"News is the first rough draft of history."

The Voice of the College at Florham

"News is the first rough draft of history." - The Voice of the College at Florham

Tag Archives: movie review

Review: ‘Resident Evil: Retribution,’ so bad it’s good

JONATHAN SCOTT
Contributor

Everyone has their guilty pleasures when it comes to movies. Whether it is a stupid comedy or a big, dumb, loud action movie, many love a film that many others might hate.

For me, one of those guilty pleasures is the “Resident Evil” film series.

The films, loosely based off of the Capcom video games, follow Alice (Milla Jovovich), a young woman who fights against legions of the undead who caused a virus to be accidentally unleashed by the Umbrella Corporation.

In this latest installment, “Resident Evil: Retribution,” the film picks up immediately where the last one, “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” left off. Alice has been captured by the Umbrella Corporation and is trapped in the Arctic Circle base.

She soon breaks out of captivity with the help of a group of rebel freedom human fighters, led by Leon S. Kennedy, a fan favorite from the video games.

Now, Alice must fight her way out of the base all while avoiding former friend, Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), her team of clone soldiers, and of course, legions of monsters and the undead.

With the “Resident Evil” films, I am usually pretty lenient and open-minded because I know what I’m getting into. When going into a “Resident Evil” movie, you have to keep a few things in mind.

One is to keep the movies and the games separate. Now, I may not play the “Resident Evil” games often, but I do know that the movies and the games are nothing alike save for a few characters (Leon S. Kennedy, Jill Valentine, and Albert Wesker) and a few monsters (the giant monster with the huge ax from “Resident Evil 5”).

Other than that, the stories in the movies have nothing to do with the stories in the games.

The second thing one must realize going into a “Resident Evil” film is that the movie is not going to be an Oscar-winning film.

If you go into this movie thinking that you will be seeing a film with gripping performances, beautiful scenery and camera shots and heart-stopping action….leave the theater immediately and go watch a different movie because you will not find it here.

All you will find is a film where you can turn your brain off while you watch people fight the undead.
Though the acting in this movie is pretty terrible, it is entertaining to watch.

The only one who does any actual decent acting is Jovovich, returning in her signature role as Alice. Jovovich doesn’t show any major acting chops but she does spew some funny one liners.

At one point, she has to protect this young little girl who believes Alice to be her mother. Here, Jovovich shows a softer, motherly side.

It is a nice change to see a different side of this character rather than the whole “I shoot people with a gun and do crazy martial arts” aspect of her.

Though Kevin Durand (“Lost,” “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” “Wild Hogs”), did not have a lot of screen time, it was a ton of fun to watch him as Barry Burton, another character from the games.

It was also entertaining to see Michelle Rodriguez, Oded Fehr and Colm Meaney return in their roles as Rain Ocampo, Carlos Oliveira and James Shade, all of whom have appeared in previous films.

Also, the action in this film was well done. The director, Paul W.S. Anderson, is a visual director and generally directs action scenes well.

His trademark is his use of slow motion but surprisingly, there wasn’t a lot of it in this film. Not all of the action scenes were spectacular, but kept me interested enough.

One of the film’s biggest problems is Guillory as Jill Valentine. She was absolutely horrendous in this movie. Her character is just emotionless.

The way Guillory speaks her dialogue…absolutely cringe-worthy.

She is by far the worst actress in the entire movie. The other major problem I have with this movie is the ending.

I will not spoil the ending of the film with details because I can’t – the movie just ends. The ending was sudden and felt rushed, though it did leave room for another film to be released.

Overall, is “Resident Evil: Retribution” a good movie? Absolutely not. Is it terrible? Yes, though it is one of those films that is so bad it’s good!

It is a movie where you can get together with your friends and just sit down, laugh, tear the movie apart and have a good time.

Grade: C

Review: ‘Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man’ turns the tables, twice

AYINDE J. STEVENS
Staff Writer

Once upon a time, a man had to prove to his fellow villagers that he was the man of the village, the provider, the protector and so on. Once he succeeded, he chose the woman of his dreams and they lived happily ever after.

Today some men no longer feel that they have to prove themselves to women. This has left some women in a lurch; they don’t know what to do with men acting like boys.
But have no fear, Steve Harvey is here!

