Bates Motel Season 1 Review

Bates Motel is a new TV series that is based on the characters from the novel "Psycho" written by Robert Bloch in 1959. And yes, that novel was adapted into the classic Alfred Hitchcock movie of the same name a year later, so Bates Motel references both at the end of each episode. In Psycho, we get the story of a woman that steals $40,000 and runs away, ending up at the Bates Motel. Norman Bates gets her a room and invites her to dinner with him, seeming like a nice guy. Later that night in the famous shower scene, the woman is stabbed by what seems like the extremely jealous mother, mad that her son has developed an attraction towards this woman. Well it turns out that (I'LL INSERT A 50+ YEAR OLD SPOILER ALERT) Norman's mother has been dead for a while and Norman, we learn, is a crazy psychopath that has developed a bad split personality where he is both his mother and himself. This makes Psycho more than the typical horror movie we see all the time nowadays and into more of a psychological thriller. The TV show Bates Motel dives into the psychological aspect of the movie/book and attempts to give us a prequel that explains how Norman got to the point where he is in Psycho.

Now I say that Bates Motel is a prequel and that is mostly true. The full truth is that it is not trying to completely remake Psycho, but instead is trying to create its own unique spin on it while at the same time trying to be very true to the movie/book. The biggest difference is that the show is set in modern times and not in the first half of the 1900's like would be the case if this were a perfect prequel focusing on a 17 year old Norman. The background is also a bit different as the show starts off with the tragic death of Norman's father, which only takes place six months before the setting of the show. Six months prior to that death, Norman's mother Norma decides it's time for them to start over, so they move to a small town and purchase a motel on the outskirts of town for them to renovate and live in. This of course becomes the infamous Bates Motel. Being just 17, Norman is just a high school student and he thus tries to integrate himself into normal high school life, but finds it hard as he is a bit socially awkward. Norma of course is trying to do her best, but she is rather crazy and short-tempered. She likes having total control of every situation and seems a bit bipolar, going crazy and impatient when things don't work out her way. So it turns out we actual feel bad for Norman at first because he seems like just a socially awkward kid who can't fit in and is stuck with a crazy mother. Also it turns out the town they live in is a fairly corrupt town where a bunch of drama is going on. All this adds to the intriguing psychological aspect of the show. We know how it ends up, but the journey to that end is rather intriguing. It's also really dramatic and keeps you on edge because you really have no idea what is going to happen around each corner, thus also making for a very tense TV show.

The show is very well casted. Vera Farmiga (The Departed, Up in the Air) plays the crazy mother Norma Bates while Freddie Highmore (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, August Rush) plays Norman. As the supporting cast created by the show (thus leaving their fates a complete mystery) we have Norman's level-headed brother Dylan played by Max Thieriot (The House at the End of the Street, Jumper), Norman's crush at school Bradley played by Nicola Peltz  (The Last Airbender, Deck the Halls), Norman's friend Emma played by Olivia Cooke, Norman's favorite teacher Miss Watson played by Keegan Connor Tracy (Final Destination 2, 40 Days and 40 Nights), and finally our two main cops, Sheriff Alex Romero played by Nester Carbonell (Lost, The Dark Knight) and Deputy Zack Shelby played by Mike Vogel (Cloverfield, The Help). And really, I give credit to all of them because I can't pinpoint one actor that does a bad job. The cast has a great chemistry that really propels the show.

Bates Motel just finished its first season, that is only ten episodes long, and the reviews and ratings were strong enough on the show that it earned a season two. The fact that it is that short compared to other TV shows means that it won't take you long at all to catch up. Ten episodes also means that it isn't packed with a bunch of fluff as is the case with many TV shows that are 20+ episodes long. Content wise, the show isn't too bad and very much TV appropriate, but ironically it is probably worse than the movie Psycho in terms of violence, blood and gore, and sexuality, which should say something about the ridiculousness of the R-rating that Psycho is labeled. It's pretty embarrassing when a movie that should be rated PG gets an R. But anywho, my recommendation for Bates Motel is that if you love the movie Psycho or you like psychological thrillers, than Bates Motel is the TV series that you really need to check out. I really enjoyed season one and am looking forward to season two next year.

