Brad Pitt has just went from “celebrity with talent” to an official “acting legend.” Consider yourself warned.

Andrew Dominik’s latest film “Killing Them Softly” is going to be a highly debated film. Whether the audience member loves or hates it, one thing must be said: they just witnessed film history.

“Killing Them Softly” is a crime epic. If there is anything we know about crime epics in film history, we know that they have produced some of the most famous quotes and monologues.

“The Godfather,” “Goodfellas” and “Pulp Fiction” all have their significance in both pop culture and history. This film is about to join them.

The story doesn’t really follow one specific character, in general, as much as it follows a situation.

The situation is some amateur criminals pulling off a robbery at an illegal card game that was run by the mob, who now wants the robbers dead, but the person who was believed of being behind the robbery (Ray Liotta), actually isn’t. So now we have a barrage of heat and violence surrounding the entire crime industry, with no resolution in sight.

Jackie Cogan (Pitt) is then hired to come on and take care of the entire situation, so that  the crime-economy can be set straight.

Pitt is insanely memorable in his role. Every time he comes on screen, the audience is enthralled by every word that he speaks. There is a clear intimidation that results from every movement he makes. His performance is both real and entertaining. It is an event. It is a sight to be seen.

Pitt, however, is not the only strong performance in this film. James Gandolfini plays a legend of sorts in the crime business who Cogan wants help from in order to “solve” this entire situation.

Gandolfini is only in two scenes, but each one is just a pleasure to watch. There are moments of awkwardness in them because his character is in a point of his life where all he has is his sexual ventures, so the dialogue can get pretty uncomfortable for some audience members.

Despite that, both of the scenes are electrifying. They are both one-on-one meetings between Gandolfini and Pitt.

Something that acting enthusiasts would only believe to see in their dreams.

This is writer/director Dominik’s third film and has been five years since his Western epic “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” which also starred Pitt.

It has been a constant in Dominik’s career where he doesn’t really have a protagonist or antagonist within the story. His films have leaned more towards character studies than stereotypical narratives, and they have all worked in that sense.

The film definitely has it’s political undertones, but they are neither liberal nor conservative.

Throughout the film, the audience often hears soundbites from the 2008 Obama campaign, with shouts of “change” and “yes we can.”

At one point, Cogan throws away the idea of “change” but it isn’t so much an anti-Obama angle as it is an anti-patriot angle.

In what will eventually be seen as one of great monologues in film history, Cogan summarizes why America will never be “united” and must just accept the fact that it isn’t a nation. It’s a business.

This is the final moment of the film and it gives you piercing chills as you leave the theater.

The film does have it’s troubles, though. The opening of the film is, by far, some of the worst and most unbearable 60 seconds ever seen in a movie theater.

There is a credit sequence that cuts between the credits and one of thugs who robs the card game. It is well shot because the imagery is very memorable, but the sound editing is so jarring that it can make an audience member want to take a snub-nose .38 to the head.

Despite some pacing issues early on and a terrible opening sequence, “Killing Them Softly” succeeds in it’s efforts. It is going to be one of the most memorable films of the year and will forever be referred to, in film history, as one of greatest “acting films.”

It will be highly-debated and won’t be for everyone, but it still deserves an opportunity. Go see this in the theater. Now.

In “Melancholia,” writer/director Lars Von Trier puts together an original sci-fi story that focuses more on its characters, rather than any piece of action or epidemic.

His downfall is that he may have been too focused on the meaning of the film to appropriately direct the piece.

The film revolves around two sisters, Justine and Claire (Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg), who are struggling with happiness in their lives. Their struggles are also highlighted by a mysterious planet called “Melancholia” that has been hiding behind the Sun for thousands of years and is now approaching Earth at a rapid pace, endangering their existence.

While the whole apocalyptic “Deep Impact” storyline has been done before, Trier’s “Melancholia” is able to provide a new take on the story. It revolves more around the characters, rather than the event itself. The event plays more as an interruption to the story, which is actually quite intriguing.

