Twilight: Can't have your Bloodcake and Eat it too

This is a review of a movie that if I said I like it, one group will love me, the other will hate me. It has holes, but if you watch the movie and hate those holes, chances are you're not the one that picked the movie and the one who did, loves those holes.

Twilight is a small-town, teen romance with vampires and potential werewolves. It features Bella (Kristen Stewart), a teenage girl who moves from the Arizona desert to the small mountain town up nort, Forks, Nebraska. Although being the quiet girl, it seems like every guy wants here. She falls for the most quiet and mysterious guy, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). He's pale, seems emo, and doesn't come to school on days when it is sunny. Also, he sits alone with his family at the cafeteris not eating a thing. It seems like uninteresting high school drama until Bella is nearly killed by a car speeding through the parking lot. She's saved by Edward, who appears from across the parking lot and literally pushes the car away.

For those who missed the obvious, Edward and the Cullens are vampires. Bella and Edward's romance is based entirely on the vampire/human concept, that he can save her when she's in danger, like when she walks down a dark sidewalk into trouble, but at the same time, he's a threat to her. It's like she's a cheesecake, -bloodcake in this case- which looks so pretty you just want to keep it to stare at and maybe lick the icing, but that is nowhere near as filling. Edward compares this thirst to heroin addictions and being the vegetarian in a world where steaks walk around you. The love is mystical but flat. Their first date consists of kissing on top of the tallest trees on mountaintops and a family get-together is watching a baseball game where everyone can hit homeruns and outrun the ball. This is visually amusing, but they're sitting in silence because, aside from being a vampire and bloodcake, there's nothing for them to really base their relationship on.

What is good about this? The movie has painted an issue that is about sex and hardly ever mentions the sex. Like Nicole DeBruler once explained to me how girls love the Phantom of the Opera because he is a tortured soul, Edward is the same way of torture and conflict. Even though she explained it to me and it made sense, I still don't understand it and can't explain it myself, so it flies over my head, but I do know it will sink and sit in girls' hearts. Just like how The Notebook hit with unbelievable accuracy to make everyone cry, Twilight will make girls mushy with laser accuracy and just pass over the guys.

Stupid romance aside, I found the family drama more interesting and how the town exemplifies that. She's moved from a mom in the desert to a father in the mountains. The father is protective (he is the police chief) but gets to be wiser than most parents. He knows when the conversation is dead and doesn't make it worse by trying harder to socialize. He offers her pepperspray and rather than argue about the dangers, just asks she does it for him.

Bella's alienation is also presented well. Guys harrass her, with both good and bad intentions, but most of this is left with subtle hints and looks, brief moments to say it's there, but to not distract us from Edward. If you look closely, Edward is positioned in front of a stuffed owl, whichmakes Edward appear to have small angel wings. The town is weird, but doesn't make humor of it. It's simply there, which keeps our attention on Bella's awkwardness. I felt more for her moving than I did about her romance.

The vampire side is more interesting when it isn't just her and Edward. The Cullens' house has an unused kitchen, a montage of graduation caps (because they never escape high school), and doors that open out to the air on the second floor. They welcome her as a chance to use the kitchen, but there's an odd silence when someone mentions them breaking up. If Bella reveals the secret, it would as bad for the Cullens as Edward biting Bella would be bad for her. And you thought meeting the girl's family was tough.

Is it entertaining? No. It moves slowly and mostly sets the mood rather than an actual story. There's a narration that stops halfway through the movie, then comes back because the pace changes back and forth.

Is it for everyone? Yes. It is neutral and gives something for girls and vampire fans, even if one might be bored at certain points.

is it memorable? Some will call it the best romance ever. The others are not the type for arguing over romance movies.

Nothing Like the Holidays: The Family Gathering Around a Different Tree

If there was an Academy Award for Ensemble Acting, a nomination would go to the cast of the family in Nothing Like the Holidays. There is such a strong chemistry in the scenes I started to wonder if there was really a script or if the actors were just improvising natural reactions. This is probably why I liked the movie so much. How often do you get a family drama where the everyone in the family acts so naturally with each other you don't question the family part.