2013 NBA Playoff Predictions - Conference Finals

Western Conference

#2- San Antonio Spurs vs #5- Memphis Grizzlies

The sexy pick here is the Memphis Grizzlies and I can totally see them moving on to the NBA finals. They are a mean and dangerous team. What's more is that they may be one of the most complete teams. Many thought that when they traded Rudy Gay that they were just tanking and they had no chance, but they are here now because they just work great together and the Spurs should seriously be worried. But yet, even though I think that this is going to be a close series that could go either way, I am going to pick the Spurs to win this series. Yes, I hate the Spurs and would love to see them go down, but I have to be honest. Gregg Popovich I think is one of the best coaches in NBA history and certainly the best coach in the league right now. People have written this team off for several years now because they are getting too old, but Popovich just keeps them going and now there is a new, young Spurs team that is rising up that complements the big three very well. They swept the Lakers and in the end they slowed down a red-hot Warriors team and in what should be a nitty-gritty hard-fought series, I think they will come out on top and make it to the NBA finals once again.

Prediction: Spurs 4-2


Eastern Conference

#1- Miami Heat vs #3- Indiana Pacers

I made the statement towards the beginning of the playoffs that  it is my opinion that no team in the East can give much of a challenge to the Heat and I still think that is the case as the Pacers are the last team in the East to be standing besides the Heat. It's been nine years since the Pacers made it into the NBA finals and at that point, Reggie Miller was still on the team. After Miller retired following the '04-'05 season, the Pacers team tanked and for several years were buried in the basement of the NBA, but recently, they have quietly arisen back to power in the East. I say quietly because they are a team that no one talks about much but here they are. I think it would be fantastic if they knocked off the Heat, but sadly I don't think it will happen. If Dwayne Wade fails to stay healthy, the Pacers could make a series out of this, but even without Wade I think the LeBron, Bosh, and the rest of the Heat could still pull this off. I will make the prediction assuming that Wade will stay healthy and with that in mind I will say that this will actually be a fairly fast series.

Prediction: Heat 4-1

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

Before I jump into this review of JJ Abram's recent Star Trek sequel, I need to tell you a little bit about my Star Trek history so that you know where I am coming from in this review. I don't consider myself a trekkie. That said, I do consider myself a big fan of Star Trek. My dad and one of my brothers were super into it and that led to me essentially growing up on it. Specifically, The Next Generation was my favorite, but I always watched quite a bit of Voyager and Deep Space Nine. Although the original series was never one that I grew up watching, I do have a respect for the series that started it all and I do have a desire to one day go back and watch it in full. In 2009, JJ Abrams brought the popular series back to the big screen with his version of Star Trek, a reboot of the original series. While I didn't hate it, I also wasn't in love with it for various reasons. After watching the sequel the other night in theaters, I initially came out of the theater entertained. However, I had some immediate initial concerns and I also knew I needed to do some homework on a certain aspect of the movie before I gave my final judgement. With that now done, I will say that I have very mixed views towards this movie. Yes, I was entertained, but the inner Star Trek in me has also been offended. I will go through this review without giving any major spoilers, but I might briefly touch on a few minor spoilers, so keep that in mind as you continue reading.

First of all, I want to bring up the concerns I had as I initially walked out of the theater. The first thing is something that has bothered me for a long time. The name of the movie. I hate it. Ever since the Dark Knight came out, Hollywood has been obsessed with darkness and going along with that, JJ Abrams decided to call this movie Star Trek Into Darkness. Why? And I think it is even stupider after seeing the movie because this really isn't that dark of a movie. It's a high powered action movie where the protagonists do get threatened quite a bit, but that's the same with most action movies, so I don't get it. Secondly, and really the first one that deals with the movie itself, is Captain Kirk. It's not that I hate Chris Pine, but the way that Captain Kirk is written in this movie is a complete slap in the face to the original Star Trek series. Captain Kirk is a very respectable guy who always had the goal to be the captain and worked really hard for many years in order to get the position. Not so in this reboot. He is instead portrayed as a stuck-up snob who doesn't even want to be captain at first, but gets the position because his father was heroic. Seriously? That's just really stupid and because they decided to do that, all Star Trek sequels will be slightly tainted in my mind. There is a scene where Benedict Cumberbatch's character is beating the crap out of Kirk and that actually made me really happy.

