Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

After years of anticipation and excitement, it is finally the beginning of the end.  Since the release of the first book in 1997, people have been absolutely enthralled with Harry Potter and for good reason.  With the first of eight movies being released in 2001, part one of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released last week and has already accumulated $125.0M (Over $100M higher than the runner up, Megamind).  Just as a refresher, or for those who haven't seen the movies or read the books, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is placed just shortly after the death of Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) on their quest to vanquish Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) once and for all.  After having seen the sixth movie last summer, I was skeptical as to whether or not this movie would do the book justice.  When I found out they were splitting it into two parts, I was somewhat relieved; a great downfall of the sixth movie was that it cut out moments of great importance and didn't seem to really do The Half-Blood Prince justice.  However, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 was pleasantly surprising and left me in anticipation for the coming of the conclusion that is Harry Potter.

One clear improvement from the movie released last year is that they gave themselves room to really touch on all of the important details.  Certain details are still shut out and others are even ignored, but the movie really manages to touch each and every important moment and only skips over less important aspects of the movie.  What is even more impressive is that the movie manages to fill out the two and a half hour time block while seemingly nothing is going on.  For those that have read the book, the entire first half is essentially comprised of major events separated by long spans of time where the three main characters are trying to figure out what their next move is.  The same feeling translates into the movie, but not at any point in time do you feel that the movie is dragging its feet.  The movie successfully fills up the time slot and ends at a point which will not only fuel viewers anticipation, but may also be a surprising stopping point to readers.

While the movie still falls short with certain character interactions (such as that between Harry and Ginny) and doesn't utilize some of their stronger actors as much as one would hope (Bill Nighy and Alan Rickman among them), it finally makes that turn from a kid's movie to a more adult drama.  In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince there was a large amount of opportunity to make this turn and even have viewers on the edge of their seat in fear.  However, it seemed as though they tried to compensate the feeling of fear with awkward teen interaction and fluffy love triangles.  What Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1 finds strength in is that it knows when and how to make you feel sad/fearful/anxious/etc.  The depressing moments are sad and don't turn the corner with a quick one liner;the genuine moments make you feel the trio's friendship; and most importantly, the frightening moments have such a large scale and truly dark mood that they create scenes wrought with tension. 

Other standout points in the movie are the special effects and the cinematography.  The special effects have really taken a large leap and blend into the world almost seamlessly, and while you know some of the creatures and scenes are merely CGI, at times it's hard to pry yourself away from fantasy.  Never before have I been able to say anything about cinematography with any of the Harry Potter movies, but for this one, certain shots and angle make you notice how great the direction is.  The acting is still nothing above and beyond what it should be for a Harry Potter movie, but outside of Radcliffe's grimacing, you can tell that the primary acting cast is finally starting to fill out their adult shoes.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a huge improvement from the let down last year.  It manages to transform into more of a drama while still keeping true to its fans.  It touches on just enough from the book to make readers feel as though they weren't cheated.  The special effects and directions are much better than in past films and the film was truly a joy to watch.  Without question, the whole world will be eagerly anticipating July 15, 2011 when Harry Potter finally comes to a close.

Fallout: New Vegas

Alright, I've been meaning to get this review up for a while, but Fallout: New Vegas is a big ol' game and I had to get a good amount of hours in on it before I felt qualified to write a review on it.  Fallout: New Vegas is the newest RPG released from Obsidian Entertainment, a followup to their 2008 hit, Fallout 3, although not a direct sequel.  For those that aren't familiar with the Fallout series, the game places you in post-apocalyptic America.  In Fallout 3 you were placed in Washington D.C. and various expansion packs sent you to Pittsburgh and even space.  As you can probably guess New Vegas places you in Vegas.  More specifically, you'll spend more time wandering around the Mojave Desert and using New Vegas as a hub where you'll receive a large portion of your missions.  The story is very different from that of Fallout 3 and places you in the shoes of a courier who was shot and killed for the package he was carrying.  Luckily, a robot named Victor saves you and takes you to a doctor in order to fix you up.  The first portion of the game is played trying to get revenge on Benny (voiced by Matthew Perry), the man that killed you and took your package, the platinum chip.  As you progress, you find out that the platinum chip is very valuable to several people and you are placed in a situation where you can take about three or four different paths, all of which will have different consequences, story lines, and endings.

