Homeland

One of the best things about coming home on break is having unlimited (& FREE) access to your parents seven hundred some odd cable channels. I've been taking advantage of this all week, and I've since become addicted to a great Showtime show- Homeland.

Homeland stars Claire Danes as Carrie Mathison, a CIA officer who's job is to track and find information on suspected terrorists to prevent the next terror attack on the United States. The show also follows U.S. Marine Nicholas Brody, played by Damian Lewis who is finally rescued after being held as a prisoner of war by Al-Queda in Syria for 8 years. Brody returns to the United States a hero, but Carrie is convinced that he is actually a threat to the country after being turned by Al-Queda, and plans to carry out a mission for them.

The number of characters and story-lines on this show is ever-expanding, but that's what makes it so interesting. It is necessary to be an active viewer just to keep up with the story and everyone involved in the suspected terrorist groups. A big part of the show focuses on Carrie's struggle with bipolar disorder, which she keeps secret from her co-workers. It is interesting to see not only how government officials and the CIA are portrayed, but also how Carrie's disorder affects her demanding job and personal life. Claire Danes plays this role phenomenally, and has won multiple awards for her portrayal of Carrie Mathison.

I'm almost done with the first season of two so far, and I can't wait to finally be caught up. I would definitely recommend this show.

FOOD!

I've heard a lot of buzz going on about this here documentary so I thought I'll give it a look and I must say, it was a great documentary. Before I get into my opinion about the film, I have to give my opinion on documentaries first. I love documentaries when they are done well, very informative, and unbiased  It's very difficult to shoot, in my opinion, a documentary that isn't, in someway, basis. There are so many complications when trying to shoot a documentary like trying to interview certain people or companies. For example, in Food Inc., none of the companies that they were exposing in the film wanted to do the interview, which is understandable, but on that same notion it makes the film look a little bias in one sided because there is no one speaking for the other side of this issue. I also question why some of the shots, especially in a documentary such as this one, seem like they were taking from a hidden camera? On one part of the fim the narrator actually states that the footage we were seeing is from a hidden camera. If this is the case, how do they not get in trouble for such shots? Questions, questions, questions. Definitely plan on looking more into that.

 Overall, I think t was a good documentary. It informed of information I've never known or even thought of before. It made me question how much does the government actually care about the well-being of it's citizen. It's disgusting how easily they can turn the other way when there is a profit to be gained. I can understand how someone can see this film and change the way they eat. Me personally, i love food and I love eating the things I eat. It just so happens one of my favorite things is a cheeseburger! More then anything, this film made me more aware and conscious of the food industry and how it operates. I prepare and cook my own food daily so I am constantly shopping for food, so this information is very useful to me. Documentary is definitely recommended. 

Mark Wahlberg shoots stuff.

Mark Wahlberg is, in my opinion, one of the great actors in modern cinema today. The Departed, The Fighter, Ted, The Italian Job, Four Brothers. All fantastic movies and fantastic acting jobs (at least, in my opinion. Maybe others would disagree). And I don't think its always easy to stand out as a great actor in the world of action movies, where flashy special effects and explosions make up for what's lacking in the story and talent of the actors. Marky Mark still manages to shine.

"Shooter" is the story of Bob Lee Swagger (yes, 'Swagger'), a marksman living secluded in exile after a failed mission left one of his partners and best friends dead. He is recruited by the US Government via Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) to help stop an assassination attempt of the president. However, Swagger doesn't realize that he is soon to be double-crossed by the very country he risked his life for, and framed as the would-be killer. After surviving the double-cross, Swagger goes on the run from the police. Using his special training and skills with a firearm (or in this case many, many, many firearms), he hunts down the real shooter and tries to find out who exactly set him up and why.

Sounds pretty cool, eh? Yeah I thought so too. "Shooter" was one of those movies that looks great on paper but just fails to deliver what I hoped for with the story. I found it to be pretty damn predictable and cheesy. Not to mention, Danny Glover and the majority of the supporting cast just stinks up something awful with their performances. The portrayal of the corrupt head-honchos of US intelligence  was way too cliche. I just wasn't convinced that the actors were really consuming themselves in their roles. They seemed to just play their roles to the most basic characteristics. Not enough feeling, not enough emotion.

And seriously....Mark Wahlberg's characters name is Swagger? Where the hell did they come up with that one?

I wouldn't call it one of Marky Mark's best performances either. But this is one of those movies that really does a GREAT job of making up for the places it lacks in, ... with
ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION. 

Any scene where Swagger was wielding a gun was pure excitement. He pops headshots on guys from thousands of yards away, takes out like 20 dudes without getting a single scratch on him. This may be typical of any action movie. But they did it damn well. "Shooter" receives praise from me for its kick ass action sequences.

-Nick