Nothing Like the Holidays follows a Puerto Rican family gathering in Chicago. Most of the family seems like they're in cliche roles, but they claim being the best of those roles together. The oldest son (John Leguizamo) is a successful lawyer married to a Jewish stockbroker (Debra Messing). The other son (Freddy Rodriguez) is a wounded soldier from Iraq. The daughter is a struggling actress who's small work on TV is idolized by her family. At the head of the family is Anna, the mother with a long list of secret recipes she's waiting to share and who speaks Spanish more than the others. To the side is Alfred Molinas as the father, distracted by the local bodega he runs.

The issues are more than one layer. Yes, the movie could have made each character have a different issue, which they all do, but they also have each others problems. When Anna announces at dinner that she is divorcing her husband, the kids react different, even towards each other. Molinas masters the husband as a figure of silent acknowledgement, as though he may or may not be able to argue his wife into staying with him, but would rather just enjoy the time with his family by avoiding the issue. This brings out troubles with married son and his wife, as well as the soldier accepting how life gives the unexpected. They truly do deal with issues as a family.

The acting is superb not only on the dramatic scale, but also on the comedic level, as though we're laughing with the family. The men gather around an old tree in front of the lawn, promising to cut it down to give Ana the view her husband always promised (can a view save their marriage?). As they play with their chainsaws, the men each have something to prove about their masculinity to their women, who are placing bets on who will hurt themselves. You'll laugh at which wife bets on whom. The family does drink, both individually and together. It is a strong blend of drama and comedy when the son arranges for the Priest to try to convince the parents to salvage their marriage, only to begin with the mom coming home drunk and the Priest filling himself on her secret recipes.

Not since Juno have I cared so much for what happens to the characters. Here, I was choked up before anything happened. I wanted to hug them, to be invited to the dinner table and laugh. Even though some of the lines are in Spanish, I didn't need to know what they were saying (except when subtitles were rare provided for a good laugh), because the way they said it gave all the emotion for the words. While what I have said here may seem like I've given the movie away, I have not. There are many layers to everything the family goes through, and their way of going through it is not as simple as I would have originally thought.

Some would call this a solely Puerto Rican movie, or a movie that pokes a nationally, like The Family Stone or This Christmas. While Roger Ebert in his review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081210/REVIEWS/812109989) won't name names of those on IMDb who dislike these movies as cliche and only changing races, I hold no such reservations. Toucansam3 of IMDb is asking if an Asian or Hindi movie will be following this one so that white, black, hispanic, and everyone else can claim the same story. I say, if they're as well-done as this movie, let them. Let it also note this movie was made in Chicago, set in a very multi-cultural suburb. The Jewish wife and black neighbors also get to claim ethnicity in this movie. For posting on Toucansam3's ill-comments, go to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151915/board/nest/124637146.

Is it entertaining? Very. If the laughs don't get you, the drama will.

Is it for everyone? Yes. Everyone can see this movie relate to their families, even if there is some cultural language to it. The father wants what's best for his son, just as all fathers do. The sons take different paths and have difficulty relating to each other because of it. These are all things everyone can relate to.

Is it memorable? While it will probably not get Oscar nominations or be a blockbuster, this is a movie worth sharing, which will make a memorable experience.

Punisher War Zone: Kidneys with a Side of Cherry Pie Faces

Punisher War Zone is a movie obsessed with violence and my largest complaint was there was not enough. This is a character from comic books that has plenty of graphic literature with the potential to be put on the screen and done well, yet it seems they kept him solely as a one-note character. Imagine if Romeo and Juliette were just in it for the sex and you get the idea.

Punisher follows Frank Castle, a marine-turned vigilante who, after the death of his family at mafia hands, dedicates his life to a one-man war on crime. He starts with the Italian mob families and finally at the last New York family the film begins with him sneaking in and executing the entire family at the dinner table with decapitations and headshots. This includes a wrenching scene where Castle spins, dangling from a chandler shooting off rounds. Amazing how he can hit everyone while spinning, but they can't even hit the chandler.

He goes to finish the job at a bottle recycling plant, hunting down the last family members. This leads him to throwing a man into a pit of broken glass, then turning on the crusher so he gets washed in it. Maybe Lionsgate was hoping to top it's pit of needles from Saw 2. Either way, the result is Jigsaw, a man with a puzzle for a face. He looks like someone who was too ugly to be cast in Dick Tracy.