The graphics of New Vegas aren't anything different from Fallout 3.  The graphics are essentially recycled, although certain textures and environments seem a bit sharper than in the game's predecessor.  The setting of New Vegas is enormous and will give you plenty of things to discover and lots of time to roam around.  New Vegas, in particular, is a strong contrast from any city in Fallout 3 in that it is heavily populated and booming with prostitutes, gamblers, and belligerent drunks.  While New Vegas is a lot of fun, it could be a lot more free flowing.  The city is divided into various segments and large buildings which makes for a lot of loading times while wandering around New Vegas.  Outside of that, however, there are little to no loading times across the Mojave Desert, save for when you enter a building.  On a similar note, the loading times are pretty reasonable and are never excruciatingly long, which is surprising for how much needs to be loaded in the game's massive environment. 

The story line of New Vegas doesn't relate you to your character as much as Fallout 3 did, but tosses in a new element that Fallout 3 didn't have.  The route you took in Fallout 3 was pretty straight forward and not until the very end did you really have a choice to stray from that path.  In New Vegas, almost immediately you have to choose between three different factions to side with or to just rebel on your own as a vigilante.  This not only makes the story more engaging, but makes it unpredictable.  Another new factor in New Vegas is the various factions that you can either side with or rebel against.  This makes the game more engaging, giving you the option to manipulate certain groups while working with others, gaining favor with some for protection, or even getting everyone to side with you only to turn on them in the end.  This factors into the main storyline with the three biggest factions: Caesar's Legion, the NCR, and Mr. House.  Playing these factions against one another is difficult, but can make for a very independent and unique storyline. 

Possibly the most interesting aspect of New Vegas is hardcore mode.  As would be expected from venturing across the Mojave Desert, one needs to stay well hydrated and have a constant supply of food as well as necessary rest.  What hardcore mode does is make it so that you have to drink water, you have to eat, and  you have to sleep.  In Fallout 3, the only time you had to eat was if you needed some health; you drank water if you needed health; you slept if  you needed health and were near a bed.  In New Vegas, you have to drink water or else you'll suffer from dehydration sickness; you have to eat otherwise you may die of starvation; you have to sleep or you'll be sleep deprived and, yes, all of these things will affect your character gradually from moving slowly, limping, or even losing strength.  Other factors play into hardcore more such as ammunition has weight to it, stimpaks and food heal over time (as opposed to instantly), and you can only be fully healed and fully rested if you sleep in your own bed.  Hardcore mode definitely makes the game more difficult and makes you monitor your actions and well-being more closely than before.

One large complaint among critics, however, has been the mass amount of bugs and glitches in the game.  I will agree that New Vegas does have its fair amount of bugs and glitches, but I commend Obsidian for coming out with patches within days of the game's release.  However, even though updates have been put out, I still experience a glitch every now and again.  Now, I'm not talking about your simple AI character getting stuck in a wall glitch; let me give you an example.  At one point I went to my Pip-Boy (which is an in-game device on your wrist for those that aren't familiar) and exited only to find myself flung twenty feet in the air.  Another time, I was shooting at a mole rat at the bottom of a hill and suddenly saw it flying in the sky.  Needless to say, with a game that is so expansive and leaves a lot of decision to the player, there are bound to be some bugs.  However, for so many bugs to be present in the game at the date of release is somewhat unforgivable. 

Looking past the little bugs, Fallout New Vegas is a fantastic game.  While it does recycle a lot from Fallout 3 in terms of graphics, it is by no means Fallout 3.5.  New Vegas is a game entirely in and of itself.  The unique storyline allows players to choose their own adventure with an incredible amount of flexibility.  The game play is as fun as ever with the continuance of various guns, VATS, and followers (some make a reappearance from Fallout 3 and those familiar with Dogmeat will enjoy the robotic dog Rex in New Vegas).  New Vegas has an expansive environment that will please those who played Fallout 3 and will guarantee several hours of game time (I've already racked up 15 and I'm no where near finishing the main storyline).  Newcomers should definitely give New Vegas a shot if they've never picked up a Fallout game.  Various improvements are made from Fallout 3 while still maintaining the same level of fun and enjoyment.  Other perks in New Vegas include a great soundtrack with artists such as Dean Martin, Bing Crosby, and Nat King Cole making an appearance.  The list of voice actors is expansive as well including Matthew Perry as Benny, Ron Pearlman (who has been a narrator for most of the franchise's existence), William Sandler as Victor, and Wayne Newton as the radio host Mr. New Vegas.  Fallout: New Vegas may have its flaws, but they pale in comparison to the expansiveness and versatility of the overall game.  Fallout: New Vegas is definitely a game any RPG fan should pick up and should be a game that everyone should at least try.  It holds true to the Fallout feeling, but separates itself from Fallout 3 as a spectacular game in and of itself with unique environments, characters, and storyline.  Thanks for reading and check back for reviews on Call of Duty: Black Ops and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood in the coming weeks.

