I’ve been meaning to see this for a long time, when I finally did, I was pretty impressed. Not bad for a movie/show made after a video game.

So, who has played the games? Halo 1, 2, 3, ODST, Reach, anyone? Well, not that it might be going by the most recent edition to the halo games, Halo 4, but for the first time in about 10 yrs, we have finally got a movie made under not only a video game corporation, but a new one at that called, 343 Industries, not Bungi (Original Halo creators) surprising after all the years in gaining the public’s interest, but they finally put an end to their halo gaming and handed over Halo 4′s script to 343 Industries. At least Halo is still only playable on the xbox but no longer under Microsoft.  And now, not that it is related to this tv show, but there is to be 3 more Halo games, yay!

If you are like me, and might have heard about this by ear or word of mouth. If at all interested, It is on NETFLIX!

For the first half hour, I was left confused. Story line was a little confusing, but if you pay close attention to the very beginning where things are bleing explained, you find that the commander in chief is telling us a story based on his life when he had first met the master chief. The place where he and his troops were training was suddenly under attack as aliens started killing off human life and crash landing onto planet earth, this is then where Master Chief finds just 4-5 survivors left hiding in their training grounds. “You are the only survivors on this planet.”

The aliens we know of including hunters, and elites. Unfortunately, no grunts, are show in this “show”. I keep quoting show because it seems to be a movie to me, but I guess it was previously shown on tv.

With today’s technology, and great cinematography, the quality of the “show’s” special effects were pretty outstanding. Slow motion quality, graphic design, and costume are pretty good. A lot of slow motion with explosions and laser shootings. Acting is also good considering the budget of the show landing an $8,500,000 box office.

So I would say the show is worth watching. I enjoyed it, was in awe with how they made the aliens look and sound realistic and close to the video game’s effects. If you are a fan of Halo, do not fear, and do not judge, it is actually pretty decent.

Also, Master chief still does not show his face at the end. Something they still keep to the story.

  Three days ago, while strolling through the forest, a woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) discovers a woman’s hat strewn over a branch.  Ambling on, in motion to the non-diegetic drum beat, as bright sunlight cuts through the trees, he approaches a crime scene, and to his horror, it is the body of a murdered samurai.

  Prior to that, on the same day, a priest (Minoru Chiaki) was journeying along the road to Yamashina, and passed a veiled damsel upon a white horse, which was led by a very pleasant samurai, with sword and arrows at his side.  He surmises that “a human life is truly as frail and fleeting as the morning dew.”

  Two days prior, the well-known Tajomaru (Toshiro Mifune) was caught, and found in his possession were several arrows, “a leather bow, and a [white] horse.”  According to this notorious bandit, it was the stirring of the wind which caused him to trick the samurai and rape his wife.  But as luck would have it, he had “succeeded in having her without killing her husband,” because she encouraged him.  His original intent was to walk away, but she begged him, out of shame, to take her husband’s life, wherein both men fought valiantly, crossing swords “23 times.”

  An entirely different account of the ordeal is submitted by the samurai’s wife (Machiko Kyo).  The bandit forced her “to yield to him,” after mocking and humiliating her restrained husband.  After he strode away, cackling to himself, she embraced her husband and hurriedly attempted to release him, until his “cold light of loathing” unhinged her.

  Hypnotically swaying to and fro, his eyes followed every move, while she desperately tried to avoid the cold-hearted gaze, that contained “neither anger nor sorrow” from her beloved.  Becoming hysterical, she pleaded with her husband (Masayuki Mori) to beat her or kill her, but to not glare at her “like that,” until finally she demanded that he “stop!”

  A psychic medium was then brought forth on behalf of the dead husband, whereby his voice of pain testified from the grave, that Tajomaru suggested to his wife that they run off together.  Pointing back at her husband, while ”in a trance,” she responded “take me wherever you want [but] please kill him!”

Rashomon is Kyoto’s dilapidated city gate, and a temporary shelter for three men (a priest, a woodcutter, and a commoner), who sit around a warm fire during a torrential downpour.  While dissecting the recent events, truths are revealed and distortions ripped apart, with every piece of kindling, ripped from the city gate and thrown into the fire.

As the rain pours, different versions come flooding out.  The priest and woodcutter remain dumbfounded by the courthouse testimonies they recently witnessed, and re-tell the proceedings to the commoner, who nonchalantly claims “it’s human to lie.”

