“Brooklyn’s Finest” is proof that great acting and some solid directorial flourishes are no substitution for shoddy screenwriting.

Penned by first-time writer Michael C. Martin, “Brooklyn’s Finest” is a cluttered and disorganized mess, filled with tired clichés, sketchy characters and a climax that goes beyond absurd. And yet, it all starts off so well.

Opening with Vincent D’ On¬ofrio delivering a solid mono¬logue about how a judge let him off for drunk driving charges be¬cause he had to break the law to save his own life, “Brooklyn’s Finest” starts off as a potentially complex fable about three good men who do bad things when put under the heaviest of strains.

The first man is Ethan Hawke’s “Sal,” who lives in a shabby house that is barely big enough for his wife and six kids. To make mat¬ters worse, not only is his wife (Lili Taylor) pregnant with twins, but she’s also suffering from se¬vere asthma attacks caused by the wood mold inside of their house.
In order to buy a better home for his family, he has to resort to stealing money from drug dealers.

Richard Gere plays “Eddie,” a veteran cop who is only sev¬en days from retirement, who is forced to ride along with a rook¬ie cop and try to teach him the ropes.

Eddie is a sad character. His wife left him some time ago, he is called a coward by some of his fellow offices for trying to play it safe. He only finds solace with his prostitute girlfriend (Shannon Kane). He really loves the prostitute, but anyone who has seen a movie like this before knows exact¬ly how that plot thread is going to turn out.

Then there is Don Cheadle as “Tango,” a cop who has been undercover for so long that his long-suffering wife has re¬cently divorced him when he starts behav¬ing like the thugs he’s trying to put away. He wants to be off his assignment, but his superior, Lt. Bill Hopards (Will Pat¬ton), and a snooty FBI agent, “Smith” (El¬len Barkin) want him to complete ‘one final mission,’ to basically put a notori¬ous kingpin and Tango’s old jail buddy, “Caz” (Wesley Snipes), away for good.

If he does this, he will receive a pro¬motion and a nice desk job, but Tango has trouble committing to the assign¬ment because Caz saved his life once before, and it would be wrong to betray. All three stories are beautifully acted, with Cheadle turning in the best perfor¬mance.

Director Antoine Fuqua, who made the grossly-overrated “Training Day,” brings a raw and gritty sensibility to the material that is oftentimes captivating. There are scenes of amazing inten¬sity, like when some of Caz’s thugs be¬gin beating up a young man whom they think is a “rat” for the FBI.

Another scene of real power, is when Sal makes a vis¬it to a confessional earlier in the movie. “Brooklyn’s Finest” isn’t nec¬essarily a terrible movie, but it’s not very well-developed either.

Take the Ethan Hawke segment, for ex¬ample. When we first see him arrive at his house, we see two boys and one girl, who are his children. Another 10 minutes in, there is another girl who calls him dad. After an hour of screen time, two more girls show up and start calling him daddy as well.

It seemed like he had a different kid in every other scene, and it became so lu¬dicrous that I actually chuckled when the audience member behind me shout¬ed “How many kids does he have?” If we’re suppose to believe that he com¬mits his criminal activities because he loves his family so much, then I would’ve liked to have seen more scenes between him and his family. I would’ve liked it more if the movie had developed his home life. Unfortunately, it does not.

Lili Tayler has what amounts to a cameo appear¬ance, and the scene in which she is taken to the hospital after suffering from a severe asthma attack is com¬pletely devoid of dramatic tension. It’s suppose to add a feeling of urgency, but we never feel it.

Then there is a monster of a climax, in which the three stories collide in an overly contrived and ridiculous man¬ner. The final bloody action scene be¬tween Richard Gere and a gangster, who had been kidnapping young wom¬en and making them his sex slaves, is ugly, offensive and over-the-top. Gere shoots the gangster’s sidekick in the chest at close range, and the guy just runs and fights him for the next three minutes or so (how did that shot not kill him?).

And maybe I’m just being a little too defensive about this, but the movie struck a note that was more than a little misogynistic. There is not a single female character who is seen in a positive light, making the movie not only clichéd and predictable, but also a little hateful.