This leads to a war of guns between the Punisher and Jigsaw. In the middle is the wife and daughter of the undercover agent the Punisher mistakenly killed. This is where the movie loses it's edge, if it didn't fall out from the chandler. Punisher, from the comics, is an interesting character because he never second-guesses his decisions, never quits his persuit of punishment, and whines. He gets his mind off of his family's death by continuing his crusade. Here, in the film, he falls into the action-hero cliche. He uses the over-used "this is my last mission" line and looks like he's going to cry when he's around the girl. That's not matching character with the guy firing rockets into jumping bad guys. There's hints of smiles, which doesn't match either. If the Punisher was looking for redemption and salvation from little girls and their moms, he should have watched the remake of Man on Fire. Now he's just like every other action hero in the book.

Since I read the books, I'll say the books are more interesting in the character. The movie limits the weaponry to simply guns, gernades, and a single shot from a rocket launcher, all of which are familiar to movies. The books gave us a man the bad guys didn't stand a chance agaisnt. He won half the battle before walking up by using carefully placed trip-mines, misleading information to set a trap, and poisoning the food. Not as exciting, but he isn't action man, he's Punisher. Fair fighting isn't part of the programing. Read back and think which would be more interesting.

In all fairness, there are a few good Punisher moments, such as the broken glass pit. He shoots a man in the face without warning, to which the audience will most likely laugh. He has a broken nose and resets it without a word. He walks up behind someone and pushes their face into a doorframe, crushing it like cherry pie. Looking back at some of the violence, was everyone's face made out of cherry pie? Jigsaw recruits his men while marching around, an American flag behind him, giving the advice, "We'll do this the Army way. Give them money for a college fund they'll never see, give them a gun, and promise them they won't go to Iraq." His sidekick is his brother, Looney Bin Jim, who, upon his escape, celebrates by eating kidneys of the hospital staff. I guess cherry pie in the face wasn't enough.

Is it entertaining? No. The pace is slow and the character is one-note.

Is it for everyone? It is for those who like kidneys and cherry pie.

Is it memorable? I will admit, yes. There are moments of violent humor which will be hard to top. This humor is well-delivered against the face of Ray Winstone.

Transporter 3: Action Without Leaving Your Car

Watching Transporter 3, I realized the film had everything Quantom of Solace was missing. It has a much better scene featuring cars and trains than Quantom had trying to get boats suspenseful. Then the car fell in the water and totally kicked Quantom's action. Not only did it have better action, but also better romance. The girl beside Martin, Frank Martin is more stylish and sexy than Camille of Quantom.

Transporter 3 is the third installment featuring Jason Statham as Frank Martin, an ex-special ops agent who works as a driver, no questions asked, no names given. This time, instead of hired, he's knocked on the back of the head and tied to the car. Himself and the package, the sexy Natalya Rudakova, are given bracelets that explode if they walk too far away from the car. Usually a gimmick to keep Frank from running away, it is instead part of the plot and action as Frank has to drive halfway across Europe. Someone steals the car and drives off, what is Frank to do? If you think outrunning a stolen car is impressive, you should see what he does after driving it off of a bridge.

You'll notice I barely touched the plot. All I've given you is the title character, a location, and a pretty girl. It sounds alot like what you could have figured out from the title and a quick IMDb.com search. In truth, there is nothing else to know except that Transporter 3 exceeded all expections in all areas. Very easily they could have put Frank in a room full of goons and grunted out the same rules while pulling Statham's fighting action, but instead they make a joke out of the rules, already broken in the first two movies and known by everyone the rules won't be kept for long in the third. Instead, they have fun. The rules become intentional punchlines.

The sexy girl in the passenger seat is more than eye candy for the male audience. At first, she's depressed, knowing when they reach their destination, the bad guys will try to kill them. She's sure they will, so she pouts. She's entertained when Frank fights. Yes, he takes off his clothes like he has done in previous movies, all so he can strangle guys with his shirt sleeves, but this time he has the female audience in the car, grinning at the show. On the road, she lightens up, takes drugs, and drinks. Talk about a different approach to death. Frank is worried about dying, focused on getting out of it, she wants to party like it's her last day alive.

