Brilliant and charming together, Chris and Paul Weitz “About a Boy” is hysterical and fun for parents and their teenagers. It is an honest comedy about why it is important to grow up and have a strong work ethic and Hugh Grant and Nicholas Hoult both are a knockout in this comedy/drama/romance flick.

Will Freeman (Grant) is a lazy man with an easy life who inherited so much money given that his father was famous for writing a song. Since his father’s passing, Will has never worked a day in his life. Meet Marcus: a twelve year old who lives with his chronically depressed mother Fiona (Toni Collette) and does not have many friends at all. Both Will and Marcus want to be happy in their life somehow. Only difference though, is Marcus is practically poor, and Will is really wealthy but does not have to do anything to make money.

As soon as Marcus and Will meet, Marcus starts hanging out at Will’s place twenty-four, seven. They watch shows, go to stores, and horse around consistently. Marcus is doing this though, because he is aware that Will is into dating single moms. Marcus knows that Will is wealthy. Therefore, in Marcus’s hopes, he is praying that Will meet his his mom (Marcus’s) as a single mother and be together with her.

The message from “About a Boy” is that life is not all about setting relationships up. As soon as Will starts to be against Marcus’s idea, he starts to go into detail about why that does not work. Marcus though, has his reasons as well. That all Will does is seek entertainment and live the high life and is not motivated. The film has the right ending though, to the right answers of what to do if people are ever faced living their lives like these two gentlemen are.

Grant is touching in this film. He is known to play the laid-back characters and upper-class gentlemen in most of his movies. In “About a Boy” though, the laid-back characteristic comes back to haunt him.

This film is brilliant and touching to the point where you do not want it to end. Four stars.

Denzel Washington is not only a brilliant actor, but is also an auteur director of a film that gears on the challenges of a debate team in harsh times. “The Great Debaters” is an extraordinary drama that left me in tears. Washington is at his best. It also stars Nate Parker (as Henry Lowe), Jurnee Smollet-Bell (as Samantha Booke), Denzel whitaker (as James Farmer Jr.), and Forest Whitaker (as Dr. James Farmer Sr.). “The Great Debaters” is such a triumphant adaptation, and is one that will be talked about for years.

“The Great Debaters” follows the true story of Melvin B. Tolson (Washington): a professor that taught at Wiley College Texas. The year is 1935, and he captivates the school to form a debate team. The three teammates are Henry Lowe, Samantha Booke, and James Farmer Jr.

The debate team is an experience that the students look forward to, but are put to the test to see if they can compete with all of the issues that are around them. The issues include a crucible by Jim Crow, Sexism, lynch mobs, affairs, jealousy, and the biggest portion of them all…the big debate being played around on a national radio audience.

James father is proud of James, but sees that his son is putting himself in danger. James saw a lynching happening, and almost got himself killed. Also with the segregation problems, his father sees that they may be an undefeated team, but judges could judge against them when they debate a white college. This makes James have most of his subjects be on how awful life is for how different races are treated. The response from the audience is them being surprised.

I was astonished by “The Great Debaters.” At one point in my life I remember wanting to try out for a debate team. I never did though. The intensity of the subjects in “The Great Debaters” makes viewers realize that debate is not a joking matter. “The Great Debaters” is heavy with preparation. When I saw this film, I realized that it would be too much pressure for me to do a debate team. “The Great Debaters” really defines the courage it takes for young students to debate serious topics.

Washington also promotes this film positively. He even donated a million dollars to Wiley College the week before the film’s release. For Harvard University (the white college that Wiley has debated), this film was the first film to be screened at Harvard and they have not screened a movie since 1979.

“The Great Debater” is amazing. Many will not forget the experience.

Written by David Domscheit-Berg and David Lee (both who were involved with the novel) and director Bill Condon, “The Fifth Estate” goes right to life of Julian Assange. Condon’s former films “Kinsey” (2004) and “Dreamgirls” (2006) are both well-crafted films. “The Fifth Estate” plummeted at the box office opening weekend and its budget only got up to $28,000,000 (estimated). This is shocking given that it gears on one of the most wanted man in history…Julian Assange.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks: a website invented to share the deceptions and corruptions of power in the government. His colleague is Daniel Berg (played by Daniel Bruhl); a professional hacker that teams up with Assange. Berg tags along, but becomes hesitant once he realizes that Assange wants to expose the biggest trove of confidential intelligence documents in history.

Once Berg realizes that Assange and him are on the grid for exposing illegal information, they both begin to criticize a defining question of their time: what are the costs of keeping secrets in a free society-and what are the costs of exposing them? That question remains anonymous until the end of the movie.

The rest of the movie shows Assange getting too much into Berg’s personal life. The setup suggests suspicion, but Cumberbatch’s attitude is so laid-back that it seems his ego is all that matters to him. He advances at intelligence, but seems to struggle with caring about others. This is an issue for Berg and viewers. Lacking characterization, viewers wonder more about Assange and not so much about Berg.

Berg is playing against Assange. “The fifth Estate” quickly makes its viewers realize that Berg and Assange’s friendship is torn apart. Primarily the fact that colleagues work together for so long and become aggravated by the element’s of one’s behavior. “The Fifth Estate” portrays this issue as if it was a key-element of corruption–this is not just Assange’s ego, but that Berg tried to tell Assange from the beginning that what he is doing is wrong, but Assange continued doing what he wants and did not listen to Berg at all. “The Fifth Estate” easily leaves government to not be the meaning of the film (government should be the meaning though). “The Fifth Estate” ends up gearing on betrayal and revenge. That is why its adaptation is not accurate to the true story.

The relationship between Assange and Berg appears as if there friendship led to major accomplishments. As the camera focuses on the facial expressions on Berg at a convention, it becomes repetitive. Their friendship–like mentioned, their criticism–is causing them to hate each other. Assange himself, at first wonders but in the end, he still only cares about his ego.

Assange and Berg frequently find a concern to argue about. With an adaptation though, the issue is money is the bigger importance than the quality of films. Due to this, “The Fifth Estate” is unorthodox. The film enters a serious subject unprofessionally; whenever it seems to be a moment of truth, it only relies on arguments and jealousies that are not the purpose of the film.