His reign is to be short-lived though. A band of marauders attacks the village stealing several men, women and children to be their slaves. Among those taken is Evolet, and D’Leh is forced to pursue in an attempt to rescue her. Aided by his father’s friend, Tic’Tic(Curtis), D’Leh must travel beyond the White Mountains, through the forests and across the deserts, to the land of the gods to save the woman he loves.

Compared to the time after, little is known about the time period before 4,000 B.C.E. (Before Common Era, the correct naming). 4,000 B.C.E. was when civilizations started emerging through the banding together of small tribes. Obviously, this film wasn’t titled to include that time-period, but the story was. A major aspect of the film revolved around the construction of a pyramid. Presumably, this is one of the Pyramids at Giza, because of their proximity to the Nile in the film and real life. The problem is, those pyramids weren’t built until around 2,500 B.C.E., not 10,000 B.C.E..

Really, the film feels like it wanted to be Apocalypto, or at least, to build a box office rake on it’s coattails. What 10,000 lacks in a engaging story, it makes up in visual effects. Truly, the effects were astounding; from the stampedes of mammoths to the rain-soaked sabre-tooth tiger to the construction of the pyramid. Sadly, the visuals were not enough to distract from the breathtakingly lackluster story, which revolved around a young hunter trying to save a young girl he loves from certain death.

Reflecting on the film, I realize that what was subtly apparent was the disappointing amount of non-action there was. Over and over, the suspense was built up only to find out what happened was ultimately underwhelming. Normally, films don’t delve into the action too quickly in fear of disappointing later. Watching 10,000 you are kept in a constant state of apprehension; waiting for something to happen, that never does.

10,000 felt like a cross between Apocalypto and Stargate, minus the worm-holes. Viewers who have a critical eye for films that aren’t historically accurate should shy away. Others looking for a mediocre film with pretty visuals to watch on a snowy Saturday are in for a treat!

By giving money to Pakistan, Charlie plans to equip tribesmen in Afghanistan with Soviet-made weapons supplied by Israel. Meanwhile, Charlie is under investigation for drug use in Las Vegas. Being a smart man, Charlie uses this to his advantage; he knows that the American public will be distracted by his misgivings and not notice the entirely immoral actions he’s perpetrating behind their backs.

The screenplay to Charlie Wilson’s War was written by Aaron Sorkin, co-writer of The West Wing, a wonderful show about the United States government. Bringing his talents to the big screen, Sorkin adapts George Crile’s book of the same name. Present in Wilson’s War is the fast-paced meticulously executed dialog that was a highlight of The West Wing. Staffers and Officials buzzing in and out of offices and meetings transitioning from one conversation to the next without missing a beat. I don’t know if that’s what actually happens in the houses of our government, but I’d like to think it’s true.

One of the most interesting aspects of the story was the ending. The fact that the U.S. government poured over a billion dollars into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, is not surprising. What astonished me was the speed at which the same U.S. government abandoned the people it asked to fight for them. Refusing to spend 1 million dollars to rebuild a school in Afghanistan, after all they’ve been through is something only Americans would do. It is sad really, but in the end, we can see why the people of Afghanistan were so frustrated with Americans in 2001.

Determined to make clear his family name as well, Mitch Wilkinson(Harris) uses the Gates to springboard toward finding a lost city of gold. Beginning with a singed page from the diary of John Wilkes Booth and culminating in the discovery of the City of Gold under Mount Rushmore, Riley’s book leads everyone on an international treasure hunt.

Honestly, I wasn’t a fan of the first National Treasure. I liked the idea; secrets kept for thousands of years, only to be discovered by one determined treasure hunter. It makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea of the Gates family being at the center of every major event in U.S. history. I know some suspension of disbelief is needed to enjoy movies like Book of Secrets, but there is a point where my disbelief kicks back in. In this movie, it occured about the time, Ben Gates walked into the Oval Office and broke into The President’s resolute desk.

What was refreshing was the fact that Abigail and Ben were broken up. It brings a sense of normalcy to their story, showing that even treasure hunters with multi-millions of dollars can have relationship problems too. What didn’t jive was the fact that Abigail and Ben make up after finding another treasure. Abigail definitely seems to be a pure-bread gold-digger; only settling for pure gold.

While I was impressed with the novelty of the first National Treasure, the most recent was just a sham. Going into the theatre, I wasn’t expecting the film to be any good. Really, anyone can base their expectations of Book of Secrets on what they thought of the first one; because really, the story are one in the same, the names are changed.

Beowulf lures Grendel into the great hall of Heorot to do battle with him, man against beast. Knowing that weapons will not kill Grendel, Beowulf fights him with his wits and brawn. After besting his foe, Beowulf is made king of Heorot in return for freeing Hrothgar from the curse of his illegitimate son.

