Due Date

Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis do a solid job in this crazy road trip comedy. I am actually a pretty big Downey fan and I am not sure why. I just like the roles he takes on and I think he does a great "regular guy." I feel as though I would react the same way and say the same things he does if I were in his character's situation...so I guess I just figured out why I like him :)
Anywhoooo, every couple of years there is a new comedian that everyone wants in their movie. Ever since The Hangover  that person has been Zach G. That means he is bound to be in some terrible movies soon, but this is not one of them. Don't get me wrong, it is no Hangover and I think that is where a lot of the critics get it wrong. They compare it to that movie and don't just critique it for what it is. It is meant to be silly, ridiculous, and inappropriate. The humor in it is a little herky jerky and off-beat. In other words the flow is kind of strange and some parts get kind of serious and then turn ridiculous. But, as I am prone to do, I liked it because of its differences. To me it was the same kind of approach taken in The Other Guys with Ferrel and Wahlberg. Two totally different guys that have to work out their differences and we get to watch the hilarity unfold; only this movie actually pulled it off (as opposed to the Other Guys which in my mind was a string of jokes piled together and turned into a screenplay). If you like both these actors you will like this movie. It gets a B...I rarely give out A's. It is one of the funnier movies I have seen in a while.

127 Hours

A better story than it is a movie, but still a decent movie. James Franco does a phenomenal job playing Aron, the guy who cut his arm off after being trapped for 127 hours in Canyon Lands, Utah. The story is the real reason I went to see this. This guy has a giant rock land on his hand and he is stuck there with only what he has in his backpack. He is in some deep crevasse where no one can see him. He tries everything he can think of to get out until, desperate for food and water, he cuts his arm off just below the elbow with a dull pocket knife.
Like I said, it is a better story than it is a movie. The director is the guy who directed Slumdog Millionaire and I think he did a good job of making the movie flow well together and giving it continuity and purpose. It is similar to Cast Away in that both involve over an hour of solo acting. Franco is entertaining, genuine, and believable as this goofy, half-crazy guy. I give it a B because it didn't really involve any cinematic excellence or quality...just a crazy true story. One thing I did appreciate is that the movie stayed very true to the real story. It is worth a shot, at least at the Redbox.

Hereafter

Like Invictus this movie left me wanting. The script and the acting were decent and the storyline was pretty good. All of the elements that are usually part of a good movie were there, they just weren't put together in the right way. This is typical for Eastwood, at least recently. To illustrate my point let's talk about Invictus. Great actors (Damon and Freeman) did a great job. The story was true and inspiring, but the movie was boring. It was supposed to be about a rugby team that inspired a nation...but did you ever really feel inspired? During the final rugby match did any of Matt Damon's "C'mon guys, let's win" speeches ever give you goosebumps? Now compare it to other legendary sports hero movies: Remember the Titans, Blind Side, Rocky, even Seabiscuit. All of those movies at least gave you that inspiring moment that made you really experience the story on a personal level. Can you even name anyone on the Rugby team other than Damon's character? How about the coach? How many people even understood what was happening during the last rugby match (outside of people who play rugby)? After leaving Invictus I was tired not inspired. 

Eastwood is known in Hollywood for doing movies ahead of schedule and under budget, which normally you would think of as a good thing, but in his case it's not. He often overlooks or completely ignores problems with plot, character development, acting, and mood. With Hereafter the biggest issue was character development and the direction the story took. Without spoiling anything (in case you do see it) certain characters who you think are going to play a major role are just dropped completely and a certain theme (life after death and the common thread in near-death-experience stories) is explored throughout most of the movie and then in the end it is just ignored and it ends up being a love story...essentially. The movie gets a C, which isn't terrible, just average. If you thoroughly enjoyed Invictus you will probably like this movie, but if you are like me and it just didn't do it for you, this movie will likely fall into the same category.