Rashomon is a tale of light and darkness, truth and lies, but the light and truth are subjective.  With diffused lighting at the gate, and hard light at the courthouse, faces curiously change, in the evasive light and shadow of the woods, under variable testimonies of the crime.

Kurosawa’s camera observes each point of view with variant discretion – the wife’s beauty is luminous when the bandit catches his first few glimpses of her, and likewise the priest has a favorable first impression of the samurai as they pass on the road, however once the bandit has accomplished his dire deed, the wife suddenly takes on a cheap disposition, and the husband a distinctly cruel look.

A truly unforgettable scene occurs during the wife’s flashback.  Beginning with an over-the-shoulder shot, the camera is choreographed to the wife’s highly dramatic (Kabuki style) movements, as she sways back and forth, trying desperately to avoid her husband’s betrayed, fixed glare.  Eventually coming full circle, in a 360 degree move, we too are suddenly subjected to the samurai’s loathsome glare, as the entire scene builds in drama, while the background repetitive musical score – not unlike Ravel’s Bolero - builds in crescendo.

A beautifully conceived and innovative film, “Man on Fire” reveals the beauty of filmmaking with all of the elements needed for an extraordinary exciting and substantive film, that keeps you enthralled in every moment of the film.

Much like Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” “Man on Fire” is a film I have never grown tired of watching.. It encompasses all the qualities that make for a very great film.

Written and directed by Tony Scott and staring Denzel Washington, the story takes us to the darkest parts of a mans soul and the beautiful spirit that makes us human being’s, and thus separates us from animals.

Taken from a novel by the same name from author A.J. Quinnell, Denzel Washington plays a depressed John Creasy who is a former C. I.A. agent seemingly disillusioned with life.

After some persuasion from a concerned friend Paul, (Christopher Walken) Creasy reluctantly takes a position as a bodyguard protecting a 9 year old Pita ( Dakota Fanning) in Mexico City.

Seemingly cold and not wanting to open his heart to anyone, he reluctantly opens his heart to Pita after her persistent attention and advice she seeks from him.

As his position keeps him close to her side, his relationship to her becomes more then just a job, but they also become close friends, as they learn and grow from each other and he comes to care about her and love her as if she was his own child and best friend. In doing so Pita slowly helps Creasy to come out of his shell and depression, and helps to breathe life into a man that had previously seemed despondent with life.

When Pita is kidnapped and later believed dead, Creasy goes on a rampage, seeking justice and revenge on those he feel is responsible for her kidnapping and death.

This films visual effects are nothing short of extraordinary with abnormal lighting and editing that uses tremor effects and overlays that keep you engulfed in the action and every part of this emotional and truly touching story. The tremor effects makes you feel the pulse and heart beat of the city, characters and story with every climax and turning point demanding your attention.

The extraordinary cinematography and editing make this film come to life in ways that are beyond imagination and unique to this film, with wide angle shots such as those of Mexico City, the scenery and its people, that seem to capture the soul of the city and its people. The cinematography and editing helps to breathe life into setting of Mexico City, its people and the character’s, and makes the audience feel their very sense of existence.

The tremor effects create a sense of importance and desperation while making the audience feel a sense of urgency at what is taking place on

The jump cuts help to breathe life into this film and truly makes the scenes, as well as the characters of Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning come alive.

This technique truly brings a sense of realism into this film that otherwise may not be there and truly captures your senses and your heart. With its innovative techniques, and creative storyline it is unlike any film I have seen before and well worth your attention, as it centers on love and devotion, and a mans relationship with God as he discovers himself and place in life, while also discovering his fate.

There is a makeover in this movie.  Alas, the movie makeover is a classic coming-of-age trope that so few can attempt and survive.  This one does.  How?  By ignoring it.

Strictly Ballroom, writer-director Baz Luhrmann’s directorial debut, is set in the madcap world of competitive ballroom dancing and is based on a hit play that he produced in the 1980’s.  As a result, the costumes are loud and wild enough to be seen in the back row of even the largest theater, though it’s questionable whether the makeup was as lavish when most of the audience didn’t have the advantage of the close-up.  The plot is almost unbelievably predictable: Scott Hastings (Paul Mercurio), a competitive ballroom dancer of indeterminate age still living at home and practicing at his parents’ dance studio, is tired of dancing “strictly ballroom,” the classic steps approved by the dance federation.  After going rogue at a competition, his partner leaves him, but gawky, inexperienced dancer Fran (Tara Morice) realizes that dancing and having fun are much more important than following the rules and winning the Pan Pacific Grand Prix.