Review: The Social Network

I've been meaning to review this for a while but haven't had time, so here's my review of The Social Network.

Consider, for a moment, the first time you ever logged onto a social networking website. What thoughts crossed your mind, entering that sphere of information, so vast yet so deeply personal? Who told you to join? Why did you do it? What parts of yourself did you put into that system, trusting that its unseen makers would connect your virtual being to thousands of others like you?

These are some of the many questions raised by David Fincher’s astounding new film, The Social Network. The movie follows Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) through the process of creating and founding the social giant known as Facebook. It is created in the style that Fincher has made all his own, drawing on the best parts of his best films (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac). It is unremitting in its movement, churning forward through its 120 minutes with lightning speed and mechanical precision. The film, unlike many of Fincher’s previous works, is immune to spoilers, because though a great deal happens, it all moves towards an inevitable conclusion. There is no great payoff here, no last-minute twist. Though Fincher showed in Se7en and Fight Club that he is more than capable of executing these tropes, The Social Network finds him at his most mature, working with restraint instead of shock and spectacle.

The Facebook story is well known enough: Zuckerberg, a brilliant Harvard student, creates a social networking engine in his spare time that comes to be a billion-dollar entity. Along the way, questions arise concerning whether or not Zuckerberg stole his idea, specifically from the Winklevoss twins, two wealthy Harvard rowers who are just perfect enough to be creepy. The film smoothly entwines the story of the past with that of the present, where Zuckerberg faces two separate lawsuits over the origin of the Facebook concept.

Such a story might seem more history than drama, but screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has managed to create a script that his so engrossing that one will barely notice that two hours have passed between the film’s credit sequences. His dialogue is harsh, witty, and arrogant, and is delivered expertly by Eisenberg and his costars, most notably Andrew Garfield, who plays Zuckerberg’s best friend and colleague. His character is at once a sympathetic victim and a helpless obstacle, frustrating in his ignorance of Zuckerberg’s workings.

Technically, The Social Network is nothing short of a masterpiece. Every aspect is polished and seamless, woven with unmatched attention and lucidity. One scene in particular, a beautifully photographed rowing race, captures a sequence of speed and brute force in elegant detail, and is matched perfectly by the film’s excellent score. The music, composed and recorded by Trent Reznor of the industrial outfit Nine Inch Nails, is uncanny in its sonic representation of Fincher’s themes, meticulous and technologically innovative throughout.

Though the film is extremely well-crafted as a whole, its most notable achievement lies in its ability to capture what social networking is really all about. The concept originally relied on its exclusivity, drawing users only through others who already had access to the site, and then only if one had an email address from a member college. Eventually, Facebook became open to everyone, but its allure remains. It is exciting, it is cool, and everyone wants to be a part of it. Therein lies the paradox of social networking: despite its hipness, something lingers under the surface that is somehow vulgar, ugly, ominous. We join the networks and control our appearance there, but in truth, we allow them to access our lives, to penetrate those secrets and desires which we ourselves sometimes do not recognize. In the end, though, we are all too willing to continue. In today’s world, after all, what choice do we have?

Due Date (2010)

 Released just this past Friday, November 5th, 2010, Due Date pairs Iron Man's Robert Downey Jr. with The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis for a trip across the country.  Robert Downey Jr. plays Peter Highman, an architect working on a project in Atlanta who is about to fly home to L.A. just before his wife gives birth to his first child.  On his way to the airport, a reckless driver smashes the door to his chauffeur's car right off its hinges and out steps Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis).  From the very moment they meet and switch bags, Tremblay does everything possible to rub Highman the wrong way.  After being put on the no flight list, Highman must figure out a way to get home to his wife and, having left his wallet on the now airborne plane, has no choice but to embark on a cross country road trip with Tremblay.  The entirity of the movie circles around the odd couple sort of interactions between Downey Jr. and Galifianakis.  Galifianakis relies on a dead pan, inappropriate, almost demented humor at times, which is quickly juxtaposed against Downey Jr.'s more harsh, blunt comedic delivery.  Galifianakis' most funny moments come with his inappropriate laughter and through Ethan Tremblay's atrocious acting skills of which his favorite line seems to be "What are you, a girl or something?"  Downey Jr.'s more funny moments, however, come when he is "seeing red" and tearing Tremblay a new or, my favorite, when he hits a child and says, "Play cool or I'll thump you again."