Harvey, the comedian, actor, radio personality and now writer, has looked down from his god-like perch and has decided that the women of earth need help. So what does he do? He writes a book.

The book, titled “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man: What Men Really Think About Love, Relationships, Intimacy, and Commitment,” is the guidebook for a modern woman to figure out the modern man. The book also gives women tips, tricks and other advice about how the male mind works. It’s like in the NBA finals, when one team gets the other team’s playbook. Now imagine if the book came to life in film and this is the result.

Lauren (Taraji P. Henson) is with Dominic (Michael Early) the dreamer, Candice (Regina Hall) is attached to Michael (Terrence J) the mama’s boy, Mya (Megan Good) keeps dating players like Zeke (Romany Malco) and Kirsten (Gabrielle Union) has been with her non-committal boyfriend Jeremy (Jerry Ferrara) for nine years.

The women each get a hold of the book and begin their preemptive strike by using a specific tactic in the book that addresses each of their man’s personal flaws.

One of the most interesting tactics is when Mya withholds her “cookies” from Zeke for 90 days. She doesn’t even let him in the house until the fifth date. Now that’s commitment.

It doesn’t take long for the men to find out about the book and when they do, they turn the tables on the women by simply going along with both the book and the women themselves. In theory this would work out for all involved, but it takes less time for the women to catch up than the men.

What the men and women don’t realize is that they need each other. At the end of the day everyone needs to compromise, which is perhaps the biggest theme in the entire movie. Sometimes the woman has to take a step back and other times the man needs to step up his game.

What makes the movie enjoyable and less of a two-hour infomercial for the book is Kevin Hart, who plays Cedric, the guy getting divorced. All he has to do is say something and you are laughing so hard you have a headache. Hart makes the movie worth the price of admission.

The comedy is also not shallow and overtly crass like “Bridesmaids,” which makes it a pleasant surprise to watch with this well rounded cast.

So sit back, relax and bring on the headaches.

‘The Hunger Games’ doesn’t fail to impress audiences; Dystopian film does not come off as a melodramatic teen movie

ALEXIS CAMARENA
Digital Editor 

Whenever I’m about to watch the adaptation of a book I really like, I give myself a pep-talk in the car on the way to the theater.

These pep-talks became necessary after my viewing of Alfonso Cuaron’s “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.”

My 13-year-old self walked out of the theater feeling disappointment at even the smallest of changes, and a misplaced hatred for “the new Dumbledore.”

So for the remaining five movies, and for all other book-based films, I told myself, “They’ve changed things. You’ll like some of them, you’ll hate some of them,” which has helped keep my high expectations in check.

Except in the case of the “Twilight” films; after the first one, I already knew they’d be shitty.

So when I was heading to the theater for the midnight showing of “The Hunger Games,” the film version of the first book in the best-selling series by Suzanne Collins, I gave myself the same pep talk, preparing myself for disappointment.

Fellow fans of the series, you’ll be pleased to know that the pep-talk wasn’t necessary this time.

The book tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, a teenager living in a dystopian society called Panem, built upon the ashes of what was once North America.

In this society, there are 12 Districts, ruled by the totalitarian Capitol. Each year, the Capitol requires that one boy and girl from each district participate in The Hunger Games, a “pageant” where all 24 participants fight to the death in a public arena, until only one remains.

The Hunger Games are broadcast on live television, and the districts must watch the carnage, as a yearly reminder of what the Capitol is capable of and how powerless they are against their rule.

The 24 teenagers, called “tributes,” are chosen at random at a public “reaping,” and Katniss’s story begins when her 12-year-old sister, Primrose, is chosen as the female tribute for their district, District 12.

She volunteers as tribute in her sister’s place, becoming a contestant in The 74th Annual Hunger Games, a fight for her life that the world will be watching.
The film, directed by Gary Ross (“Seabiscuit” and “The Tale of Despereaux”) and starring the Oscar-nominated Jennifer Lawrence (“Winter’s Bone” and “X-Men: First Class”) as our heroine, is effective and successful in capturing the novel’s gritty satire and historical allegories.

But putting the novel aside, Ross has produced a quality, thought-provoking film.