In more immediate complaints, while I did really like the new Spok in both movies, giving him the romance story line just doesn't fit him. Spok is not a romantic person and if he were to get a girlfriend, it would certainly not be Uhura. There is a scene in the movie where Spok is willing to sacrifice his life and thus delivers the line "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and following that Uhura complains that he wasn't thinking of her when he made that decision. I wanted to slap her in the face at that point. Her and the writers of the movie for including that in there. That specifically felt like a mockery of the original. Next immediate complaint was that once again this felt more like Star Wars than Star Trek. When Spok fights Khan at the end, I half expected them to both pull out lightsabers. There is one scene where Scotty is angry and thus goes down into a bar to drink. When the camera pans into the bar and shows him sitting there drinking with this alien character, that was a scene that almost felt like it was directly copied from Star Wars. Whether it be the original series, Next Generation, or whatever, Star Trek has never been a high-powered, non-stop action series and that is exactly what Star Trek Into Darkness is. All Star Trek movies and TV shows have a certain feel to them that I have a hard time describing in words, but Into Darkness totally misses that and just doesn't feel like a Star Trek movie. Finally, before moving on to my complaints after watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a scene in Into Darkness where they visit the Klingon planet. I was excited to see the Klingons, but when they were finally there and a Klingon they ran into took off his mask, I was appalled. It was awful. Way too different and way too much CGI. It was a similar to the problem that The Hobbit had with the Orks.

Now all of those previously mentioned concerns where those that I had right when I walked out of the theater and thus the ceiling for how I was going to rate it would be a 7.5 or 8, but this movie featured Khan as the main villain and on walking out I realized that I didn't know very much about Khan and so I resolved to fix that before I gave a final judgement of the movie. I learned that Khan appears in one episode in the original series back in 1967 and then later was featured in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in 1982. I watched both and if you don't know Khan or his story, let me briefly explain. Khan was intercepted or found by Captain Kirk and crew on the enterprise while they were on their five year mission. Khan was subtle and cunning in his original plans and tried to take over the enterprise and almost succeeded. However, Kirk eventually defeated him and sent him into exile where 15 years of hatred and anger built up in Khan. The Wrath of Khan takes place 15 years later and is the story of Khan's revenge towards the Enterprise. Not only is the movie considered to be the greatest Star Trek movie ever, but Khan is considered as one of the best villains ever, Star Trek and non Star Trek alike. So bringing Khan in as the villain of Into Darkness is definitely a huge risk and one that if done right could work out very well. Benedict Cumberbatch from Sherlock is the one who got the role of Khan and he actually does a fantastic job. The big problem is how the character was written. They totally changed Khan's story in Into Darkness and that was an insult.

Also in addition to messing up Khan's story, there is an iconic moment in the end that they totally twist around. I won't give away that ending, but instead I will give a Star Wars comparison. Imagine for a second that someone remakes the original Star Wars trilogy. In doing so they have all the iconic characters, but when they bring in Darth Vader, they change his back story. That alone would upset Star Wars fans because they just messed with one of the best villains in movie history. Then on top of that, when they decide to redo the iconic moment in Empire Strikes Back, instead of having Darth Vader reveal to Luke that he is his father, instead Luke figures it out first and in the end says, "Darth Vader, I am your son!" That would then be followed by a "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" from Vader. Sure that would be cool to those who don't care about the original series, but fans of the original series would probably hate that. This is pretty much what Star Trek Into Darkness does and for me it wasn't cool.

Now if you aren't a fan of Star Trek and you also loved JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek, I will say that you will probably love this one as well. It's not a bad movie when you ignore everything Star Trek. It has good acting, a great villain, great action throughout, and is very emotionally in many aspects of it and for that reason I can't actually claim that it is a really bad movie. But in my opinion it spits in the face of Star Trek and that upsets me. I once was a huge JJ Abrams fan after he helmed my favorite TV show Lost, but now after he totally screwed up two Star Trek films now and also helmed a disappointing Super 8, I have practically lost all faith in him and am actually really nervous that he is going to screw up Star Wars Episode VII as well. I give Star Trek Into Darkness a 6.5 out of 10.

