I am well aware of the not-so-clever title of “Valentine’s Day” that is linked to the upcoming “holiday”, but that does not mean that I was any less excited about the movie. While I do not believe in new cars or diamonds for this man-made day of love, I do, however, believe in a little romance, which this movie delivers. I totally bought into the star-studded, tangled web of love stories that is “Valentine’s Day.”

This story presents a fairy-tale life that almost anybody could desire. Women of all occupations (including an elementary teacher) wearing Christian Louboutins, a mail-room clerk wearing the newest, hippest suit with the finest pic stitching, a teen who is forced to nanny after school but still has a hot “it bag”, all driving trendy cars and living in nice LA homes and manage to find the perfect romance.

The hot line-up is something to be spoken of. The trailers and posters for this movie serve more as a flash-point reminder of the cast. In the men’s corner there is Kelso (Ashton Kutcher), that hot guy from “The Hangover” (Bradley Cooper), McSteamy (Eric Dane), McDreamy (Patrick Dempsey), Venom (Topher Grace), Jacob Black (Twilight’s sexy, underage werewolf aka: Taylor Lautner), Monk’s psychiatrist (the ever-charming Hector Elizondo), Ray (Jamie Foxx), George Lopez and new-comers Bryce Robinson and Carter Jenkins. Representing the ladies we had a cast of super women, including; Electra (Jennifer Garner), Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba), Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), Nancy Drew (Emma Roberts), Mary Camden (Jessica Biel), Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts), Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah), Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates), Ouiser Boudreaux (Shirley MacLaine) and pop/country star Taylor Swift.

This mish-mash of characters sometimes feels forced, but the weaving plot lines definitely served as riddles to be solved to keep the audience interested. This, however, did not lend much room for clever screenwriting by Katherine Fugate, which often left all of the women with the same over-all snippy-yet-love-struck attitude and the men too malleable. Hathaway managed to slip from the mold, though, and shone through with a daring, sex kitten personality that stole the show. Robinson, too, stood in the spotlight, but it’s hard not to fall in love with an 11 year old who talks about being in love while on a soccer field.

The two Taylors serve as a big draw being very current ex’s who the tabloids chased. Their input into the development of the story ends there. As an outspoken non-fan of Lautner’s acting and very weary of Swift’s, it was no surprise that this movie did nothing to change my views. While it was fun to watch what I could only imagine as the beginning of their short-lived real-life romance, their acting was over-done, under-developed and hyper-active.

Unfortunately, this movie delivers the unromantic part of V-day, as well. Around every corner is a reminder of the commercialism of the holiday; flower shops and chocolates and cards, versus the grand gesture for which most girls search. They also hit heavily on all of the LA hotspots, including the Beverly Wilshire Hotel and the Flower Mart, instead of making a geographically ambiguous storyline that could take place in any city and seem attainable.

While I often expect more depth from a Garry Marshall film, I felt perfectly at ease with this movie. It took me through romance and love at all stages of life. This movie will make a perfect date night, but will lead to high expectations for the holiday. As a piece of advice: if any men plan on taking their significant other to this movie, make sure that you first have lived up to your Valentine’s Day obligations, however grandiose they may be.

– Amy Reeder

Valentine’s Day is a magical holiday where you get the finest chocolates from France flown in, you scour the city in search of the perfect stargazer lilies and hire a five-piece jazz quartet to play outside your girlfriend’s window only to have her break up with you on Facebook the next day. Well, that’s my experience anyway. Unfortunately, “Valentine’s Day” the film, directed by Gary Marshall, left me with the exact same emotions: empty, bored and ready to delete my Facebook account. Okay, maybe not the “exact” same emotions, but let’s not get caught up in that and focus on the point at hand. ‘Valentine’s Day” is 125 struggling minutes of “I don’t care.”

Honestly, ‘Valentine’s Day’ far exceeded my expectations, simply because my only expectation was to not fall asleep during the entire movie. Sadly, this has more to do with the old lady kicking my chair in excitement every time someone got flowers, and less due to the riveting story line. Of course, when I say “story line” I mean jumbled mess of watered down, clichéd tales of romance.

‘Valentine’s Day” flaunts a star-studded cast including: that one guy, that girl from that thing and that super dreamy guy. With a cast like that, what could possibly go wrong? When I was fourteen, I attempted to break a Guinness Record by eating 37 Zebra Cakes in five minutes. The lesson I learned that day applies well to ‘Valentines Day’: there can be too much of a good thing. What was likely a clever attempt to link the love lives of many people on Valentine’s Day wound up being a cluttered mess of characters you just don’t care about.

If you’re a woman reading this, just stop now. You’re going to go see this movie, you’re going to love it and you’ll forever hate your significant other for never being as romantic as the characters in this extremely contrived anthology of love stories. If you’re a man reading this, you’ve likely grown bored and become confused with the abundance of words on the screen. For you, because I care about you so much, I will simplify things. To help you formulate your own opinion, I have created a Pros and Cons list about ‘Valentine’s Day’ because seriously, who doesn’t love lists?