Lawrence delivers an above-average Katniss, perfectly capturing her at some moments, but falling just under the target at others.
Josh Hutcherson is pitch-perfect as Peeta Mellark, Katniss’s fellow District 12 tribute and potential love interest; in his breakout role, Hutcherson will impress fans and newcomers with the softness and genteel air he brings to the beloved character.

Other notable performances are Elizabeth Banks’ harshly colored and prissy Effie Trinkett, and Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman.

When I heard that a film was being made of “The Hunger Games,” I concluded that there were two ways it could be done. One way was to make it a shallow, action-packed, sensationalized interpretation of the material, with a pop soundtrack and actors that were once on “The O.C.”

Thankfully, we ended up with a version that features well-known but talented actors, and faithfulness not only to the fans, but to the heart and soul of the story, and what it has to say.

Sure, we drop our jaws at the concept of “The Hunger Games,” a battle to the death that serves as Panem’s primary form of entertainment. But ironically, the making of the film itself proves that we’re not far off.

After all, even if it’s not real, we’re still getting enjoyment out of watching 12- to 18-year-olds kill each other. Suzanne Collins’s “The Hunger Games” left readers thinking, “This is horrible” and asking, “Who would watch this?”

Gary Ross’s “The Hunger Games,” gives the answer: We would.

‘Wanderlust’ review: Apatow knocks another out of the park

MATT HEINLE
Editor-in-Chief

I saw “Wanderlust” this weekend as sort of an afterthought. There were two movies that I wanted to see more but due to some scheduling difficulties I ended up going to “Wanderlust.” I was not disappointed in the least. If you thought “Role Models” was funny and could use a good laugh, I’d recommend you give this movie a shot.

If I had to compare the two, I’d say that “Wanderlust” succeeds where “Role Models” was lacking, as well as dominates in the area that could be considered the bread and butter of “Role Models.” I rarely ever laugh out loud during movies. “Role Models” took me to that level on certain occasions, while “Wanderlust” had me whipping the tears of laughter out of my eyes so I would be sure not to miss the next moment of hilarity.

“Role Models” failed for me in the ability to draw believable characters whose trials I could grow to care about. Frankly, while the movie was hilarious, it wasn’t funny enough to compensate for the fact that I didn’t care at all what was going to happen to Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott in the end. I didn’t care about their “personal growth” because I thought they were lame characters who had nowhere to go but up anyway.

In “Wanderlust,” George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) also have nowhere to go but up. They are barely treading water trying to live the prototypical “New York lifestyle,” overextending their budget for a studio apartment scarcely bigger than your average FDU dorm room, in the West Village.

George is humping a job at an unethical company and ends up getting fired by his boss as the FBI takes him away in handcuffs after raiding the office. Linda, after a myriad of other failed business endeavors, is trying her best to pitch a documentary film featuring a penguin with testicular cancer to HBO. She fails miserably and before they can even get comfortable in their new apartment they are beyond their means and forced to leave the city.

On their way down to Atlanta, where George is planning on taking a job with his d-bag brother Rick (Ken Marino), the couple decides to call it a night and shack up at a bed and breakfast, which also turns out to be some sort of a commune.

As a result of this one-night stay, George and Linda are subjected to the absurd antics of all of the members of the commune, and are enthralled and unnerved at the same time. The free living commune lifestyle presents them with a stark contrast to the life they were just coming from, and this underlying plot element drives the story forward until the very end where it is tied together smoothly.

Other actors that deserve an immense amount of credit for the movie’s sensational humor are Aniston’s new beau Justin Theroux (Seth); Kerri Kenney-Silver (Kathy), who is probably best known for portraying Officer Trudy Wiegel on Comedy Central’s “Reno 911!”; and Kathryn Hahn (Karen) who played the role of Alice, Derek’s wife, in the movie “Step Brothers.”

“Wanderlust,” a Judd Apatow production, capitalizes in the way that Apatow’s films have achieved such notoriety for. They portray believable characters with conceivable problems, and watching these types of people navigate through the ridiculousness of an Apatow movie is almost as enjoyable as the brilliant comedy you observe.

In terms of off-the-wall humor, few movies in my recent memory could hold a candle to “Wanderlust.”

Daniel Radcliffe stars in ‘The Woman in Black’; Former star of ‘Harry Potter’ series looks to change his image

MONIQUE VITCHE
Contributor

Do you remember reading ghost stories as a child and feeling absolutely terrified long after the story had finished?

