This was what it promised to be: a good movie.

Thank you, Michael Cera and Kat Dennings for making this possible.

Talk about the best job of casting ever, first of all. All of the actors and actresses were perfectly suited to thier characters in a way that is seldom seen, especially in these cutesy teen movies.

I've heard it compared to Say Anything, but I would have to disagree for several reasons. First, the plots are not even what I woud call similar. Secondly, this movie didn't have the same fake, unrealistic quality that viewers of Say Anything probably only picked up on if they didn't watch it in the 80s. Third, Say Anything was overrated garbage, and Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist was actually good.

Although lacking any real sort of climax, Nick and Norah gave a pretty decent storyline, with a plot interspersed with laughter, realism, diversity, romance, and just plain moments that made you smile--and others that made you punch the air in triumph because the person onscreen actually listened to you when you told him/her what to do.

The music was good, but thankfully there wasn't a ridiculous amount of it. Not overly sappy, not overly sexual, and not overly cheesy, Nick and Norah delivered a surprising blend of everything it promised and more. When you wanted something, it gave it to you, but it certainly played hard to get.

And really, isn't that just about all you want when you go to see a date movie?

Two and a half stars.

In other words, a solid "good."

"Blindness"

Well, I have to admit, I was more than excited to finally get to see Blindness. I mean, the trailer looking amazing, it got into Cannes, and Julianne Moore is one of my dad's favorite actresses. However, I must also admit... I was sorely disappointed.

The first fault that became apparent to me occurred within the first few reels of the film; it was slow and extremely poorly paced. I even made a move to get up and go visit my friends who were working in the lobby (I was ready to give up), but my dad guilted me into staying, saying that if I left, I was "abandoning" him. Little did he expect to be the one to lean over to me within the next hour and ask to leave the theatre.

Apparently, the trailer was completely misleading, but mostly because of the music it played. It gave me a feel for something great--something that would make the blood flow faster through my veins and send goosebumps rushing across my skin with the power and emotion it promised to convey. Instead, the movie seemed to play only the same note three times in a row on what sounded like a single rod from a set of windchimes.

As I said, the movie seemed slow at first. However, when it picked up, it wasn't for the better.

Before, we had just been bored. Now a new series of emotions took place: disgust, skepticism, revulsion, and eventually anger, followed again by boredom and ultimately a sense of irritation at the complete lack of a real ending.

Few things bother me more than when a movie drags on for say... two hours or so, starts off slowly, starts to end slowly, and then, instead of truly ending, it just stops. Seriously, if you are one of the producers, screenwriters, creators--or for God's sake, even the director--reviewing the plot, and you come to an "ending" like that, go back to the drawing board and try again until you can say, "Here's where it should end. This is the finish." You should have an ending that makes sense as an ending, not just another small event that was better suited to be put into the middle of the movie. The ending should in one way or another be denoted by something other than the rolling of the credits.

I had hoped for something "bold," as one critic feautured in the trailer put it; instead I ended up with a tired, drawn out, overdone movie that looked like it was meant to demonstrate what so many other films and books have demonstrated: Humans can and will do horrible things given the right crisis situation.

Instead of provocative, it was offensive. Rather than earthshattering or groundbreaking, it was familiar and poorly done. Lacking real characterization, Blindness left you merely with events (not even good dialogue) to ponder over and in the end realize that they simply lacked the symbolism to really prove anything.

We went (with fifteen or so others that night) to see a quality film, one that couldn't be mainstream because it was thoughtprovoking and genius--because it was art. Instead our hopes were dashed with a peice of work I refuse to give more than one and a half stars.

Thank you for reading the critique of Caitlin Mills.

When Jack Nicholson coughs up blood in the middle of a meeting, he is next seen in the hospital, where it becomes apparent that he has cancer. Forced to share his room with Morgan Freeman, (also a cancer patient) his belligerent and "I-don't-give-a-shit" attitude serves as a somewhat constant form of comic relief for Morgan Freeman's initial sombre aura. As the two are forced to interact, they begin to mesh, and a friendship develops very quickly. When both find out that they have six months (to a year) to live, they decide to make a "bucket list" and use Jack Nicholson's money and Morgan Freeman's ideas to get a last chance at living life--although Jack Nicholson's character does provide some items of his own for the list which are somewhat less charming than Morgan Freeman's "Witness something truly majestic," or "Help a total stranger." However, as the film progresses, the viewer's irritation at Jack Nicholson's character's immaturity and attitude gives way to gentle fondness and eventually warm tears as the two come together in a way that is rarely seen in movies these days--as people--not as lovers, enemies, friends, or family, but as two individuals reaching out for the same intangible thing. As minutes pass and attentiveness deepens, one comes to see these characters as people rather than charicatures. We feel for them and hope with them. In the end we cry with them.

In a surprisingly well done and original film, Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson turn a movie that seems exclusively relative to senior citizens into soething that we can all relate to--the journey toward love of another human being and the pain of parting with those loved ones.