As soon as Fran asks Scott to dance with her, the entire plot has been revealed.  You already know who gets the makeover.  You already know who wins.  Two of the many things that this movie does right, though, is that you’re right both times, except that you aren’t.  The makeover is simply gradual, resulting from Fran’s growing self-confidence at dancing, familial support, some vaguely referenced “apricot scrub” and “buff puff,” and, yes, more attractive clothes, but it’s handled very well; she’s poor, and her costume reflects that.  There’s one blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scene where she’s made up like the other girls, but it’s presented as ridiculous, and she returns to her normal, bare-faced persona

In short, Fran is different.  She’s not like those other girls – and Scott’s not like those other boys, who are presented as either drunk and distracted or focused on nothing but ballroom.  It’s a simple device, but it works –  Scott and Fran’s relative normalcy and Fran’s inexperience make them effective conduits for the audience.  The ridiculous costumes and makeup of most of the dancers, which involves face jewels, ruffled sleeves, sequins, fake tans and bleach-blonde hair, contrasts sharply with Scott and Fran’s normal costumes, which allows the audience to feel, along with their surrogates, removed from those ridiculous, often ego-maniacal  characters that fill out the minor cast.

It succeeds both as a ridiculous drama and all-out comedy; it’s predictable, but it’s funny and well-shot.  Further, it’s unusual; yes, once the goals have been set up, the conflicts are only requisite.  This is the type of movie where a happy ending is perfectly obvious from the inciting event, but it’s also the type of movie that actually manages to make you care about the characters; even in a world that has experienced Dancing with the Stars, the cutthroat world of ballroom dancing is still all but foreign to most of us, and it’s fascinating to watch characters who really, really care about something so frivolous and fun face and overcome perfunctory obstacles in a bright-colored world.  Alas, Mercurio’s acting isn’t perfect, but his expertise is dancing, not acting, and his performance is serviceable, as are all of the others.  The film’s strongest aspect, though, is those dance scenes; there aren’t many long takes or elaborate set pieces, but the cutting, music, and choreography all come together well, both aesthetically and as support to the plot; it’s worth it, though, just to laugh at those dancers.

 Post-war Italy, and Antonio Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani) is in the same predicament that many of his peers are in; he has struggled to find work for over a year, his new job hinges on the use of a bicycle, his bicycle is in hock, and his wife must pawn more of their belongings in order to reclaim it, or he’ll lose his job - one he desperately needs to support his proud family.

Young Bruno Ricci (Enzo Staiola) looks up to his “daddy,” and tries to be helpful in every way, even carefully cleaning the bicycle on the first day of work.  The sun is shining brightly, it’s a new beginning, and Antonio is off to work, hanging film posters of Rita Hayworth as Gilda, until a group of thieves carefully coordinate the theft of his bicycle.

After uselessly filing a complaint with the local authorities, Antonio enlists the help of his friends at the sanitation department, who set out together early the next morning, with Bruno, to search for the stolen bicycle, but the weather changes as quickly as Antonio’s hope, of ever retrieving his bicycle.

Dragging Bruno through town and the open market, Antonio is consumed with his search for the bicycle and less concerned for the safety of his son.  He accuses the wrong man, harasses another elderly man during Mass – ignoring the words of the Benediction to “send us guidance from within.”  He neglects Bruno, who grows increasingly frustrated, as he is harassed by a stranger, falls flat on his face in the rain, and is nearly hit by several cars, all during his father’s oblivion.  Ultimately a slap in the face (literally and figuratively) quickly separates him from love and devotion to his Papa.

Rejecting the counsel of a wise woman that “either you find it now, or you never will,” Antonio becomes desperate and soon has his eye fixed on an unattended bicycle - the father’s vulnerability soon becomes a lesson in compassion to his young son.

Post WWII Italy brought on the neorealist film movement, which often meant hiring non-professional actors, as in Maggiorani’s superb performance.  Other elements included modest funding, on-location shooting, and use of natural lighting.  The availability of lower grade film stock only added to the documentary style, and offered a feeling of immediacy.  These films contained simplistic plots about the everyday, working class, with low-key dialogue, that requires a keen ear for the hidden gems.