About 30 minutes into director Joe Johnston’s deplorably bad remake of “The Wolfman,” I began to think of all the horrible, physically painful things that I’ve endured in my life.

I began to remember an instance when I was a younger, in which I got in a verbal dispute with a neighbor kid that ended with me getting clonked over the head with a golf club.

I also began to remember an incident that occurred while I was at a hotel in Savannah, Ga. with my family, and I jumped in a pool that was a lot shallower than I thought it to be, which resulted in me breaking my foot.

There was also another instance in high school, where I met a young girl who on numerous occasions made attempts to strangle me.

All of these were indeed exceedingly painful moments in my life, but I would gladly relive those moments 100 more times rather than endure the likes of this turgid, pretentious and atrociously scripted horror film one more time.

“The Wolfman” has little or nothing worth recommending about it. From the acting, to the dialogue, to the crummy CGI shots, this fiasco is an utter mess in practically every conceivable way.

Even the look of the movie is unimpressive, as the sets and the gray camera shots are likely to remind one of the much better horror movie “Sleepy Hollow.” At leas t Tim Burton’s movie has something resembling atmosphere. This movie simply looks dreary and dull.

Benicio Del Toro is badly miscast as the American actor, Lawrence Talbot, who returns to his birthplace in England after hearing of his brother’s murder. He promises his brother’s fiancé, Gwen (Emily Blunt), that he’ll stay long enough to solve his brother’s murder and help bring the killer to justice.

I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that he gets bitten by a werewolf one evening during his investigation.

Anthony Hopkins turns in an embarrassing, scenery-chewing performance as Lawrence’s father, Sir John, who not only seems unmoved by his son’s murder, but seems to have his own secretive and sinister agenda.

The scenes between Del Toro and Hopkins fall horribly flat and there is never a moment when you believe that they are father and son.

Even worse are the scenes between Del Toro and Blunt, which blossom way too quickly into a romance that features some cringe-inducing lines of dialogue like “If anything bad happened to you, I could never forgive myself” and “If only we had met in another life.”

Things turn insanely cartoon-like when Lawrence is captured by the townspeople and is sent to a mental institution. The institution is run by a doctor named Hoenneger (Antony Sher), who tries to prove to Lawrence that there is no Wolfman and that he is merely insane.

In one scene, Hoenneger turns his back on Lawrence to address the other doctors in the room. As Lawrence starts changing into the Wolfman, which is accompanied by Lawrence roaring like a demon and his bones cracking, Hoenneger still continues talking. When the other doctors try warning him, he merely holds up his hand and tells them “Please, I’m not done talking.”

It’s like something out of a Looney Toons cartoon.

Lawrence then escapes from the hospital and makes it back to his father’s estate before the police do, which is surprising, considering Lawrence was traveling by foot and the police were traveling by train.

Filled with ridiculous set pieces, like the grisly climactic showdown set inside a burning mansion and numerous missed opportunities (the movie glosses over Lawrence’s inner torment and turns him into a one-note bore), the thing that really sinks “The Wolfman” is the shockingly lifeless performance from Del Toro.

Del Toro is a solid actor, but here he turns in a cold and lifeless performance. He shouldn’t be faulted too much, since he wasn’t given much of a character to play, although judging by the looks of things, it doesn’t even seem like he made much of an effort.

Hugo Weaving, who plays the constable assigned to Lawrence’s case, is perhaps the only tolerable character onscreen, but even he grows less and less interesting as the movie progresses.

Although the movie had the potential to qualify as a camp classic, director Joe Johnston takes the material way too seriously, and he rushes through many of the scenes at such a lightning speed that you hardly have time to get involved with the story.

If it’s a good scary werewolf movie you crave, then seek out 1994′s “Wolf,” which stars Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer. Or better yet, seek out “The Company of Wolves” from 1984. It’ll show you how werewolf movies are done.

It’s that time of year again, the time when enthusiastic thespians all over ASU celebrate the Fourth Annual Theater Festival by utilization of individual talents and all appropriate tools of the trade to portray the life of another interesting character.

Delighted audiences will be certain to return for the fourth year, but what makes this year even better than the last? “We keep getting better” Professor Davis of the communications Department stated with a slight smile, “the first year we had 15 plays [all over campus], then the next year we had three sets of plays each night. This year we have seven plays repeated each night, the students get to perform their plays three times this year”.