The comedic duo seems to play off each other relatively well throughout the entire movie, but never really seem to click as a dynamic all that often.  Rather, they play as two separate entities with their own individual moments.  However, one particular strength of the film is its unexpected sentimental moments.  Throughout the movie, Galifianakis mourns over the recent death of his father, and at times it is incredibly heart wrenching.  These moments are often broken up with quick one liners, such as Tremblay saying "Dad, you were like a father to me," but more often then not they linger around to really make the audience feel something.  There are some great shocker moments as well, as can be expected with Galifianakis.  Downey Jr. brings a bit of class to the movie, but also counteracts the ignorant, well intentioned Galifianakis incredibly well by being almost the exact opposite: intelligent, blunt, and impatient.  Other cameos in the movie make the movie more enjoyable such as the brief appearance of Jamie Foxx, Juliette Lewis, Danny McBride, and Matt Walsh.

While Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis manage to make an interesting duo they don't really accomplish anything that any other odd couple type of movie hasn't.  They can, however, be placed on par with other favorite odd couple movies released this year such as Dinner For Schmucks and The Other Guys.  There are definitely some wow moments and to see the relationship between the two protagonists develop is both entertaining and heart warming.  I would recommend going to see Due Date in theaters, but if you want to wait for it to come out on DVD/Bluray, I wouldn't hold it against you.  Without doubt, though, you should see it.  No?  "What are you, a girl or something?"

Dead Rising 2

To further increase not only my posts for the month of October, but to further talk about Halloween related things, I thought I would write a review for Dead Rising 2 released by Capcom late last month.  Dead Rising 2 places you in the role of Chuck Greene, a single father whose daughter, Katy, was bitten by her zombified mother and became infected.  In order to keep her from turning, he must continually give her a shot of Zombrex every twenty four hours at the same time everyday.  To earn the money he needs to afford the Zombrex, Chuck participates in a zombie killing related game show called Terror is Reality.  Shortly after you take part in one of these games, the zombies break out and the zombie plague starts all over again.  Chuck and various others lock themselves in the boiling room underneath a large casino/mall area in Fortune City and must wait three days for help to arrive.  Shortly after, Chuck sees a new report pinning him as the scapegoat for allowing the zombie outbreak to occur.The gameplay resolves around this time frame during which Chuck must try to clear his name, find survivors, obtain Zombrex for Katy, and, most importantly, kill lots and lots of zombies. 

The gameplay is pretty much the same as the original Dead Rising released in 2006, however, there have been several adjustments and changes to improve and make Dead Rising 2 more enjoyable.  In Dead Rising there were two major complaints: the first was that the save system was terrible and the second was the way it was formatted.  The latter of the two issues I'll address first, seeing as how it wasn't the biggest issue, it was more of an issue for me.  Dead Rising was formatted strictly for an HDTV.  Nowadays, that wouldn't be a problem for me, but when I originally played the game, I was using a tube TV.  The way it was formatted was like watching a movie in widescreen on a standard definition television.  What this resulted in was all the in game text being incredibly blurry and small.  Most of the time this wouldn't be a problem, but, save for cut scenes, every character talks through text in the story.  That wasn't a problem for most people, but was a huge inconvenience for me.  On to the bigger issue, the save system.  Save points were few and far between, not to mention the enemies were in the hundreds between every area.  Save points, while still some what inconveniently placed, are much greater in number in the second game.

Various other improvements make the game more enjoyable, such as the combat and weapon customization.  The combat is smoother and less glitch ridden than in the first, making sure that you actually hit the zombie you're trying to hit.  The weapon customization is by far the greatest improvement, allowing you to find various "Combo Cards" throughout the game and use them to make unique weapons.  These weapons can range from a canoe paddle with chain saws on each end to a spiked baseball bat or from a light saber to an electrified wheel chair.  The benefit of making and using these weapons is two fold: first off they do more damage and secondly they earn you more points for every zombie you kill.  This is helpful because the more points you earn the quicker you will level up.  As you level up, Chuck's skills increase and every-so-often you're rewarded with a new combo card.