With subtle themes of the father-son, man and God relationship, Antonio is tested in character, but never abandoned.  The Bicycle Thief (a.k.a. Bicycle Thieves), won numerous awards including an Honorary Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

Hearing a distant voice yell “help, a boy is drowning,” Antonio becomes panic-stricken, and runs toward the river, yelling “Bruno, Bruno, Bruno!”  Momentarily thinking of his son, a close up on Antonio’s face shows his furrowed brow relaxing, and looking around, he gazes upward.  An extreme long shot reveals helpless little Bruno, in the distance, sitting at the top of the steps, waiting patiently for his Papa.

Did you ever see the original living dead film? If not, I suggest seeing that one instead. The “remake” of it was not entirely a disappointment, but it was not the greatest remake either. In other words, if you want to see a horror film that takes place in a cabin placed somewhere in the middle of the woods, then I would suggest you try watching, “Cabin in the Woods.” That movie, to me, was a pretty good movie. This movie was not as funny as the original make, but it was gory and some of the things they say and do are just plain dumb when it comes to how one would act in the real world.

The movie is not the worst, it definitely made me cover my eyes during a couple scenes. With today’s advanced technology for special effects, visual aids and sound effects, I was spooked. Things definitely appeared more realistic and creepy.

The very end of the film made me furrow my eyebrows. Though I do not wish to give it away, I will only point out and ask, of all things, why bury alive, then use a car battery to bring back someone? In my eyes, I thought that direction was stupid, but then again, it was only a movie. I may just buy this movie for the hell of it.

I think the very, very beginning was just fantastic. We are all confused as to who is the crazy one, the girl about to be burnt alive, or her family? You will see what I mean, when the hiccup in change comes into course.

So yes, if you don’t mind gore, scary demon/zombie humans using high speed nail guns, crazy sound effects such as, cutting the face off/arm off, neck cracking, then I am sure you won’t mind this film. There are brief parts where it is worth laughing out loud to. So keep that in mind ;)  Also, the movie is less than 2 hrs. And who isnt a fan of Jane Levy?

  During war time, a city may be declared open by the current government, in order to avoid further bombing and devastation.  Rome Open City takes place in Rome, at a pivotal time during WWII.  With the Nazi Party and Italian Fascists still running the city, evidence of the impending Americans and Allied Forces are clearly visible amongst debris of bombed out buildings.

Pina (Anna Magnani) is pregnant, unwed, and mother to a young boy named Marcello (Vito Annicchiarico), who secretly plants and ignites bombs with other friends to aid the Italian Resistance.  Francesco (Francesco Grandjacquet) is Pina’s fiancé, and a member of the  Resistance, and although he’s not religious, Francesco has agreed to be married in The Church by Pina’s priest Don Pietro (Aldo Fabrizi), who also happens to work underground with the Resistance.

Giorgio (Marcello Pagliero) is Francesco’s Communist friend, and an important leader in the Resistance.  He’s wanted by the Gestapo, and his lover Marina (Maria Michi), is an addict, who’s enticed by the Nazi’s to betray her confidences for profit.

In the midst of rubble, poverty, hunger and hopelessness, the citizens rely on hope, generosity of others, and daily rations.  Being allotted only 4 ounces a day, the local women and children storm a bakery, and come away with their bags full of panino, while an Italian sergeant, hungry himself, looks the other way, yet Pina generously shares a couple of loaves with him.

While walking home with Don Pietro, Pina admits she has led a “bad life,” and tells Don Pietro he could “never understand,” and while we the audience, are privy to Don Pietro’s underground work, Pina is not – Don Pietro replies “we have so much to be forgiven for.”

Two years into the invasion with no end in sight, Pina confides to Francesco that sometimes she “just can’t go on.”  Francesco comforts her, saying ”the road will be long and hard…but we’ll see a better world, and our children especially will see it, that’s why you mustn’t ever be afraid.”  Hopelessly thinking of her young son, and the second child on the way, Pina replies “si, Francesco, [tears welling up in her eyes] but I’m never afraid.”

Rome Open City led to the dawning of a new film movement known as Italian Neorealism (or new realism), with themes that surrounded realistic social issues of the lower working class, structured by post-war trauma, and based heavily on emotions with little to no moral judgments made.  This involved heavy use of on-location shooting, and lower grade film stock, which offered an immediacy to the look and feel of the film, and was due in part to a lack of proper funding or available supplies.