Arrow Season 1 Review

Today is the day of the Superhero. Yes, Superheroes have always been a part of our culture, mainly with comic books, but also the Batman and Superman movies have been popular for a long while. Recently, though, because of the Avengers, Superhero movies have become insanely popular and now that is leaking out into TV as well. Is Arrow the product of this hype? Well, yes. But yet at the same time I will say not quite. Why do I say this? Because Arrow is a CW show and if you recall, the CW just recently finished 10 seasons of the major hit Smallville. Despite the superhero craze as of late, I would have to say that Arrow comes because of Smallville and not because of the Avengers, but who knows, I could be wrong. Regardless, Hollywood likes to replicate success and the CW is hoping that Arrow follows in the footsteps of Smallville by giving them similar success. Is it going to work? I am going to have to say yes. I checked out Arrow when they were about halfway into the show and I immediately got hooked, caught up to where they were, and finished the season watching it live on TV every week. It's a good show.

Let's back up real quick, though. What is Arrow? The obvious answer is that it is a new TV show on the CW. The better answer is that it is a TV show based off of the DC superhero Green Arrow. Green Arrow is nowhere near as popular as other DC superheroes like Batman and Superman, but nevertheless he is a part of the Justice League, so it's not like he is unknown. He's just never really been popular enough to be given a shot at his own movie/TV show and now is his big shot. Green Arrow in the comics is a lot like a Robin Hood in that he dresses up in a green suit and uses arrows as his weapon, but different in the fact that his big trademark is his fancy arrows that do more than just shoot people. The TV show Arrow doesn't necessarily follow the comic lore perfectly, but rather is an interesting, modern take on Green Arrow that at times doesn't even feel like a superhero TV show, but rather just a regular drama. In the TV series, Oliver Queen is a rich, spoiled son of a billionaire that is living the crazy, wild life when he gets on a boat with his father that sinks, kills his father, and leaves him stranded on an island for five years. Before his father died, Oliver learns of the corruption in the city and after going through a rigorous experience on the island, he comes back a changed man and is set on righting all the wrongs in the city.

This first season spends a lot of time setting the stage and providing background before simply just jumping into it and thus at times it seems slow and unfocused, but in a TV series like this that is expected in the first season. In the first season we don't get his full back story all at once. The show decided to take the route of explaining what happened to Oliver on the island via flashback and does so bit by bit throughout the season and I really like that format. It's almost like us having two story lines to follow at once instead of us only following Oliver while he tries to set up his crime-fighting gig in the city. Speaking of that, judging by the comics it is presumed that eventually more people figure out what he is doing, but for right now they are a team of three. That three would be Oliver, Oliver's crime-fighting partner John Diggle (Diggs) that was initially his body guard when he got back, and computer genius Felicity Smoak. Meanwhile, he lives a double life as a bar owner to cover-up his reasons of being gone all the time. Towards the beginning of the series, I was a little confused because it appeared that we didn't have a main villain and instead are just focusing on a list of corrupt people that Oliver got from his Dad. Superhero series with no main villain isn't the smartest thing in my mind, but we did eventually get one and it was done in a smart way because we built up towards realizing who he was and what his main plan was. The action that happened was super awesome and I am really excited for future seasons as we slowly build up tension and develop the characters from the comics that are present in the TV series that haven't yet come to the roles they are in the comics and it is super interesting to guess what will happen based on all of that. If I have one major complaint with Arrow it is the fact that it focuses way too much on the drama, especially on the romantic drama, and not enough on the Superhero action that I want.

Wrapping this up, I would say that Arrow is a TV series that is definitely worth checking out. Like I said, the first season spends a ton of time setting the scene for the series instead of jumping right in with major superhero conflicts and that in the end could be what makes this a really good series. However, that also means that the series is still in the potential stage in my mind. There is a lot of good things for them to build off of and also a lot of things they need to work on. They need to focus slightly less on all the drama and romance while instead giving us more villains and more action. Knowing the CW, that might not happen, but I still think that this will be a good series and I am excited for the second season to get here so I can figure out where they are planning on taking this series. I also think that they need to eventually give him the nickname of Green Arrow, but that's just a side note. If you like Superhero TV shows and movies, this is a series you need to check out. Also, if you were a fan of the TV series Smallville, then Arrow is definitely your show.

Supernatural Season 8 Review

This season in Supernatural took us on quite the journey. Like I mentioned last year in my Supernatural Season 7 review, Season 8 built on Season 7 in terms of how good it was. Season 5 is still the best in my opinion. You can't beat the Apocalypse and you can't beat Lucifer as a main villain. But as they said when they were asked what they were going to do next, they just need to go in a completely different direction and that is what they have done. Season 6 I still liked, even `if it may be the weakest of the eight seasons, but season 7 was better than season 6 and season 8 was actually significantly better than season 7. While I really liked the Leviathan theme in season 7 because it showed the intelligence of Supernatural in how they dive into the mythologies of many different cultures, season 8 felt like we got taken back into classic Supernatural.

