. 4.4/ 5

One small voice can start a revolution. This statement, plastered on the poster above, captures the conceit of the film. There has been much controversy surrounding The Butler since it was announced some time last year. Between the battle over the title of the movie and the negative portrayal of Ronald Reagan (I'll go in depth on this later), there was much riding on Lee Daniels' creation.

Forest Whitaker stars in this highly-anticipated film. The story begins in a Southern cotton field, where Cecil Gaines (Whitaker) and his family work for a very unpleasant family. After watching his father get killed, Cecil gets moved to the house where he learns to serve and be invisible. Fearing a similar fate as his father, Cecil decides he must leave the cotton plantation and find other work. Eventually, after much searching, Cecil becomes a butler. In short, his exemplary talent catapults him into his position as a butler for the White House, which is where the story really begins.

Cecil Gaines' tenure as a White House butler begins under the Eisenhower Administration. From there, Daniels illustrates the relationship Cecil had with each president, except Ford and Carter. Instead of having actors play those presidents, he created a montage that filled the gap between Nixon and Reagan. All the while, there is another major plot line of Cecil's son, Louis, and his involvement in the Civil Rights movement. Louis does not respect his father's passivity; he prefers a hands-on approach. He finds himself at the heart of the Civil Rights movement, participating in sit-ins and, eventually, joining the Black Panthers.

I have worked hard not to read too much of what others have had to say about Lee Daniels' The Butler (by the way, how conceited is Lee Daniels?). However, I have seen enough to know that the reviews are very mixed, and not by separate critics. Some reviews could be mistaken as two polar opposite opinions accidentally tethered into one. For every praise this film manages to salvage from critics, there is certain to be a criticism. I wish I could say that I'm going to take a definitive stance, but I'm not. It's just too difficult.

What an important film for black Americans. While there have been many movies about emancipation and enfranchisement for African-Americans, there hasn't been one that has suggested a black butler unwittingly played a subversive role in the quest for equality (by Martin Luther King Jr., no less). But wait, is this movie actually suggesting that this butler played a vital role in the Civil Rights movement because of his proximity to the president of the United States? Why was it that this butler and not one of the other black butlers (Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Lenny Kravitz) had such an impact? It was probably the power of JFK's neck tie.

It certainly was fun to watch some likable actors characterize presidents that, to many people today, are simply names in a history book. Robin Williams was an unbelievable Eisenhower, James Marsden made JFK look like a saint, Liev Schreiber made LBJ look like the jerk-off he was, John Cusack brought life to the brilliant-yet-conniving Nixon we all know and love, and Alan Rickman and Jane Fonda played Ronald and Nancy Reagan (I didn't offer a descriptive word for Alan Rickman's and Jane Fonda's performances because I'm not sure how I feel about the way Daniels portrayed the couple). There is no denying the liberal overtures presented throughout the film. That is expected and, for the most part, acceptable even to most conservative, semi-open-minded people. However, it is pretty obvious that one is not trying to properly portray someone when they cast an actor who represents the exact opposite of what the historical figure stood for. The example here, obviously, is Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. Fonda, a self- proclaimed liberal and feminist, is not going to accurately portray a woman who, let's just say, did not have those attitudes. The shortfall of each of these performances was that each felt like a Funny or Die sketch. It was difficult see the congruity of the sketches. Conversely, there were some great performances. Forest Whitaker as the lead role was not disappointing. He delivered with class and precision. The aforementioned sketch scenes may not have been that noticeable to most, only because of the spectacular performance of Whitaker. A breakout performance, in my opinion, was David Oyelowo (Louis Gaines). Immediately, I knew I had seen him before (he was one of the black officers in the first scene of Lincoln) but I had never had an intimate cinematic experience with him at the forefront. I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed his performance, despite his character not being very likable for most of the film. I would say that accomplishment is a rare talent. Astonishingly, I even thought Oprah did a good job. Honestly, I was not expecting much (and maybe that's why I think this) but she delivered in most scenes. There was only one scene where I had to wince. Furthermore, the chemistry shared by Whitaker, Gooding, and Kravitz was splendid. The audience felt at home when these three were on the screen.