Cons:

• Stars Ashton Kutcher
• Jessica Alba doesn’t get naked
• Jessica Biel doesn’t get naked
• Stars Ashton Kutcher
• Zero explosions
• The main character is a flourist
• The guy who was a wolf in Twilight is in it
• Stars Ashton Kutcher
• Doesn’t star Will Smith
• You see old people kissing
• Zero car chases
• Taylor Swift is a better singer than she is an actress (note: Taylor Swift is a horrible singer)
• The number of scenes involving guys with shirts off is higher than zero
• And finally… This movie stars Ashton Kutcher

Pros:

• Near the beginning, you kind of almost catch a little bit of a glimpse of Jennifer Garner’s butt

Yeah… That’s pretty much it.

‘Valentines Day’ is a movie purely capitalizing on star power and the ability to completely take advantage of an over-hyped meaningless holiday. It’ll have a big opening weekend and then fall off the face of the earth faster than Macaulay Culkin did when he hit puberty. Guys, do the right thing: take your special lady out to a romantic dinner at Denny’s on Valentine’s Day, and avoid this movie at all costs.

– Matt Rayford

I’m a 25-year-old man. I like movies with guns, explosions and a completely unnecessary abundance of curses that make the MPAA shudder. That being said, let’s talk “Dear John,” the movie based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks, a man who women adore and men despise. Sparks’ most noteworthy accomplishment, “The Notebook,” forces this generation’s man to forever be contrasted to the overtly-jaded and embellished picture of what love and a relationship should be, leaving a foul taste of disappointment in the mouth of any girl encumbered within its grasp. In Sparks’ most recent novel-turned-film, he attempts to strengthen the façade in which he’s laid upon the reality of love, only this time with much less fanfare and – lucky for us men – much less success.

Separated At Carving?

“Dear John” follows the story of John Tyree, played by Channing Tatum. It saddens me to say I’ve seen more than one film in my lifetime that starred Channing Tatum but luckily the other included the aforementioned “guns” and “explosions” that I adore so heavily softening the feeling of shame I have. Channing Tatum has the acting chops of an Easter Island statue and quite jealously the same jaw line. John, a member of the Army Special Forces falls in love with Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried) during a short leave. When called back to serve his country, the relationship is tested and unenthusiastic attempts are made to pull at your heart strings.

While a montage of seemingly endless love letters back and forth – equating mostly to “I miss you,” “I miss you more,” “No, I miss you more” – may bring about a plethora of emotions for some, but a two-week relationship that turns into a love so powerful it could withstand years apart is anything but believable to me. This fact, essentially crumbling the whole foundation upon which “Dear John” is built leaves all ancillary events meaningless.

Although not enough to win over this opponent of “Hollywood love,” “Dear John” did have a few redeeming qualities deep within it. John’s father, played excellently by Richard Jenkins (who I hardly recognized as the dad on “Stepbrothers”) brings an unexpected relationship that you actually care about to the table. That is, until Tatum’s glazed stare and dead face suck all attachment out of any situation. Another notable role is that of Tim, played by Henry Thomas, a friend of the family whose small yet meaningful role plays a huge part in adding depth to an otherwise cut-and-paste love story.

I’ll give partial credit to “Dear John” for attempting to give us a story much different than simply what the trailer hands to us, and while successful at doing so, failed to do it in a manner we care about. Aside from what I’m hoping I mistakenly saw as a jump cut (fancy film term), Lasse Hallström directs a film which isn’t better or worse than the majority of what we’ve seen in theatres. Sadly, this film is hindered by uninspired, passionless acting and a hollow story. “Dear John” offers enough to please the most sappy, romance craving movie goers but falls short of being the masterpiece Sparks delivered in “The Notebook” but hey… who needs two classics anyway?

–Matt Rayford

Let me preface this by saying that I truly believe that “The Notebook” is the best romantic film of our generation. I feel like the book by Nicholas Sparks and the movie based on it take us through a roller coaster romance that everyone secretly wishes they could experience. I was never hoping to find the same thing from “Dear John,” another movie based off of a Sparks novel. However, as I sat with a cup holder full of tissues, I was expecting to walk away with puffy eyes and a full heart.

First off, I can almost recommend any movie, sight unseen, that lets me stare at Channing Tatum’s half naked, wet body. His broad, freckled shoulders were almost enough to distract me from his lack of acting skill set. Tatum’s attempt to be serious often left him looking dumbfounded, but his fun-loving moments with Amanda Seyfried were undeniable. He should probably stick to throwing down some sweet dance moves in “Step Up” or being an action hero “G.I. Joe.”

Seyfried’s smile could charm almost anyone. It is unfortunate that she took a back seat in this film. Her voice does remain as an almost constant through the film as she narrates her “Dear John” letters, but it didn’t have the desired effect. Instead, they carried through long, dragged out Army scenes that seemed superfluous to the plot line.