What do I mean when I say classic Supernatural? Well first of all, the strength of the first three seasons came in the individual "monster-a-week" episodes with a thin over-arching plot that they dove into significantly at the end of the season. Starting with season 4 and moving onto season 5, they got more caught up in the intelligent story line that they came up with and there were less monster-a-week episodes. There were a lot of people that got annoyed with this, but I actually really liked it. As I said, season 5 is my favorite season thus far. Not that I didn't like the format of the first three seasons, because I did, I just always enjoy a TV show that dives into the story more. Season 8, however, goes back to that format and provides a lot more monster-a-week episodes. At the same time, though, it provides the best of both worlds in having a great story to go along with it. And that story is a lot better themed with what Supernatural is all about, that being the focus on Heaven and Hell. Yes, Supernatural deals with a lot of different supernatural creatures and themes - werewolves, vampires, shape-shifters, pagan gods, etc - the main focus has always been on the demons and the angels and the corresponding drama with Heaven and Hell. While I enjoyed the Purgatory and Leviathan themes in the previous seasons, I'm glad we got back to dealing with Heaven and Hell. In general, the big story of this season is them trying to close the gates of Hell forever and while we knew that it wouldn't work out because we still had two seasons left of Supernatural, we began to see an end in mind. It seems like they had a focus in this season and whereas in the previous two seasons it seemed like they were just going without a focus because they didn't want to end things yet. This time they have a focus and while I will be saddened when Supernatural finally ends, I'm excited to continue that journey towards the end because it will be an exciting finish.

Next up I need to talk about the characters in this because that's what really made this season. At the helm we of course have Sam and Dean. With that comes the classic Supernatural debate, who is better, Sam or Dean? Honestly, I really love both of them. They are both great in their own individual way. Most girls will pick Dean because he's the hot one. Since I am a guy, I don't have to deal with that aspect of things. Dean is definitely the more comical of the two, he makes me laugh all the time, but I personally have always given the edge to Sam in this debate. Why? The acting skills of Jared Padalecki are just super boss. Jensen Ackles is also really good, but he's typically the same character in all of the seasons with limited versatility. Jared is super versatile and Sam's character that he has played has been put through a lot of different phases. We had the anti-hunter school boy Sam, the super-devoted hunter Sam, the blood-thirsty demon Sam, the Lucifer Sam, the soul-less Sam, the family-man Sam, and finally the weak and crazy Sam going through the trials. Each phase is completely different and Jared has pulled off each phase brilliantly. But yes, both Jared and Jensen are fantastic and their relationship is really what has carried this series all eight seasons. I won't say what happens in the finale, but that relationship gets taken to new heights and it is really touching.

Before I wrap up, I do need to talk about the other characters that aren't Sam and Dean. Seasons 6 and 7 you started to feel empty as far as the side characters go as one by one all the characters in Sam and Dean's lives had been taken away from them. First it was their Mom and Dad towards the beginning, then it was Joe and Ellen, and finally they recently lost Bobby. Castiel wasn't gone, but he essentially got thrown into a blender as far as his character development went and we didn't know if he was going to even stick around. Starting with Cas, he is back to normal Cas in this season, especially towards the end and that is very good. He will also be back as a regular casted member in season 9, so Misha Collins fans should rejoice. The other side characters brought in were great. The young prophet Kevin, played by Osric Chau was introduced towards the end of season 7, but played a huge role in season 8 and was fantastic. The red-headed sidekick Charlie, played by Felicia Day, was also introduced for an episode in season 7, but was brought back for two more episodes in season 8 and one can only hope that she appears more often because she was also fantastic. The angels are always mysterious, so we can't consider them protagonists, but yet we can't always call them antagonists either. But we had two more main angels introduced in season 8 and both are intriguing characters. We have Naomi, who seems to be the new boss of Heaven and we also get introduced to Metatron, the scribe of God. Finally we have our villains. Crowley is our main villain in this one, and the King of Hell is simply a fantastically awesome and terribly evil villain at the same time. Towards the end of the season we get introduced to Abbadon, a new demon villain that will be contending with Crowley for the power in Hell and the two of them are sure to cause Sam and Dean more problems in future seasons.