I do recognize that this film has a natural justice to it, especially for black Americans who lived through the Civil Rights movement. To endure what they did and one day see a black man ascend to the White House must have been something unfathomable. However, I do not believe this actual occurrence secures The Butler's place as one of the best films of 2013. There is a chance it will be prominent at the 2014 Oscars, but for none of the right reasons. I wasn't bored throughout the film, but it wasn't good. It was important but not memorable. I don't know. Rent it. 7/10

I must admit something. I have become a viewer – some may even say a fan – of the show New Girl. I'm not sure how it happened. Normally this would be one of the shows I expect myself to castigate; to urge others to stay away like many other sitcoms. I know that I may isolate myself with this statement, but I expected to have a similar resentment towards this show as I have for, say, The Big Bang Theory. Gasp! I may have just committed a cardinal sin to many of you, but I do not see the same merit as others. But I digress. Back to the point. I think New Girl has become my guilty pleasure show.

I began watching the show expecting to confirm my apprehensions. After a few episodes, I found myself wanting more. I didn't know if it was the show or simply (and the more logical explanation) that it offered a chance to watch Zooey Deschanel be inexorably enchanting. This "good feeling" guided me through the first season. At this point I had to face the facts: it wasn't just Zooey I liked about the show. I liked other characters too. I hated myself for a while, kept it hidden, but now I am revealing it to you. The basis for New Girl is that Jess (Zooey Deschanel) had a bad break-up with her cheating longtime-boyfriend, forcing her to find a place of her own. Via Craigslist, she stumbles upon a query for a fourth roommate for a loft in LA. The other tenants happen to be three single guys – Nick (Jake Johnson), Schmidt (Max Greenfield) and, after the first episode, Winston (Lamorne Morris) – who have very different personalities yet share much history. The show capitalizes on typical awkward situations that arise when platonic friends of the opposite sex reside with one another, while sprinkling a healthy dose of popular culture in each episode.

As with most sitcoms, once you make it past the first few episodes everything seems a little funnier. This is mostly because characters have been established and the idiosyncrasies that define them now serve as running gaffs throughout the series. The first season did what it needed to do. Firstly, it created a cult-following; there are plenty of New Girl fans out there. Additionally, it set up endless possibilities for where the show could go. Recently, I scanned an article that made the argument that New Girl is the Friends of this generation. I buy it.

Friends is (obviously) an iconic sitcom that still has its fair share of late-thirty, early-forty year old super-fans. Why are some so attached to a show that first aired in 1994? Because it captures the spirit of the nineties. Friends often referenced popular culture in the show. Naturally, much of those references were lost on later generations but reveled upon by nostalgia-seekers. New Girl employs a similar method. As I mentioned, there are a lot of references to popular culture intertwined within the show, specifically tailored to young adults living now. It captures the attitude young adults have today and, in fifteen to twenty years, it will be accessed to step back into 2013. I recently finished the second season of New Girl and I was pleasantly surprised; I thought it was better than the first. The second season was different than the first for a few reasons: Relationships between main characters complicated, Jess continued to be reckless and self- serving while Winston progressively became weirder, Nick became a little bit smoother, and Schmidt remained the same except for his proclaimed love for Cece (Hannah Simone); overall conditions became more convoluted and tougher obstacles were presented to the Apartment 4D phalanx. While Jess' character was still a ditzy, yet lovely young woman, she had to mature a little bit and face some realities of life. The second season ended with tough choices for each member of the crew.

Last week the third season premiered. Yesterday was the second episode of this season and it has a different ethos than the first two. While there are still many slapstick-comedy moments, there is an element of seriousness that eluded the first two seasons, save the last few of the second. Jess' and Nick's relationship is now the biggest hurdle. The writers have conditioned viewers to want to see Jess and Nick together, but can that happen? They are best friends but, as was decided in the first episode of the third season, they have no future without Schmidt and Winston. Nick is the glue that connects each of the four residents to each other.

Last night the second episode of third season aired. In concord with the first episode, the season is continuing in its new direction. Love triangles have become the apogee. Schmidt, finally experiencing love, cannot decide to whom he should give his affection completely. Jess and Nick are learning how to coexist as partners and Winston is as batty as ever. Unfortunately, I think New Girl could easily take a turn for the worse this season. While I enjoyed the first two episodes, the current predicaments could prove to be cliché and, consequently, boring and uninteresting. That being said, I will continue watching.

It has been an interesting journey embracing New Girl. It took me awhile to admit it to Blake, but I finally did. Guess what? He just finished the first season.