With a vague plot line and simplistic shooting style (or style-less), the subtle messages speak of the endurance of the next generation.  The depth of the film may truly be found in what is said, rather than how much is said, while the focus is placed on the subtle (or natural) acting style – a film lover cannot walk away from this film without falling in love with Anna Magnani’s low-key, heartfelt sincerity.

Rome Open City won several international awards, and was nominated for an Academy Award in Best Writing, and must be viewed twice to fully appreciate.

The first film from the Lumière brothers was a documentary, La Sortie de l’Usine Lumière à Lyon (1895). Less than a minute long, it’s exactly as the title describes it (in English, The Exit from the Lumière Factory in Lyon). More recently, audiences have been treated to such films as Bag It! and Super Size Me, films that record reality, but with a clear opinion: these films have an agenda in a way that those early Lumière films refreshingly lack.

Thomas Balmès documentary Babies has created a similarly real film. About twenty minutes are spent documenting the lives of four babies from different parts of the world: San Fransisco, Namibia, Mongolia, and Japan. There is no overt commentary and only sporadic music; parents speak various languages, but never directly to the camera, and no attempts are made at subtitles or translation, Babies offers viewers cinéma verité at its finest.

Of course, despite the film’s loveliness, there is no thesis except for the obvious one: babies, regardless of where they grow up, do the same things. They do, but very little parallel editing is employed. Each of the babies is cared for by their parents, plays with toys or not, and interacts with animals and their environments. Like a filmic rendition of one of Raina Matar’s photo-essays on children and their bedrooms but for babies, the film features no introduction of the parents, and their faces are rarely shown. Some snippets of dialog are heard in the four languages of the various babies’ parents, but no subtitles are offered; it really is simply about looking at babies and seeing a world as they might.

This is key to the movie’s appeal; the camera is specifically on the babies, at their eye level, rather than the eye level of their adult caregivers.

It certainly sounds like a shallow concept, and none of the Lumière brothers films’ were more than a minute long. Director Thomas Balmès wisely keeps his running time short as well; the film clocks in at 79 minutes, ending with a Skype update from each of the featured children, who, presumably after post-production is completed, are happily functioning children. This isn’t to say that the concept wears thin; it doesn’t, and in a world where one could watch millions of two-minute Youtube videos of other babies, this well-produced and extended peek into four specific lives is a welcome example of a long-form documentary that doesn’t need more than its fascinating subject matter to thrive.

It is worth noting that 1997’s Bean (Mel Smith) is based on the 14-episode British television series that is, surprisingly, remarkably funny. The show essentially consists of a character named Mr. Bean (Rowan Atkinson) doing stupid things. For instance, he once spent hours taking a test he was unqualified for, only to realize in the final moments that he had come to the right place at the right time and simply taken the wrong test, which is much funnier when helped by his insistently rubber face. There is no long-term plot to the Mr. Beantelevision show.   Mr. Bean shows up, does something asinine, and goes away.

In this somewhat funny first movie adaptation of the television series, Mr. Bean succeeds in getting a few asinine actions onto the screen, but could have done much better. The climax is, as it should be, rightly hilarious, as are several other well-done scenes in the film. However, everything good about this movie suggests that it should have been, as its much better sequel Mr. Bean’s Holiday (Steve Bendelack 2007), is, a super-sized episode of Mr. Bean.

The attempts at plot are relatively feeble: Mr. Bean is hired by the head of London’s Royal National Gallery for no reason, and his job is literally to “sit and look at paintings.” When a gallery in Los Angeles needs a speaker for the unveiling of Whistler’s Mother, the gallery board votes to send Mr. Bean because they hate him for reasons unknown. Once there, he disturbs his host family, the Langleys, but they ultimately love him because he is Mr. Bean.

The trouble is that there is far too much of the Langelys for the movie’s own apparent comic intentions. They serve as a crew of “straight” characters, ostensibly from the viewer’s world, to prove just how crazy Mr. Bean is. However, it is so patently obvious that his best scenes here, as in the sequel, take place when he is alone and silent that the “others”simply steal screen time in their attempts at misplaced drama.