Overall, season 8 is a fantastic addition to the great legacy of Supernatural. The finale, which I won't talk about, is easily the best finale since season 5 and I might actually consider it my second favorite finale in all of Supernatural. We are getting more seasons of Supernatural, we knew that really early on in season 8 actually, so the fact that the finale doesn't wrap things up shouldn't be considered a spoiler at all, so let me just say that it was an ending I didn't expect at all and it sets up season 9 perfectly. I am sad that Supernatural is now over for the Summer, but I am already looking forward to the fall when season 9 will begin.

The Great Gatsby Review

The Great Gatsby is a classic novel written by F Scott Fitzgerald back in 1925. Originally it didn't sell well and got mixed reviews by critics. When Fitzgerald died in 1940, he died thinking that The Great Gatsby was a failure. Shortly following his death, the popularity of the book skyrocketed to the point where it is viewed as one of the great American novels and is oftentimes used as required reading material in high school English classes. Personally I somehow managed to sneak through life without reading the book, so in seeing the movie I had the unique prospective in having no idea how the movie was going to turn out. With this also comes the fact that I won't be able to compare the book and the movie, but after seeing the movie I did some reading up on the story line of the book to help readers out. In converting the book into a movie, it has been an especially long wait for audiences as it was originally set to come out Christmas of last year, but instead of trying to compete with The Hobbit, Les Mis, and Django Unchained, it opted to open between Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness. That was a risky move, but one that has worked out as The Great Gatsby opened up to $50M and thanks to Iron Man 3's huge success, The Great Gatsby gets the honor of having one of the biggest opening weekends ever for a movie that didn't open number one. Going into it, I actually had pretty low expectations because of the poor reviews it was receiving. Because of that, it turns out that I was pleasantly surprised because I found myself enjoying the movie.

Before I go into anything else, I want to start by saying that I felt the movie had a bit of an identity crisis. And I am not referring to the story or the acting, I'll get into that later, but I am referring to the visuals and the music. The movie is staying true to the novel and is set in the 1920's. In doing so, it is trying to be a visual masterpiece and has the 3D to go with it, but at the same time it tries to look like a 20's movie and it just clashes heavily because it can't decide which one to go with. I think it would've been much better had if it had chosen to go with the Captain America feel. Captain America was a movie set in the 40's that had an old fashioned feel like a 40's movie and that worked super well and added greatly to the awesomeness of the movie. Had it gone with the Captain America feel, I actually think this would've been a fantastic movie, but instead it was just visually confusing, which consequently was quite distracting from the overall tone of the movie.

The music wasn't as bad, but it had similar problems. The original score was credited to Craig Armstrong, who is best known for his work in Moulin Rouge, another Baz Luhrmann movie. However, I was rather impressed at the number of songs that were in this movie. When the credits rolled along and got to the songs section, it was a list that went on a lot longer than most movies. There were a lot of songs in the movie written and performed by "Shawn Carter" as the credits kept saying, or better yet, "Shawn 'Jay-Z' Carter". Most of us just call him Jay-Z. Anyways, back on track, with all that plethora of music, it seemed like half of it really set the tone quite well, but yet there was a lot that was simply distracting. A good example of scenes that had both distracting visuals and distracting music in my opinion were the party scenes in Gatsby's home. There were times where I just wanted to plug my ears while facepalming. Added to that is that especially in these scenes, but also in others, the 20's feel seemed exaggerated. Instead of feeling like I was actually in the 20's, I felt like I was watching a movie where everyone, especially the background people, were trying super hard to look like 20's people and it was rather embarrassing.

That being said, most of that was in the first half of the movie. Halfway through the movie, I was wondering what I got myself into because, as one who never read the book, I was also seeing a boring movie on top of all that which was looking like nothing but a cliche romantic drama. Man and woman loved each other, but were separated for five years. During that span of time, woman gets married to an idiot and man improves his life to impress woman. After five years, man tries to win woman back. Predictable ending right? Well, no. I won't divulge what happens in case there are a few of you out there that never read the book, but the ending takes quite the wild turn and thus touches on many common social problems that were really prevalent back in Fitzgerald's time as well as our time, thus is why it is considered one of the greats in American literature.