Another improvement on the game is the multitude of bosses.  While there isn't much variance among them in terms of fighting style, they provide another enemy to prove more difficult than the endless horde of zombies.  The bosses are called psychos and are surviving humans who have lost their minds and decided to torture any other survivors they come across.  The psychos range from a former contestant of Terror is Reality, a peace protester, a nut job chef, and a child's toy mascot.  Unfortunately, the bosses prove to be relatively difficult; unless you know what you're doing in the game, have the right weapons and the right foods/drinks, and have saved recently, the psychos can be incredibly, almost unnecessarily difficult.  If you get killed during the fight, you have to start over from when you last saved, another inconvenience if you hadn't planned on fighting a psycho.  Fortunately, to avoid this problem, the player can stock up on various weapons and food/drink to prepare themselves.  A problem that was more annoying, but gradually got better as time progressed, was the loading times.  Every time you go into a new major area (outside, to a new casino, the safe house, etc.) and whenever a cut scene starts or ends, there is an unreasonably long loading time.  This is particularly annoying when you first start playing, but eventually you get used to it.  However, the loading times that occur both before and after the cut scenes are annoying throughout the entire game.

Overall, Dead Rising 2 really manages to improve on the problems of the original Dead Rising and tosses in a few extras to make it even more fun.  The game is exciting as well as comical (you can dress Chuck in anything from an Elvis outfit to his underwear or, my personal favorite,  a tuxedo and a coon skin hat), and is sure to provide for hours of fun.  On top of that, a second play through is almost a must.  To follow the story on the first play through would be difficult and what many have recommended is to spend one play through just killing zombies and saving survivors and then play a second time through actually following the story line.  This isn't what I did in particular, but it would make the story play through a lot easier.  The multi-player also adds a fun element, allowing you to either compete against other players in Terror is Reality competitions and earn money for your in game character, or play through the campaign in co-op.  While certain aspects of the game are annoying, such as the load times and the save system, and it isn't the most enticing game, it is a lot of fun to run around and kill zombies in the most creative way possible.  I would recommend maybe renting or playing this at a friend's place before buying it to see if you like it, but I can definitely say that once I was done, I had put in almost fifteen hours of play time, a lot more than I had anticipated.  If you've played it (or when you do), let me know what you think of it in the comments.  Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Halloween Movie Suggestions

I refuse to let October be a month of nothingness!  In saying that and with it being the last day of October, I thought I would talk about something Halloween-y.  I thought I could suggest some horror movies, both new and old, for you to enjoy on your Halloween, especially considering that this year it's on a Sunday, so some people might want to stay in.

First, let's start with the newer movies.  Metacritic recently wrote an article about the "Best Horror Movies Since 2000."  Now, while I don't entirely agree with some of the movies on the list (such as Sweeney Todd, Shaun of the Dead, and Zombie Land; not that these aren't good movies, but I think they're more of a horror hybrid than a true horror movie), overall, the list has some strong movies, some of which I have seen and others that I've been meaning to.  At the top of the list is "Drag Me to Hell" (2009) which received surprisingly high reviews for a horror movie, averaging an overall score of 83.  I actually had the opportunity to watch this last night and found it interesting to say the least.  The back story is stronger than most horror movies and it really manages to surpass your typical scary movie that just pops things out at you accompanied by loud noise. Some parts of the movie are gimmicky, but it's hard to tell whether or not that's because its cheesy or because some parts of the movie are seemingly so disgusting that you trick yourself into laughing at them (just imagine an old woman gnawing on your face with her gums all while spewing phlegm on you).  While the ending may be predictable to some, it's quite the interesting twist and should please audiences of the genre.

Another movie I would strongly suggest seeing that is still in theaters is "Let Me In" (2010).  This movie, starring, Chloe Moretz, an up and coming child actress from movies such as "(500) Days of Summer" and "Kick Ass!," is a remake of the already popular Swedish film "Let the Right One In" made in 2008.  Why I suggest this is not because it has been receiving rave reviews (averaging an overall score of 79 from critics and an 83 from viewers), but because it seems as though it's a true vampire movie.  In the past few years, the Vampire phenomenon has been bogged down by Twilight, which sparked a frenzy of other cheesy vampire movies and books, where vampires would rather make you swoon and kiss you than suck your blood and kill you.  While I haven't seen this film yet, it's definitely at the top of my list of movies to see.