The film opens with an 8-minute (very) slow-motion sequence that projects several people living through the final moments of Melancholia’s collision with Earth. So this sets up what the fate of all the characters is going to be, you are just along for the ride to see what their final moments on Earth are like.

Justine is the protagonist of the film and half of the film takes place at her wedding. She goes through with her marriage but feels trapped in the relationship.

This leads to one of the most interesting sex scenes ever put on film. Justine is scared when the time comes to consummate her love with her husband on the wedding night, so she leaves the room momentarily and runs across a golf course. She runs into a random wedding guest, pins him on the green and takes advantage of him. Most of this is all one, very wide shot.

The acting in “Melancholia” is rather superb, especially on the side of Dunst. You really feel the desperation in her character during the beginning and the revolt in her character near the end of the film. Kiefer Sutherland, who plays Claire’s husband, is also magnificent in his role. He is able to come off as an intelligent scientist, a loving father and an intimidating authority all at once.

The directing in the film suffered. Lier had a clear passion for the message of the film and dedication to science fiction, but made some odd choices that killed the pacing of the film early on.

The decision to go with a more documentary style of filmmaking was not effective. There were several gorgeous images through out the film, such as an amazingly elegant twilight scene of Justine lying nude above a waterfall, but those shots didn’t match with the normal handheld style of the piece.

On that same issue, the cinematography was gorgeous but struggled with mechanics. There were a handful of beautiful shots in the piece, but the film was going in and out of focus way too often. It worked at times as a style choice, but came off as unprofessional at other moments. The film would of benefitted from a more traditional style of shooting.

The film was a pleasure to watch because of its story, acting and stunning imagery, though it suffered from inconsistent cinematography and lacked quality directing. The film would of benefited from a director like Darren Aronofsky (“Black Swan”) or Paul Thomas Anderson (“There Will Be Blood”) who deal with very artistic subjects but strive with their ability to tell stories clearly and pace story well.

With better direction and a more consistent cinematography, this could of been a cinema masterpiece; unfortunately, it trips up just before the finish line.

“Melancholia” is a quality film, but is not for everyone.

If you have the patience for an artistic film with dark characters, pick up this DVD.

For those of you who have seen the “Paranormal Activity” movies, the style of filming is almost identical. The whole movie was shot for the “home movie” effect. Cameras are set up throughout the entire shuttle, as well as set up all around outside where they landed on the moon. A few handheld cameras were used for point of view shots. To make the movie more realistic, they chose to make the film footage look old and grainy. The movie resembles the footage you see of Richard Nixon when he was in office. I think it would have been a better idea for a drama or a true story astronaut movie, and not a horror.

The part where this movie fails to have the effect that “Paranormal Activity” created is that there are few humans who can relate to this in any way. “Paranormal Activity” scared people because the story was about an average couple in an average house with a video camera. The idea of a home video adds to the realistic feeling the story gives. Because of the amateur home video and average life setting, everyone could easily understand their fear. Creaking doors, sounds from other rooms and little frightening instances have happened to everybody. This was how “Paranormal Activity” was a success.

But how many of us have woken up in the middle of the night because we thought we heard a noise outside our space shuttle while we were parked on the moon? I know I haven’t. How many of us remember how nervous we were on our first space mission? We have no way of becoming emotionally attached to the storyline of “Apollo 18” because none of us know what it’s like to be an astronaut. Not to mention the astronaut lingo used in 1974 isn’t exactly in our everyday vocabulary, so it not only makes the movie unrelatable, but confusing as well. I’m one of those people who jump at everything scary and jarring in horror movies. I never jumped or even felt nervous.

I’m sure a lot of time and effort went into creating cool effects of something unknown scaring the astronauts on the moon. But there could be an army of a million aliens surrounding their shuttle, and it’s still not going to scare me as much as having a door slowly creak open here on earth. I’m not going to the moon anytime soon. Alien horror movies have a tough enough time scaring an audience, but to do it successfully, you need to, at minimum, have it take place on earth so people can halfway relate to it.

Hart is only one of a tiny few of comedians to have his standup shown in theaters.