The second half of the movie, starting when the real drama started to unfold, I thought was fantastic. This was due to an excellent story that was written well by F Scott Fitzgerald and nicely adapted into a modern movie. What carried the movie was fantastic acting. Specifically speaking, both Leonardo DiCaprio and Joel Edgerton were amazing. Carey Mulligan was the girl caught in between the two and she also did great as the snobby rich girl caught in between the two men. Then we have our narrator/main character played by Tobey Maguire who gets caught up in this whole thing. I was overly impressed by Maguire's performance, but I also didn't hate him. He did a decent job. Then as our last main character in the story, we have Tobey Maguire's love interest played by Elizabeth Debicki. Apparently as I read over the book's story line, she was an actual love interest and played a decently big role in the book. In the movie, she was just there and the love interest really didn't exist, so her character was actually quite useless. Isla Fisher and James Clark play side characters in the movie that turn out to be rather important and I loved their performances in the final scenes.

Overall, this is a movie that I think is worth checking out in the midst of a busy summer. It's not going to go down as one of my favorites of the summer, but it is a decently done adaption of a classic novel and if you can look over the messy, confusing visuals, you might find yourself like me by actually enjoying the movie and pondering over the points that F Scott Fitzgerald brought to the table when he wrote this book almost 90 years ago. I give The Great Gatsby a decent 7 out of 10.

Mud Review

I'm willing to bet that a good majority of you reading this haven't yet heard of the movie Mud, so allow me to explain. Some movies get signed on with a big distributor and focus on a heavy marketing and advertising campaign in order to get people to learn about the movie. Other movies get submitted to a film festival and then if it does well it moves forward to being distributed to the general public via movie theaters across the country. It usually starts with very few theaters and slowly expands to more theaters depending on how well it does in limited release. Mud is a movie that has taken the latter route. In 2012 it was nominated for the Palm d'Or, the highest award given in the Cannes Film Festival. Two weekends on April 26th, it was given a limited release in 363 theaters. Last weekend it expanded to 576 theaters, just short of an official wide release. It's top 10 appearance in the box office combined with its 98% score on rottentomatoes was enough to catch my attention. Turns out that when I looked it up, I learned that one of those 576 theaters was the theater right next to me, so without further ado, I went to check it out. Turned out to be a great decision. With it getting an official nationwide expansion this weekend, I'd highly recommend you give it a shot as well.

Mud is a movie that stars Matthew McConaughey and Reese Witherspoon, but in actuality is about a 14 year old boy named Ellis, played Tye Sheridan, whose only other previous acting role came in 2011's Tree of Life. Him and his bestfriend Neckbone are exploring in the woods and come upon a boat in a tree. They find that there is a man by the name of Mud (McConaughey) living in the boat. Turns out that Mud is a fugitive who killed a man and is being hunted by the police and bounty hunters. However, he is very nice to the two boys and enlists their help by promising them ownership of the boat in exchange for food. This causes a relationship to be developed and the boys agree to help Mud reunite with his former love Juniper (Witherspoon). This movie is not an fugitive action thriller like the movie Fugitive. It's also not a chick flick. And no, it's a combination of the two. Rather it is a coming-of-age drama focused on a 14 year old boy who is struggling to figure out how he sees love as through all this he has developed a crush of his own and his parents are going through a divorce.

This movie turns out to be a very moving movie when all is said and done, but it is very slow moving for much of the movie and doesn't really pick up until towards the end, but it's worth it because you come away with a very good feeling towards the movie. It's a very well casted movie that combines great teenage acting from movie newcomers Tye Sheridan, Jacob Lofland, and Bonnie Sturdivant with seasoned movie vets Matthew McConaughey, Reese Witherspoon, Michael Shannon, Sarah Paulson, Ray McKinnon, and Sam Shepard amongst others. And really the whole cast does a great job in this movie and that is what carries the movie. I was also really impressed with the score and cinematography in this movie and all of that added to a very good movie experience for me.

Wrapping things up, I think this is the type of movie that would be considered for Academy Awards rolls around again at the beginning of next year. There is a lot of competition this year as far as that goes, but I think at the very least Matthew McConaughey deserves to be considered for a best actor nomination as this probably the best I have seen him in a movie. As far as the whole movie goes, yes this is a busy time for movies and there are a lot of movies on the top your list of movies to see, but I suggest that you give this one a chance. I give it an 8 out of 10.