Well, that is exactly what “The Woman in Black” intended to do to its audience.

The movie, which stars Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer, Ciarán Hinds, Liz White, and Shaun Dooley, is primarily set in a small village on the east coast of England in the early 20th century that has been plagued by suicides of the children who live there.

Screenwriter Jane Goldman (“The Debt” and “Kick-Ass”) and director James Watkins (“Eden Lake”) pull the audience in from the first scene, where three girls wordlessly leap out the window of their attic bedroom and fall to their death.

Moments later a scream is heard, which is presumably from the mother of the three children.

Attention quickly shifts to Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe), a young lawyer living in London with his 4-year-old son, Joseph.

Kipps, whose financial and emotional problems stem from his wife’s death during childbirth, is instructed to handle the estate of Alice Drablow, who owned Eel Marsh house. If he does not handle the estate, he is told, he will be let go from the firm.

Arthur leaves London with instructions to go to Eel Marsh house, where he will have to go through all the documents the local solicitor refuses to look at.
Joseph and his nanny will be joining Arthur at the end of the week.

Upon arriving in the small town, the townspeople warn Arthur about going to Eel Marsh house.

Unconvinced, Arthur heads out to Eel Marsh house. While he is trying to complete his work, he repeatedly hears unexplained noises, and eventually sees a woman dressed in black before she disappears.

When Arthur returns to the village, he goes to the local authorities to report the sighting of the woman at Eel Marsh.
While Arthur is there, a girl is carried in by two boys, and she dies in Arthur’s arms.

The boys tell Arthur the she drank lye. Arthur then learns the story of the “Woman in Black,” Alice Drablow’s sister, Jennet Humfrye (White), who comes for the townspeople’s children as revenge for her child being taken away from her.

The townspeople are convinced that Arthur Kipps is the reason the girl died because he saw the “Woman in Black.” They unsuccessfully try to force him out of town.

Samuel Daily (Hinds), a landowner who doesn’t believe in the story of the “Woman in Black,” allows Arthur to stay with him and his wife (McTeer).
While staying with the Dailys, Arthur learns about the death of their son, which Samuel Daily brushes off as an accidental drowning.

His wife, however, is possessed by the spirit of her son, who communicates through her. While being possessed, she carves out a drawing of a woman hanging from a rope on the dining room table.

That woman is Jennet Humfrye, who killed herself after her son died, due to the negligence of Alice Drablow.

As Arthur uncovers the story surrounding Jennet Humfrye and the Drablows through the documents at Eel Marsh house, he realizes that in order for Jennet to stop manipulating the children into taking their lives, he must find the body of her son and give him a proper burial.

“The Woman in Black” is based off of a 1983 novel by Susan Hill and will have you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.

Review: ‘The Descendants’

MEGAN HEINTZ
News Editor

While set in Hawaii, paradise on earth, the premise of the story is far from serene.

Matt King (George Clooney), a real estate lawyer, has a family tree that stretches back to the earliest Caucasian settlers and royalty. A beautiful plot of land on Kauai has been left in the hands of Matt’s goofy-looking, money-hungry cousins. Matt is in charge of selling it off to developers, who plan to turn it into a multi-million dollar tourist attraction and resort.

Meanwhile, his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) remains in an irreversible coma in a Honolulu hospital after a boating accident. Matt learns he is going to be a widower around the same time he learns of an affair his wife had been having with another man.

Matt describes himself as “the back-up parent, the understudy,” yet he suddenly finds himself managing two not-so-angelic daughters. Scottie (Amara Miller), 10, is confused and angry about her mother’s condition and her 17-year-old sister Alex is just plain angry, which shows through her colorful vocabulary and disrespect toward her father and sister.

Alex was sent away to boarding school to try to correct her troubled past with drugs, alcohol and blatant disregard for her family. Before she left, she got into an argument with her mother because she found out about her infidelity. Yet, even in Elizabeth’s condition, Alex refuses to forgive.

“The Descendants” takes the audience through a wide range of emotions. The main plot consists of family healing and the need for Matt to bond with his children, forgive Elizabeth as she lies dying in the hospital, and come to a compromise with his irritating cousins.