Remember when I mentioned it was better than Bond? Her name is Valentina, she parties, and (in my opinion as a guy) she made freckles sexy again. How many movies bring a sexy girl WITH an original look?

Back to the action... He can't leave the car, so what will he do when drives off of a bridge, landing on the water below? The answer is impressive, almost believable. After getting his car back on dry land and running again, I didn't care about the impossibilities of driving the car onto a train, espically parking it on top of the train so he is close enough to fight the bad guys below. Nor did I care the bad guy probably would have had some kind of detonation device for the bracelet just in case. The bad guy seemed cocky enough to think such a safety measure wasn't necessary.

Is it entertaining? Although a slow start, it picks up, espically as it gets closer to the end.

Is it for everyone? Yes, although the young male audience will be its loyal fanbase.

Is it memorable? Yes. Statham in the car is like Schwarzenegger with a machine gun in the 80's. It sells and sells well. Statham is with driving what Jet Li is for high-flying martial arts and Van Damme for high-flying kicks. Although it might get old, he is more than a few movies fad.

Quantum of Solace: I Could Really Use a High-Tech Gadget to Save my Life Right Now

Quantum of Solace is a James Bond movie that can stand on its own two feet, continue where the previous one left off, and provide a decent amount of quality action and one-liners, so long as forget the first 20 James Bond movies. It is missing gadgets, funny names, womanizing, Moneypenny, Q, and a diabolical plan to be ruined. It nails chases, Bond's dark killing rage and hidden emotions, and a wonderful M played by Judi Dench. The drama is between M and Bond when it is suppose to be about making love when he's not distracted by saving the world.

Daniel Craig plays James Bond. I believe he plays out better than everyone else minus Sean Connery (of course) and the earlier works of Pierce Bronson. Quantum picks up where Casino Royale left off. Bad guys are in hot pursuit of Bond, driving around cliffs in Italy with the villianious Mr. White stashed in the trunk. Bad guys are shooting bullets at him, but you'd think that at some point they would pull out rockets or grenades, as obviously the bullets aren't working. After this is an interrigation scene, which is probably the best dialogue to be found in the movie. From here it is a chase which looks similiar to Jason Bourne's. There's leaping from balconies, running on rooftops, and the occasional shooting.

Where is all this heading? Everyone slowly figures out as Bond grasps at stray hairs for hints that an evil CEO of a company is trying to... wait for it... sabatoge the water supply of Bolivia. This villian is obviously not up to grand heist of Goldfinger or foresight of stealing a Goldeneye satellite. His name is Dominic Green. The love interest's name is Camille. Perhaps Green's name is referencing his environmental position, but then what is up with the simplicity of Camille? Bond has fallen a long way from bedding women like Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp, Vesper Lynn and Dr. Christmas. He exploited his way into Solitaire's bed, which established him as womanizing instead of romantic. Here, they seem to be about revenge rather one-liners wrapped in bedsheets. I don't even believe Bond slept with Camille. He did sleep with Strawberry Fields, although you have to read the credits to see the point in the name.

I remember back when the movie ended with a zippy one-liner, a kiss, and they rolled in the bedsheets just before the credits rolled. Here, Bond will pull the car over, tell the girl it has been nice, and they part ways. Hardly as much fun as the first 20 Bond films or dramatic as Vesper's death.

While I don't mind the action since it was done well, it feels like all other action. Bond's action is suppose to have gadgets and toys. When the SWAT team storms in, I couldn't help but think of how in any other movie, Bond would throw down a pin that was actually a smoke bomb or flash-bang and disappear. The action is brutal and we understand Bond's doggish pursuits are a sign of a violent obsession with revenge, but that doesn't mean he has to do everything the hard way. The watch could include a laser, radio disruptor, or something. What does his watch do? Wait for it... it glows in the dark!

Is it entertaining? As the movie gives you more chases, they get shorter, as though they know the audience is getting tired of it, so they were smart. It's entertaining.

Is it for everyone? No. Those fans of the classics will have a tough time adjusting.

Is it memorable? No. Casino Royale was. This one isn't.