This movie was good not because of the plot or ideas behind it--that's all captured in the trailers and did not even slightly whet my cinematic appetite. It was good because of the dynamicism of the characters--something we rarely see so properly done in films today. Neither of these characters are static. They both grow and in completely different and somewhat unpredicatable ways. Neither changes in ways that seem farfetched or overdone. Medium is the most often selected size of anything I see partaken of in a movie theatre, and so it is just so with this movie. It was not overly drastic (large), but it was far from falling flat or leaving the viewer with something unsatisfied (small). It was comfortable. It had a little bit of everything a good movie needs (medium). Everything in this film was done just right, and I quietly acknowledge a job well done and my skepticism fully conquered.

It was a strong three stars. I will no longer begrudge all of the buzz this movie has generated. I'd say it's even put me just a little bit closer to respecting my elders.

Damn you, Katherine Heigl, for making this possible.

As for Malin Akerman, I've never encountered such a diabolically irritating person on or off the silver screen. Her performance seemed to be a poorly masked attempt at tempting me to slit my own wrists rather than endure another moment of such a poor performance.

In this somewhat original romantic comedy (otherwise known as the genre of movies designed for very lonely single women), Katherine Heigl plays a woman obsessed with weddings who is extremely and utterly single while pining for her boss, a man who she has convinced herself she is madly in love with. Too timid to actually tell him her true feelings, she yearns in secret, playing his amazingly helpful and attentive assistant in the workplace while dreaming of the day when he will notice her the way she notices him. Finally deciding to confess her "love," she finds she is too late once her younger sister hooks him. Soon they are engaged, and the perpetual bridesmaid (Her 27 dresses are from the 27 times she was a bridesmaid.) is asked yet again to help plan a wedding and participate in it. Instead of doing what any normally functioning human being would do, she agrees to help plan the wedding for the man she loves to her younger sister. In the meantime, James Marsden plays the witty and cynical journalist who while covering her sister's wedding, torments/stalks Katherine Heigl,  trying to convince her to grow a pair while still striving to maintain a sexy and unconcerned visage.

First complaint: Who the hell was responsible for the awful wardrobe selection? There was hardly a scene in which I wasn't completely pissed off by someone's hideous shirt or Malin Akerman's ardent refusals to don a bra. How much nipple sillhouetting must I endure? Also, the office scenes were completely ridiculous as far as wardrobe. I seriously doubt that James Marsden's character would be allowed to wear a T-shirt into the office, but I doubt even more seriously that his boss would be wearing almost as unprofessionally casual attire.

Second complaint: I thought the characters were ridiculously drawn. The only character with any kind of dynamicism was Katherine Heigl's, and even her character was pretty hard to believe. Who could sit idly by while her sister married her Prince Charming? Maybe some, yes, but who on earth would actually help plan it with a smile on her face the whole through. Bullshit. Don't even get me started on Malin Akerman's character. What kind of clueless bitch whore would she have to be? Her character has absolutely no depth and is entirely one-dimensional for most of the film, two-dimensional for a fair portion, and an attempt to throw in a smidge of her in thir dimension was half-assed toward the end--but that's pretty much what the movie was: half-assed. The only even somewhat plausible character was James Marsden's, but that was hardly enough to redeem the cheesy, frightfully overdone, and utterly predictable sorry excuse for a movie.

The one redeeming factor I can present is the fact that it is somewhat original in that I don't seem to remember any other movie being made about a woman so totally and utterly obsessed with weddings who in the end finally gets her own.

Still, it would be a stretch to give it two stars. I'd say one and a half.

The musical Sweeney Todd has been described as not only a musical, but a comedy as well. Although I did not laugh audibly at any point, I could call it a comedy also, keeping in mind its wryness and quirky sardonic take on life.

Quirky.

Did I just say Johnny Depp?

Perhaps the defiining characteristic of this skilled and accomplished actor is his unfailing selection of quirky characters. Sweeney Todd is anything but an exception. Scarred by banishment and therefore forced separation from his beautiful wife and infant daughter, the unjustly accused Mr. Barker returns to London as the soon-to-be infamous Sweeney Todd, a crazed barber who boasts of having the skill of delivering "the closest shave you'll ever get." Helena Bonham Carter plays his adoring partner in crime as he slits throats of customers and gives her the bodies with which she makes the best meat pies in London.

Thirsting for revenge, Sweeney sings and slits his way through day after night, working toward the moment where he will be faced with the man who is responsible for all of the terrors of his past (Alan Rickman).

Alan Rickman as always does an excellent job, playing the villian but putting some humanity into the bad guy, so that even while we know we should be rooting against him, the viewer cannot help but wonder whose character is the greater villian in his heart of hearts: Johnny Depp's or Alan Rickman's? After all, which is the demon barber of Fleet Street?

Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter provide a breathtaking canvas for the blood they shed to be painted upon as the plot thickens but never weighs you down. For a musical, it is very understanding of the average moviegoer's irritation at characters breaking into song as the most unrealistic moments. In other words, if you are like me and hate musicals, this is a musical for you.

All in all, the character development is satisfactory, as well as the music (although the instrumentals far outdo the vocals), and a surprisingly good ending awaits the patient and attentive viewer. My only real criticism is that the blood was a ridiculously light shade of red. I didn't realize that DARK red dye and corn syrup is so damned hard to come by these days.