Enraged at Beowulf, Grendel’s mother kills his army while he sleeps, attempting to lure him into her lair to exact revenge. When Beowulf arrives, she is impressed with his courage and asks him to give her another son for taking hers. She promises him all the wealth and power he could ever desire in return. Consenting, Beowulf returns to Heorot, not knowing that his choice will come back to haunt him.

When a movie is based off of an epic tale, you expect it to be epic itself. There is a certain badassness that you envision in the film adaptation that you imagined while reading the story it was derived from. Sometimes expecting a film to live up to your own hype is a bad idea. This was a perfect example of that. What started as an epic tale of heroism and pride, ended up as a cartoonish farce of machoness and a-list actors.

What film Beowulf lacked in respect to the original story, it more than made up for using ghastly CGI and laughable story jumps. The whole time I was watching the movie I was distracted by the computer generated actors. It all looks like it should be included in the 4th Shrek movie. The only redeeming part of the CG was the battle sequences and the landscape shots. The CGI really worked well for the dragon battle at the end of the film, other than that, the characters seemed cartoonish and distracting. Beowulf is simply a mediocre movie based off an amazing story which was tarnished by a creative director with too much zeal for wanting to be different. Epic films are supposed to look real, fairy tales are supposed to look fake. Keep those two genres separate because that’s when they work the best.

At the same time, three time-zones over, Political Science Professor Malley(Redford) holds another meeting with one of his most promising students, Todd Hayes(Garfield). Todd is a typical college student; sliding through college getting decent grades, chasing girls and trying not to get in too much trouble. But Professor Malley sees much more in Todd. He tries to reason with Todd, make him realize his potential and the intellectual gifts he stands to toss away.

Twelve and a half hours around the world, Marines Finch(Luke) and Rodriguez(Peña) are embattled against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Former prodigal students of Professor Malley, Finch and Rodriguez enlisted in the Marines as a way to serve their country and further their futures. Little did they know, they unwittingly became the pawns in Senator Irving’s bid for publicity.

Lions for Lambs is an important commentary on the current political, military and diplomatic situation in the United States and the world. The film was fairly balanced in it’s presentation of both sides of the debate in the War on Terror. The right, with the hard-line of win at all costs. And the left with a feeling of helplessness and hindsight.

It also addresses the role of the media in shaping the consciousness of the public. The idea that the public believes what they see on TV and read in newspapers, and if that news is biased or manipulated, public perception is skewed. The transformation of news outlets from journalistic, integrity-bound centers for public awareness, to ad revenue and ratings bound rumor-mills is striking and clear.

Also touched on is the apathy of current youth and their inclination towards irresponsibility. A perfect example occurred at the end of the film, where one of Todd’s frat brothers was watching the news, where major coverage was devoted to the recent divorce proceedings of two media starlets. All the while, news of Senator Irving’s Afghan policy scrolled in the ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen.

As a left-leaning politically conscious citizen, while watching the movie, I believed it didn’t address the issues with an ‘in-your-face’ attitude. But looking back, I can understand why these sensitive issues were presented with a silver-lining. Leave the hard-hitting political criticism for Michael Moore, and let Redford direct a social commentary that touches all bases equally.

Set in the late 16th century, during a period of religious unrest between the power-hungry nations of Europe, The Golden Age begins as a story of a beloved queen. Elizabeth, lacking child, is expected to marry and produce an heir. Meanwhile, forces near and far align against her, each looking to further their fortunes and territories. Mary Stuart ‘Queen of Scots’(Morton), Elizabeth’s cousin, believes she is the rightful successor to the throne and is plotting an assassination from her prison. In league with King Philip II of Spain(Mollà), their plan is to kill the queen and revert England back to Catholic rule.

Back from The New World bearing gifts for the Queen, Raleigh intends to return and stake claim in the name of England. His ambitions are put on hold while Elizabeth appraises her newly found conqueror. Impressed by his boldness, the Queen tries to stake claim in Raleigh, only to have him stolen away by Elizabeth(Cornish), her own lady in waiting.

The movie is built like a romance, yet includes epic battle scenes, daring in-fighting and betrayal. Sure to be a crowd-pleaser for everyone, a solid recommendation to see is in order. Be prepared for emotional ups and downs, as the story progresses and the intricacies build.

Throughout the film, the duality of Elizabeth is shown in spades. Her first duty is to her country, but she longs to have something left for herself. Blanchett delivers an Elizabeth which is commanding and serene from one moment to the next. The film is built on her skill at portraying a strong, willful and compassionate queen as well as a gentle, playful and dove-like woman and mother of England. A solid foundation indeed.