In the kind of broad, silent comedy at which Atkinson excels, plot doesn’t matter. It can and should be strange and weird – the roots the film places here in reality throw it off far more than would setting it on the face of the moon from Le Voyage dans la Lune. The actors, especially Peter MacNicol, who plays David Langely, seem aware that this movie might be bad but do nothing to save it.

One exception is Sandra Oh, the gallery’s HR representative who viewers may recognize from Grey’s Anatomy. With platinum blonde streaking her black hair, she manages to be as ridiculous as the film requires of her while remaining, as a supporting actress should, in the background.

Rowan Atkinson has made four films that stand out from his filmography as uniquely his own: Bean and Johnny English (Peter Howitt 2003) and their respective sequels Mr. Bean’s Holiday and Johnny English Reborn (Oliver Parker 2011). Judged against the four, Bean is better than Reborn, but the two have common characteristics. Neither are as funny as their source material, and both talk too much for their own good.

One thing the film does right is the sets: the completely whimsical Grierson Art Gallery and the Langelys’ house are perfect for the film that could have been and delightful for the film that was. Interiors are designed with gags in mind, as they should be – plain, but definitely effective.
Overall, this film does not reach the heights of which Rowan Atkinson is certainly capable. Never quite reaching cruising altitude, it does get off the ground in the best scenes of slapstick. With more of them and better acting, it could soar, but the joyful sense of fun that permeates it will always keep Bean from being a bore.

The film “Wanderlust” (2012) directed by David Wain is a comedy gem that never got the true credibility it deserved. It is a very simple movie, starring Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston, with a premise that is not very promising in the beginning stages of the film. However, when I gave the film a chance, it really had strokes of comedy genius layered throughout in the screenplay written by David Wain and Ken Marino. I am not surprised that Judd Apatow decided to produce this movie, since it is full of laughs and conveys a great message about the trials and tribulations of marriage.

The first scene of the film draws you in when the two main characters George Gergenblatt (Paul Rudd), and Linda Gergenblatt (Jennifer Aniston), share two different opinions on buying a tiny studio apartment in New York City. George eventually caves into Linda’s passion for moving into the city, and they start their new life in the one room apartment. From there, things quickly go sour when George loses his job, and HBO doesn’t pick up the documentary Linda has been working on. They find they can no longer afford the apartment and are forced to go down south to temporarily live with George’s financially stable pompous older brother. During the road trip they stop at a bed and breakfast for one night, which turns out to be a commune full of very free living hippies. Their experience staying at the commune ends up changing their whole outlook on how they view life. After they leave and end up at George’s brother’s house, an almost immediate fall out occurs between the two siblings. This then causes George and his wife to go back to the commune where the story finally takes off. Once they start their new lives, they both get to know a number of wacky yet happy people, and the couple is faced with a lot of different challenges as they find out more about themselves.

At certain points I felt like the film had a tough time balancing out when to stay funny and when to be serious enough so it still held emotional weight. It is undoubtedly a tough balance to find with romantic comedies. “Wanderlust” still managed to have an array of great jokes, and remained emotionally fulfilling. With that said, the comedy aspect of the movie was much more powerful than the emotional aspect, therefore it would have been nice if the film kept it more comedy oriented and did not try and tackle too much on the emotion side of things. I found the acting to be very fitting, considering I am a big fan of Paul Rudd, as well as Jennifer Aniston. Also, the movie had some notable cameos such as Key and Peele from the Comedy Central sketch television show, and Jo Lo Truglio the actor that can be seen in many of the other Apatow Productions. It was done very simplistic as far the directing and the structure of the story, which was perfect considering the film should not have taken itself overly serious based the content it displayed.

In the past few years’ the majority of comedy films that have come out have not been overly ambitious or entertaining. This stigma is untrue when it comes to “Wanderlust”, since this movie had me laughing from the beginning to the end. It is very similar in style to some of Judd Apatow’s films such as “The 40 Year Old Virgin” (2005), or “Knocked Up” (2007), in that it is packed with tons of laughs but it has its sentimental moments. The major difference between this movie and a typical Apatow film is that this film is much more goofy. Meaning, the premise and the jokes in the film are written to be funny in an unrealistic and dumbed down in a way so that you cannot take the story too seriously. Which works fine for the style of this film since it is a comedy, and it did its objective of making the audience laugh. Overall, I thought “Wanderlust” was a great film that did not receive its rightful justification for being as funny as it was, and it is underrated in the world of recent comedies.