For years now, I have watched many films and have thought about how they can be enjoyed as an art form. Being a fan of film critic Roger Ebert for years, I have always realized he had a unique style of film criticism. As he once said, “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough,” I became hooked with watching many of his top films and started to write my own movie reviews. As I entered a course called Living World of Film (an English film course), my doors opened with people that have the same or similar tastes in movies.

 

At age twenty, I was introduced to After Hours Film Society. I went to the Tivoli Theater in the heart of Downers Grove, and became hooked to attending the screenings at After Hours Film Society. The purpose of it is to view independent or for foreign films, have some coffee and cookies (after the film), and then have a discussion about whichever films was viewed. When I participated in the discussions, my opinions on movies expanded.

 

What makes After Hours Film Society great is connecting the films that are viewed to how it relates to the society we live in. when the foreign film, The Hunt was viewed, I was haunted, but also amazed. The film is about a teacher in Sweden who gets in a bunch of trouble, because a lie was told about him. That lie is a small child claiming he is a pedophile. What captivated me though, was how the audience shared their similar or same experiences with the issue in the film. That creates a place of honesty on how movies do a brilliant job of showing the world we live in.

 

Like I said, Ebert taught many people how to appreciate films as an art form. After Hours Film Society provides that aspect very well, you feel you just cannot miss a screening. It is a joy in many aspects, and has been like a second home to me.

 

After Hours Film Society has been an honor to be a part of. The people that I share interests with has been an experience, and I enjoy any aspect that is talked about to shape me up as a better film critic.

Many rumors have wondered if the fourth installment of Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series is good or bad. But according to filmmakers…ninety-percent of the stunts done by Mark Wahlberg were done by him. Wahlberg’s character Cade Yeager, is a man with many debts and is trying to build amazing electronics. All of a sudden, his truck (which is a transformer) gets angry and he finds himself in a battle between auto bots and the government. Didn’t Mark Wahlberg deliver a stellar performance in “Lone Survivor?” He did, and he is fit for this role.

I see it is the new actors in this “Transformers” movie that has led it to be one of the best action films of the summer in my books. The premise is fresh and captivating. The opening narrations of the robots takes place, we realize the city of Chicago is not in a good place in its futuristic setting, Kelsey Grammer (who plays Harold Attinger) is the big boss for what may be the threats of the world, and there is Wahlberg in the center of it all.

The excitement begins as soon as Optimus Prime comes out of his shell on Yeager’s farm and brings the action and visual effects to a whole different level. “Transformers: Age of Extinction” does not have Shia Labeouf in the picture whatsoever; it is obvious that “Transformers: Age of Extinction” was the time for a different approach in the series. While viewers are in the process understanding the new plot line and the dazzling action with a generous amount of CGI, it seems as if the first three films are way in the past. A new era, a new structure, it is an unforgettable thrill ride.

“Transformers: Age of Extinction” gets edgy when Cade’s daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz) has her boyfriend Shane (Jack Reynor) meet her father. She has never mentioned him to her father at all; he is a risk-taker with driving dangerously; and between Cade and Shane they still have tons of acquainting to do. Instead of respecting boundaries, Shane consistently mentions the small, romantic activities that Tessa and him do in private. This leads to agitation for everyone, but at the same time there is no choice but to tread through the disasters of the world of robots.

Overall, this series is above all one of the best action films of the summer. The action is amazing but has its tendencies to drag, but it is worth it in IMAX and 3D to be honest. 2D is ok, but I just find that the 3D in this film adds to the excitement of the explosions and clashing robots all together. If anyone is planning to go in IMAX, better go now before another Hollywood film takes over the IMAX theatres.

Zach Braff brings a heartfelt drama with “Garden State.” We are introduced to his character’s life, but he finds a friendship that will change who he is as a person.

Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) is a TV actor that plays a retarded quarterback. His mother (not in the film) is in a wheelchair and his psychiatrist father Gideon Largeman (Ian Holm) sees that it is Andrew’s fault. His father had him medicated on drugs for years seeing to believe it may help Andrew socially.

Andrew has been away from his family for a decade and returns home for his mother’s funeral. He meets a rambunctious girl named Sam (Natalie Portman); a girl he loves and someone who has problems of her own. Once he builds a relationship with Sam, he lays off his medications, sees what life itself is, and has more positivity in his life.

“Garden State” was a brilliant art-house film with its setting and cinematography. Braff made “Garden State” to be briefly based on his own childhood in New Jersey, along with his days as a struggling actor in Los Angeles before the success of the sitcom, “Scrubs.” When he did scenes with Natalie Portman he had brief romantic moments instead of a full love scene. He wanted sweet to be implied instead of visual.

Despite the film’s low-budget concept, “Garden-State” is captivating, lovely, and mesmerizing–and worth the one hour and forty-two minutes.