Yet there are also numerous subplots that run throughout, one being Matt’s confrontation with Elizabeth’s lover (Matthew Lillard). These beautifully intertwining story arcs move at a perfect pace so that the audience is taken through laughter, disgust, sadness and everything in between.

The emotional roller-coaster, coupled with the quality of acting and intertwining plots and subplots, make for 115 minutes and $11.50 well-spent. Director Alexander Payne delivers in transforming the well-written book by Kaui Hart Hemmings into a spectacular film that is up for quite a few award nominations.

As I was leaving the theater, I heard a middle-aged woman say, presumably to a friend, “That was quite the tearjerker, huh?” She was giggling because she felt slightly embarrassed that tears were streaming down her face. She added, “But I’m glad we decided to see it. George Clooney is hot!”

Even if for some reason you don’t like the premise, think the acting is terrible, and can’t stop crying, at least you have something nice to look at.

Review: Timberlake races against the clock in thriller ‘In Time’

ONLINE ONLY
AYINDE J. STEVENS
Staff Writer

So imagine if you can stop aging, wouldn’t that be cool? Well, it depends on how that anti-aging cream is applied, or in this case how it’s engineered into your body.

That’s the basis of the new sci-fi thriller flick ‘In Time.’ It is a world where everyone stops aging at the ripe old age of 25. Sounds good, right?

Well, not so much. Once you turn 25 you have one year to live and that’s the catch. Fearing overpopulation, time has replaced money as currency. So once you are broke, you’re dead.

Now a cup of coffee can cost you your life. Unfortunately those prices keep going up and more people are being pigeon-holed into ghettos like Dayton while the rich live in New Greenwich. Both places becoming more isolated from each other.

The Hero of this story Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), lives in Dayton one of the ghettos in this retro futuristic Los Angeles where people live in “time zones”.
His mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde), who looks like his sister is actually 50, and everyone is trying to live day to day hustling for more time.

After a day of work Will finds a New Greenwicher, Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who is worth a whopping 105 years and unfortunately, is suicidal, depressed, and mentally worn out.

Will spares him from a ruthless pair of Minutemen, who steal time from people. In an act of gratitude, Henry gives Will his life, all 105 years of it.
Of course something like this does not go lightly in the zone and so Timekeepers and Minutemen are hot on Will’s trail.

So here’s the skinny on the difference between the two, the Timekeepers are the so called ‘cops’ and the Minutemen are the ‘robbers’. Problem is the cops tend to ignore the robbers.

We also learn that the rich can live forever, as long as they control the prices. Yet they don’t know how to live, apparently they are more afraid of losing their time by doing things like swimming, or jumping out of a window.

In a visit to New Greenwich, Will meets the eye of the Weis family who are from time (a pun on money), and can live for thousands of years.

The father Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) has justified his idea of the rich’s immortality as survival of the fittest. While his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), is bored of the immortal life and wants to break free.

When the Timekeepers, lead by Leon (Cillian Murphy), arrest Will he takes Sylvia as a hostage, takes her back to Dayton. At first it sounds like a kidnapping but after learning how precious time is in the ghetto, Stockholm syndrome kicks in and Sylvia joins Will’s crusade.

The film is filled with retro styling from the 60’s to the 80’s. From the buildings which date back to the 30’s and the 60’s. The cars look like a cross between a Rolls Royce and a fin tailed Cadillac.

The dress of the characters also goes back to the 80’s in fact it’s so retro even the underwear is. In fact the only modern thing they have is the buses.

Another character in the film is the zones themselves, because L.A. has been split into the zones they all have different characteristics. Dayton is scruffy yet colorful zone while New Greenwich is stylish yet conservatively dull.

Also the infrastructure in the city once the pride of the U.S. is surprisingly traffic free thanks to the high cost of traveling between zones.

So should you see this movie, well it falls into the grey area of not being a total action flick but it’s not completely one of those films that make you wallet conscious.

You might start thinking on how much time is taken out of your life.

Review: ‘Paranormal Activity 3′ scariest yet; Last installment does not lack in thrills, chills

MEGAN HEINTZ
News Editor

At 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 21, the third installment of the “Paranormal Activity” series was revealed to audiences.

Though the midnight showing did not draw a particularly huge crowd, it was significant enough to fill most of the seats in the theater.