The two supporting roles of the film, Henry Thomas as Seyfried’s neighbor and Richard Jenkins as Tatum’s father, were brilliant. Both characters had an immensity that lacked from the starring duo. It was almost more enjoyable to watch these men’s characters develop than Tatum’s or Seyfried’s.

All-in-all, I feel like this movie was a little mishandled. There seemed to be lulls between huge events, instead of a seamless, coherent story. Maybe after I read the book, I will better understand if this feeling of nothingness was by fault of Nicholas Sparks, director Lasse Hallström or screenwriter Jamie Linden. The teens who will flock to this film in search of another Romeo and Juliet film, I fear, will be left feeling a bit of the apathy that I fell now. I actually kind of feel like I need to watch “The Notebook” before I go to bed so I can get the tearjerker that I am still looking for.

–Amy Reeder

A TALE OF TWO TWILIGHTS
By: Amy Reeder and Matt Rayford

I knew going into this movie that I would be struck with the age old questions of original vs. sequel, book vs. movie and werewolf vs. vampire. Bella’s awkward tendencies (or maybe just Kristen Stewart’s tweaking) were immediately apparent in the first second of the first scene of “New Moon,” but maybe that’s why we fell in love with her in the first movie. How could us nerdy, avid book readers not rejoice at the fact that the socially awkward girl is the heroine and someone whom the entire town adores?

The screenplay followed the book rather closely. They did add in little ghostly Edwards as the voice in her head, but I would never complain that there is too much Rob Pattinson. If anything, it added to the film. “New Moon” suffered a bit from a lack of the uncomfortable chemistry of Bella and Edward, which was constrained by the original plot of the book. However, the decision to axe director Catherine Hardwicke was one of the best decisions of the “Twilight” producers (second only to choosing a beautiful cast). Chris Weitz, “New Moon” director, put an end to the jumpy, bipolar feel that Twilight possessed.

This film, as all of us Twi-hards know, was centered around the maturing relationship of Bella and Jacob. Unfortunately, Taylor Lautner’s acting has not much progressed since he filmed “Shark Boy and Lava Girl.” Fortunately, I was not forced to pay attention to that because his werewolf transformation, which rips off clothes in a style reminiscent to the Incredible Hulk, causing him to be shirtless.

All-in-all, I have loved this story since I broke the binding on the first book in the Twilight saga. While I may seem critical of the movie, I left the theater with a grin creeping across my face. The ending was perfect and although I’ve read the next book, it still left me hanging a bit. Just as a heads up, don’t expect to be serenaded by Rob Pattinson, or to see a clever representation of the book cover in this movie. To answer my immediate dilemmas; sequel, book, BOTH!

-Amy Reeder

“New Moon” sucks. I’d rather someone have taken a belt sander to my crotch for two hours than have watched that movie. “New Moon” is worse than getting swine flu on prom night. “New Moon” is worse than your wife cheating on you with some guy who plays arena football. Confused on my opinion of the movie? Well, it would only be gentlemanly of me to elaborate further.

Hey, remember the first “Twilight” movie? Just replace the main guy with the not main guy and, BOOM! Sequel!! You don’t even have to write a new script! Just change guys and our fan base will never notice a thing. If you haven’t seen the first one, remember that one episode of “Saved By The Bell” where Zach had a date with both Lisa and Kelly to prom and went through some wacky hijinks to eventually just find out what we knew all along, that he was always meant to be with Kelly. Well, that’s “New Moon!”

Too adolescent a review for you? Fine. The character progression is wildly rushed, despite having an entire first movie to launch from. The dialogue is cheesy, childish, and uninspired. The story is predictable, and flooded with repetition of the most simplistic ideas, such as “I have a secret…. But I’ll never tell…. OK, I’ll tell you.” The cinematography is pretentious, nauseating and even amateurish at points. The action scenes are reminiscent of the first time I ever saw wire work done in a movie, but significantly less impressive considering the decades of advancement made to the art. And finally, the ending, without giving anything away (as if you care), is almost on par with a daytime soap opera, except instead of waiting 23 hours for the story to continue, you wait a year.

If you’re on the fence and thinking about jumping on the Twilight bandwagon, do yourself a favor and apply a portion of your face on to a George Foreman Grill instead. If you’re already a Twilight fan, well…. It’s too late for you. Be passionate about your love and go steadfast into the world of lackluster mediocrity, careful to never look back, because if you do, we’ll be here. Laughing. Pointing. And most importantly, never wasting a second of our lives deciding if we’re more of a Team Edward or Team Jacob person because we’ll be too busy doing important things, like cleaning the dirt from under our fingernails with a ballpoint pen, or spacing out for an hour staring at a ceiling fan. In conclusion, “New Moon” sucks and on a scale of 22-39 I give “New Moon” a 22.5.

-Matt Rayford