Since being introduced to the books several years ago, I definitely had a fondness for the Potter-universe that I didn't expect before having cracked open book one.

Not being one to constantly compare movies with the source material, I've enjoyed the book series and the movie series as separate entities since the films began. No movie will ever be able to fully capture the book it was based on. The sooner we all accept that fact, the sooner we can all enjoy going to the movies.

Splitting the last Harry Potter book into two films was a great idea. They were able to get more of the source material in and all of us who read the books were grateful for that.

The movie itself was an enjoyable conclusion to the series, as was the book. Yeah, some deaths and sadness, but also a solid finale for the saga.

One of my favorite parts of both the book and film series was the character Neville Longbottom. He may have been author J.K. Rowling's finest accomplishment. Developing from a minor character that was just a sad, pathetic, nerdy little kid, Neville became an integral part of the story at several points and really was one of the most well-written characters from the whole series.

Overall, the last installment took some of the best elements of the previous films and brought a satisfying close to one of the most beloved children's stories of the modern age.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 gets an A-
--John Berry, online editor--

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg have teamed up again.
This time they brought their goofy buddy comedies to American soil.
Paul is a story about two nerds road-tripping in the American southwest to see the legendary Area 51.
They happen upon a real alien, voiced by Seth Rogen.

A long string of odd bit parts by big names in the comedy world added to the usual goofiness of Pegg and Frost make for an enjoyable film that isn't as good overall as the duo's Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead, but they made the concept far better than it should have been.

When you think about two nerds in an RV and an animated alien romping through New Mexico, it doesn't sound like it could ever be good.

The script (written by Pegg and Frost) surprisingly brings a story that is more than just dick and fart jokes, which is what I kind of would have expected from the story idea and the director of Superbad.

It's a thoroughly enjoyable comedy that delivers far more than it should have, but falls short of the brilliant films in Pegg's past.

Paul gets a B-.

It's rare that a remake is all that respectful to the original, and even rarer that it is a true update that keeps the feel of the original without making it an entirely different movie.
The Coen brothers managed to take a film from 1969 that they clearly loved and make it into an updated film that was reverential to the classic John Wayne movie.
The new True Grit was an update more than a remake. They added some details and moved some things around, but there was a lot of dialogue and action that were directly from the original.
Acting was not one of the strengths of the 1969 version, but the 2010 film is full of great performances to complement the strong story that was what made the original worth watching.
Joel and Ethan Coen maintained the feel as well, keeping the somewhat goofy tone popping up through a serious tale of a child's revenge.
True Grit is nowhere near as dark and heavy as No Country For Old Men, but that is the one of the Coen films that people will probably compare it to.
What impressed me the most is that they managed to make the new one stand on it's own as a brilliant piece of cinema while maintaining the familiarity with, and clear respect for, the source material.
True Grit (2010) gets an A-
--John Berry, online editor--

In preparation for the upcoming release of the Coen brothers' remake, I figured it would be good to check out the original True Grit with John Wayne.
With the realization that film-making was not as sophisticated in the 1960s as it is now, it was still kind of shocked at the lack of real acting in this movie. The young girl who is the lead is just kind of annoying and not terribly convincing. Wayne himself goes from sober to drunk in no time flat with a couple of swigs of whiskey. I wasn't aware that a man of his size would get drunk that quickly.
Other than that, it was a interesting story with some strangely light moments.
I'm not a great fan of classic westerns, but this one was watchable even if it wasn't the greatest film overall.
I'm interested to see how the main elements of the original are handled in the remake. Just a guess, but the goofy drunken John Wayne scenes will probably be told as a serious drinking problem for Rooster, and not the comic levity. And hopefully the little girl in the new one can actually act.

Leave it to Danny Boyle to make gold out of something that seems less than thrilling.
We've all heard the story of the dude who got trapped while climbing and had to cut his hand off to escape with his life.
When I heard there was a movie being made of this true life tale, I really thought that there was little to be done with the story that could make it a whole movie. One guy, alone trapped for days until he realized nothing would save him and he makes the gut-wrenching move to remove his own hand. A logical decision since it was crushed and probably gangrenous by that point. Losing it meant he would be able to get out of there and actually live.
The summary probably more interesting than the real story could have been.
Then Danny Boyle gets on board. Anyone who has ever read my reviews before (and I thank both of you) knows of my man-crush on the British director.
He delivers on this one as well.
Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) is the real outdoor enthusiast who made one mistake and ended up trapped for days alone.
In the beginning of the movie, he seems like a typical narcissistic jackass as he bikes through the wilderness with his video camera mounted on his handlebars positioned to film his own face rather than the terrain he's on. I kind of hated him at the start of the movie.
Through an interesting character study and some decent acting, you actually end up happy for this guy by the end of the movie when he finally escapes.
Beautiful imagery and creative telling of a man's flirting with madness make this a film that will certainly get some talk come Oscar season again.
127 Hours gets an A.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

Once upon a time, a filmmaker set out to make a comedy about a group of kids on an ill-fated road trip that sends them through crazy circumstances and hijinx to find themselves closer than ever after the experience.
This was Todd Phillips' Road Trip back in 2000 with Breckin Meyer, that Stiffler kid from American Pie and Tom Green as he was still riding his improbable and inexplicable rise to fame.
Todd Phillips is back with a new road trip comedy called Due Date that is oddly reminiscent of this and every other road comedy with crashed cars and brushes with the law and an implausible pairing that turns into a warm, fuzzy friendship after all of these wild and crazy experiences create a bond that only a second-rate road trip could create.
In spite of being a terribly trite concept, Due Date actually made me laugh pretty hard at a few points and kept me at least amused throughout.
This is probably mostly due to the comedic skills of Zach Galifianakis and the prickish straight man delivered well by Robert Downey Jr. and the actual entertaining chemistry the two have.
Given the choice, I'd rather watch Galifianakis do his stand-up and watch Downey play Tony Stark, but they both do well carrying this film through some rough patches that would probably have fallen flat with most other actors.
There are a lot of wildly unrealistic scenarios that go so outlandish that it's hard to maintain that willful suspension of disbelief, but still provides amusing scenes.
Due Date gets a C+ mostly for the two lead actors, without them, it probably would have scored much lower for me.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

So who remembers Good Will Hunting?
It might be the last time that Ben Affleck was watchable in a film that wasn't helmed by Kevin Smith. (Okay, I kind of liked Forces of Nature, too.)
It was also his big writing debut, with his buddy Matt Damon.
Seeing as how well that one worked out, you'd think Affleck would try it again.
He finally got back on that writing/acting bit with his new film, The Town which he also directs.
The comparisons to Clint Eastwood are a little drastic, but Affleck does a solid job with all three tasks.
The story is enjoyable, if a little clumsy with some dialogue. As a director, Affleck might be on to something. The Town is a big budget thriller that might be the impetus to get his career back toward directing after 2007's Gone Baby Gone didn't really make waves.
Being backed up by a cast like this couldn't hurt any director though. Jon Hamm, Rebecca Hall, Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively all produce excellent performances as the most important people in Doug MacRay's (Affleck) life.
Renner is MacRay's best friend Coughlin and delivers the best performance of the film going all over the spectrum of lovable-misfit bad guy to just-plain-bad bad guy.
Blake Lively was also surprisingly good as Coughlin's sister and MacRay's former flame, Krista.
Some great minor roles filled by Chris Cooper and Pete Postlethwaite add some depth to the film.
Overall, this won't go down as one of the all-time great caper films like Heat, but it was a solid film that hopefully will lead to more Affleck at the helm, since he seems to be developing a knack for it.
The Town gets a B-
--John Berry, Online Editor--