By combining low-budget looking first-hand footage similar to 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” with franchise appeal reminiscent of the “Saw” films, the “Paranormal Activity” trio has been terrifying audiences since its first film was released in 2007.

What began as an Indie flick made on a tiny $11,000 budget was acquired by Paramount Pictures, and what a wise investment that proved to be.

According to MSNBC.com in 2010, “Paranormal Activity” revenue exceeds $100 million and, with the release of the third film, it is expected to rise.

The commercial success of the film was boosted by friend-to-friend reviews on Facebook and Twitter, which lured in moviegoers across the nation.

Based on the most basic childhood fear that there is a monster in your bedroom, directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman create a fascinating and ultimately terrifying film on the simplest of subjects.

The movie centers around Katie and Kristi, who befriend an invisible spirit, Tobey.

Like the previous films, most of the realistic plot is spent in the home and occasionally the backyard.

After an earthquake rattles the house, a series of strange noises cause Dennis, Katie and Kristi’s stepfather, to set up tapes around the house. He even breaks a household fan to create a rotating camera device.

In an attempt to capture any unusual behavior, the wedding videographer watches the tapes every night. Despite his wife Julie’s skepticism, he does not give up trying to prove his fears.

Although I have heard many say that the films are not believable, it is ironic that they tend to prefer the more gory ones of people getting stabbed six times and somehow still survive.

Yet, a documentary-like series set in the home is apparently unrealistic.

There is no question that everyone has heard a strange noise in the middle of the night that has frightened them. “Paranormal Activity” is based on this human fear.

Although you may not personally believe in ghosts, aliens and devils, your mind might be changed by the final scene. The last 15 minutes will absolutely blow the audience’s minds.

All the action seems to take place during those last few minutes that will absolutely leave you in shock.

It was apparent when something was about to happen in the theatre because it fell completely silent, followed by a cackle of shrieks.

I thought I was going to break the person’s arm that was sitting next to me for how hard I squeezed it!

According to Mark Olsen of the Los Angeles Times, “Paranormal Activity 3” is “far and away the sharpest, most wildly aware film in the series. There is a newfound wit and invention. The blocking used to get characters (and scares) in and out of shots feels lively and fun, making the jolts hit harder and the thrills giddier.”

He adds, “All of this proves that Joost and Schulman are real filmmakers and not just stunt artists, more convincing at making a plainly fictional film that purports to be reality than a documentary of shaky authenticity.”

The “Paranormal Activity” franchise is said to have gone in a counter-chronological order, with the third film actually beginning the series. If you were to watch them backwards, they would make perfect sense.

Who knows, maybe a fourth movie is on the way and will take place in the 1970s, for example.

Overall, “Paranormal Activity 3” is an absolute must-see, so much so that I will probably see it again in theaters.

It is one of those movies where the more you watch it, the more you learn.

As Richard Corliss of Time Magazine states, “[Go see it.] It’s pretty freaking cool.”

Review: Gosling picks another winner in ‘The Ides of March’

AYINDE STEVENS
Staff Writer

“The Ides of March,” which was released recently, is in essence the Ryan Gosling movie.

Unlike the two other movies he has had in the past month, this may be the one that earns him an Oscar.

Based on the play “Farragut North,” “The Ides of March” is an action-packed thriller for any age.

The movie, which stars Gosling, George Clooney, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Evan Rachel Wood and Jeffrey Wright, focuses on the March primary for the state of Ohio.

Gosling plays Stephen Myers, an optimistic junior campaign manager in the Mike Morris presidential campaign. Morris is played by George Clooney.

Morris is a liberal governor from Pennsylvania and is pitted against Senator Pullman, a more centrist, yet dull, fellow Democrat.

Gosling’s boss, Paul Zara, the senior campaign manager played by Hoffman, is trying to get Senator Thompson of North Carolina to endorse them in order to sweeten the pot.

The endorsement is also a backup in case the Morris team loses Ohio to Pullman.

We soon learn that the movie is less about the confrontation between the candidates and more about the confrontation between the managers in the campaign.

Zara with his brilliant mind is filled with paranoia, which comes to a head near the film’s climax.

As the film progresses, Myers becomes more ruthless and less idealistic; he becomes more and more like the Pullman manager Tom Duffy, played by Giamatti, who also gives a masterful performance.