Now, onto the older movies.  Since I was young, I have always been a fan of horror movies, in particular the "A Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise.  The fascination began when I saw a showing of "Leprechaun" (1993) on basic cable at my dad's house when I was about eight.  After that I decided I loved horror movies and Freddy Kreuger was my go to guy for a good scare.  With that being said, I would recommend watching the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984) (although the movie poster is atrocious).  Along with the time frame, while in my opinion not as good as "A Nightmare on Elm Street," some other classics that came out around this time are "Halloween" (1978) and "Friday the 13th" (1980).  I still have to watch "Halloween," but having watched "Friday the 13th," while some of the death scenes are laughable, the overall story is a classic, the ending is incredible, and is a horror movie everyone should watch at some point in time.  On another, yet similar, note each of these movies has been re-made recently.  "Halloween" was remade by Rob Zombie in 2007, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was remade this year (2010), and "Friday the 13th" was remade in 2009.  Why I mention this is because each of these remakes, as can be expected, has received lower reviews than the originals.  Another fun part to these movies is that they have some big name actors who got their start from doing 80's horror movies.  "Friday the 13th" was only Kevin Bacon's fifth film and both "Halloween" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" were the debut films for Jamie Lee Curtis and Johnny Depp respectively.  While the originals may be a bit out of date in terms of cinematography and special effects, they're drop dead classics and can surely be appreciated not only by film buffs, but casual viewers as well.

If you're looking for a new age scare, I would check out "Drag Me to Hell" for a more in depth, yet comical scare and check out "Let Me In" for a darker, true vampire horror film.  If you want to do a throwback, check out "A Nightmare on Elm Street," "Halloween," and "Friday the 13th."  All of these movies may not scare you, but they're sure to entertain you and will definitely make your Halloween more enjoyable on this Sunday night.  Here's to having a Happy Halloween, and posting in the month of October!

The Town (2010)

The Town is something of a surprise.  At first, one would expect it to be on the lines of another late summer action movie, looking to make one more quick buck before the season ends.  However, upon closer inspection, even before seeing the movie, it has potential to be a great film.  With a cast that includes Jeremy Renner (Academy Award nominee for Best Actor in The Hurt Locker (2009)), Jon Hamm (multiple Emmy Award Nominee for Best Actor in a Drama Series for Mad Men (2008, 2009, 2010), and Chris Cooper (Academy Award Winner for Best Supporting Actor in Adaption (2002)) you can't really go wrong.  I guess Ben Affleck won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Good Will Hunting (1997) too. 

The movie's main characters are a group of friends who work together to rob banks and armored trucks.  The one thing all of these men have in common is that they're all from Charlestown, Massachusetts, a town that only seems to produce criminals.  Surprisingly enough The Town manages to deliver not only in action, but also in drama and suspense as well.  None of the car chases or shoot outs try to distract you from the poor acting or the uninteresting plot.  The plot doesn't focus on one big bank job much like other movies of its type, but rather focuses more on the intense development and interactions of characters, the most explosive being that between the rational thinking  Ben Affleck and the hot headed Jeremy Reener.  Every bit of the movie plays its part and plays it well.  Dialogue scenes are just as suspenseful and interesting as the action ones.  Furthermore, not only the big names, but the smaller ones carry their weight.  Blake Lively in particular does a great job of pulling herself out of her typical teeny-bopper persona from Gossip Girl and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (2005) by conveying some real raw emotion.  Jon Hamm in the beginning feels out of place among the slew of Boston accents, but manages to really standout as an anti-hero.  In fact, in an interview with Jon Stewart he even mentions that after the premier of The Town an old Boston woman used as a speech coach for the movie said, "I don't know if you played your part too well or what... but I don't like you."

While The Town as a whole is a surprise not only in plot but in acting, where it manages to be most surprising is with the directing.  Having only directed one film before (Gone Baby Gone (2007)), Ben Affleck does a surprisingly impressive job with The Town.  While none of the cinematography is incredibly impressive and doesn't necessarily do anything new or innovative, the opening heist scene as well as one of the later ones shows Affleck's courage as a director.  The shots are bold and setup some wonderful imagery, in particular one heist where the group robs an armored truck adorned with nun masks, something that manages to be haunting rather than comical, a scene that will linger with you after leaving the theater.  The movie draws you in and is absolutely enticing throughout.  While there's no definite chance Jeremy Renner will be getting a second Oscar nomination from this film, its definitely a film he can be proud of.  If there's one last movie you see this summer, it should be The Town.