“Laugh at My Pain” sold over $1.5 million in ticket sales, beating Eddie Murphy’s record of the first African-American comedian’s two-day live comedy show at $1.1 million, according to International Movie Database.

While Hart starred in movies like “Death at a Funeral,” “Scary Movie 3″ and “The 40 Year-Old Virgin,” the 5’2″ comedian is back on the big screen again. Only this time, he relives hard times of his past by joking about it on stage. His adversity includes growing up with a coke head of a dad who Hart admits almost drowned him, who bust into his spelling bee and who, overall, embarrassed him throughout the years.

Hart’s portrayal of his father on crack is ridiculously funny in a way that it is truly unbelievable; for instance, Hart’s dad going to his school in sweatpants minus underwear: not pretty, but unfortunately for Hart, it happened.

Hart also cleverly works in phrases his dad would say (“Alright, alright, alriiiiiight!”), always keeping that hilarious vision of Hart’s dad fresh in the mind.

Sex, his divorce and his relationships are also mentioned in his standup, and it can all relate to one thing: his safe word, pineapple. Hart is not afraid to talk about his sex life, which allows viewers to really get a feel for what he’s going through, i.e. his divorce.

It’s not just a movie where Hart runs out on stage, says his jokes, and runs off. A different side of Hart is revealed when he is shown roaming the streets of his old neighborhood in Philadelphia, revisiting the high school he went to and the first comedy club he ever performed at and when he breaks down in front of his immediate family.

The ability to see Hart off stage is real, and it’s nice to actually get to see someone’s true side. It is important introduction to the movie because it gives a visual of where he grew up, people he looked up to and a chance to really see how goofy he is in public. Some celebrities hide from the public; Hart embraces it.

Another great element to the movie is his short film in the end. It pays an homage to “Reservoir Dogs” as he assigns his fellow comedian friends “color” names for his plan to rob a bank. The added short film is unpredictable, but funny nonetheless.

While the title proves his material is about his hardships, the only flaw would have to be his lack of references to his kids. In his previous standups (“I’m a Grown Little Man,” “Seriously Funny”), he has several cute stories regarding his son and daughter. In “Laugh at My Pain,” he really only talked about his son for a brief moment.

Overall, however, two thumbs up.

The story of this film follows a modern-day French journalist (Julia) who is obsessed with the story of a young girl (Sarah) who was separated from her family during the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup in 1942. This was an event where the French police captured 13,152 Jewish victims in Nazi-occupied France and transported them off to camps, where they would be executed.

While the story is quite touching and educational, it drags for a long time. It is not until the 45-minute mark that the audience even starts to realize what the story is about. Even then, it is explained rather quickly, so it could be very confusing for an audience member that is not quite intrigued by such historical events.

Characters in “Sarah’s Key” are poorly explained. Julia meets with several people who lived during the time of the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup. They recall the occurrences and describe how they met Sarah. This had great potential for some really touching and intriguing characters, but they come off as dull. The instances that they recall are very dark, including Sarah finding her dead brother locked in a closet; however,  there is no background to these characters. We meet them and then they are gone almost immediately. We really needed to spend more time with them and get to know them.

“Sarah’s Key” is reminiscent of a bad documentary. The message and topic is very raw and emotional, but it is poorly executed. When dealing with a subject like the Holocaust and innocent children, there is a strong potential for a truly raw and gripping experience. The writers and filmmakers of this piece failed at that.

The film was based on the 2008 novel “Elle s’appelait Sarah e” which translates to “Her name was Sarah” in English, so the filmmakers probably want to try and be somewhat loyal to the novel. The issue is that most novels are very high on information and low on action and visuals (with some exceptions). In film, when you keep all of this information, the entertainment and quality of the story suffers.

If you’re expecting an excellent historical film like “Schindler’s List” or “The Pianist,” you will be severely disappointed with “Sarah’s Key.” It would work rather nicely for a high school history class presentation, but it fails in several categories as an artistic endeavor.

Final verdict: Do not pick up this film.