The fate of Myers’ political soul lies in the balance between Duffy and Zara and neither being the winners or losers; in fact, the only winner is Thompson.

The writer of “Farragut North,” Beau Willimon, also collaborated with Grant Heslov and Clooney on the screenplay of the film.

The script crackles and simmers with all the intensity of a political soap opera more than a thriller.

The drama that gets the ball rolling deals with the character Molly Stearns, played by Wood, mostly because she has a bun in the oven from Morris.

So, yes, this is reminiscent of the John Edwards’ campaign scandal involving Rielle Hunter, but the political back door dealing can be found in any campaign if you know how to talk to the right people.

Thompson, played effortlessly by Jeffrey Wright, seems to be enjoying the attention by the Morris camp.

What gives the movie some life is the patriotic yet chilling score done by Alexandre Desplat, which fills in the optimistic yet melancholy mood of the film.

Finally, since this film is mostly male dominated, the only other important female character is Ida Horowicz, a reporter for The New York Times.

In the beginning, Horowicz is friends with Zara and Myers, but by the end of the film she is not.

Thus proving that bridges are burned when everything is in play in politics – from one’s ideals, friends and perhaps the most tragic, one’s life.

Disney’s ‘Lion King’ returns to theatres in 3-D; Re-release tops box-office over a two week period

MEGAN HEINTZ
News Editor

On my bulletin board in my room at home is a faded ticket for Walt Disney’s “The Lion King,” which was released in the summer of 1994.
It reads, “$2.95.”

Handwritten on the back are the words “Megan’s first movie.”

People of all ages helped to make “The Lion King” the highest grossing 2D film of all time raking in $312.9 million total, according to cnn.com.

The Lion King’s beautiful animation combined with catchy pop songs by Elton John and Tim Rice help to create memorable characters and a compelling story.

The film, which is said to be loosely based on the premise of Hamlet, tells the story of Simba (cub voiced by Jonathon Taylor Thomas and lion voiced by Matthew Broderick) who dreams of the day when he will be able to rule the kingdom of Pride Rock like his father Mufasa (voiced by the majestic James Earl Jones).

He does not realize, however, that his father has to die in order for him to become king.

His dream comes all too soon when Mufasa is killed by his brother Scar (Jeremy Irons) after attempting to save Simba from a wildebeest stampede.
Scar lays the blame on Simba, convincing him to leave the Pride land and never return.

He meets the lighthearted twosome, Timon and Pumba, a meerkat (Nathan Lane) and warthog (Ernie Sabella) and lives his life under their philosophy, “hakuna matata,” “no worries.”

Yet after running into his old friend Nala (Moira Kelly), she convinces him to return back and reclaim his homeland which Scar is ruining.

He finds out the truth about his father’s death and proudly claims his position as king. After falling in love with Nala and having a son of their own, they begin the cycle once again of the “Circle of Life.”

On September 16, 2011 the classic animated movie was re-released for a second time, though was in 3D.

The special two-week period that it was in theaters again topped the box office charts at $29.3 million, surpassing three other newcomers combined.

In 2002, IMAX re-released the film as well earning another $15.7 million.

For those keeping mathematical calculations, that adds up to $357.8 million in theaters domestically over the past two decades.

That does not include video sales and rentals, nor The Lion King Blu-ray 3D which debuted on October 4, skyrocketing revenue sales into the billions.

Although many people have stuffed animals, books, lunchboxes and other products all Lion King themed and have seen the movie countless times on television, VHS, etc., many found it necessary to take a trip down nostalgia lane.

Sitting in the theater, much of the audience consisted of teenagers/early 20-somethings re-experiencing their childhood.

Being that the film was released 17 years ago, they have all grown up on it, including myself.

3D has been quickly taking hold of audiences. It is rare today to see a movie trailer advertising 2D. What better time than to bring back a Disney classic?

Although some films made in 3D can be distracting at times, The Lion King seemed to have the perfect balance so that the story was not lost.

Despite the fact that many were concerned about leaving the classic film alone and not toying with it, it is apparent that did not stop too many people from going out to see it.

Sadly the ticket was not $2.95; it was about $15.

Although it is a ridiculously steep price and I was wearing 3D glasses, nothing else has changed; it is still one of my favorite movies of all time.
The theater could definitely feel the 3D love that night.