When asked how the plays for this year came fruition, Professor Davis proudly announced, “All the plays showcase the work of the theater students and other interested students at ASU. The plays that we produced were written in my creative writing class, they were work shopped in the class and of the 18-20 plays seven top plays were chosen. The idea is to let the students set the stage. Students have written the plays, will direct the plays and act in the plays”.

This year’s theater festival is set for March 25-27, 2010. When asked about the philosophy of this year’s festival, Professor Shelly Ford, of the communications department, head of the festival enthusiastically stated, “To get as many students involved as possible! And through that large number of students to share with the audience and the community the power and the obligation of theater to change society”.

Students will have the chance to participate in this year’s festival. There will be an opportunity to audition for the plays, along with several workshops for students to take advantage of. Devon Yeager, a graduate of the Theater department at ASU, believes that the theater festival “is a really good opportunity to try all different aspects of theater without a huge life commitment, you can kind of get your feet wet and get experience in anything that you want to try.”

This year’s festival promises all sorts of exciting opportunities for ASU students to get involved. But what about next year?

“The festival has moved into the summertime.” Professor Ford said. “It will be in the structure of a three-hour course. It will be a more intense concentration of time, effort and a more enhanced ensemble experience.”

The communications Department is certain this will be of interest to new and experienced thespians alike.

So are you one of the many students interested in becoming involved? If so, be sure to check out the sneak peek festival readings on Friday January 29 at 7:00pm at the Maxwell Theater, “This will be the first and only public readings of the plays prior to their performance in the festival” writes Professor Ford. Don’t let this exciting and informative opportunity pass you by!

Auditions are being held February 1 and 2 at 7pm at the Maxwell Theater and are open to all ASU students. When asked about her experience with the theater festival, Soncerae Davanco a communications major, smiled and stated “This is a great opportunity to be a part of theater, to experience theater and to learn about theater. I know being a part of it has changed my life!”

This is not an opportunity to miss out on! Tickets are $10 for the general public, $7 dollars for senior citizens, $5 for non ASU students with a student ID, and ASU students, facility and staff will receive one free ticket with a validated JAG card. Tickets can be purchased in the lobby of the Maxwell Theater, online at tickets.aug.edu, or by phone at 706-667-4100. Don’t let this exciting and informative opportunity pass you by!

#1 A Tale of Two Sisters
#2 The Cove
#3 Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
#4 Pan’s Labyrinth
#5 Once
#6 Children of Men
#7 The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
#8 Up
#9 Almost Famous
#10 In the Bedroom

“We are not only accountable for ourselves, but also for the people around us, and their health as well.”

These words are spoken by junior nursing major Paul Ighofose, who has a plan to not only put a ban on smoking on campus, but to also raise the issues involving the health risks of smoking and second hand smoking.

There have been an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease, 3,400 deaths from lung cancer, 150,000 to 300,000 results of lung infection and more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children.

And that’s just as a result of second-hand smoking. The effect of first-hand smokers is much worse.

It is reported that one in every five deaths in the U.S. is due to cigarette smoking. The effects of first hand smoking involve birth defects, infertility, lung disorders, a number of cancers, coronary heart disease and, of course, death.

The total number of deaths due to tobacco use is estimated to be around 443,000 people each year, and that’s just in the U.S. alone.

Smoking is said to not only have an effect on the people around you, but also on unborn children as well.

Women who are pregnant who are exposed to second-hand smoke have an increased risk of giving birth to low birth weight infants, children born with decreased lung function, children who die of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and many other problems

To initiatie the debate, Ighofose wants to get the Student Government Association, as well as other people with influence involved in the debate to be more vocal..

He also hopes to get feedback about the debate from students and faculty alike, whether they smoke or not.

“I don’t want anyone to feel like their being left out,” he said.

Ighofose said he feels passionately about this issue because, as students at a university, Augusta State University Students should serve as a positive influence to younger people and those who are about to start college.

“We are the future, and will soon be in a position of influence,” Ighofose said.

Ighofose shared his idea with a few other students who are ready to back him up whenever he initiates the debate.

“It really is difficult to breathe around people who smoke, and sadly enough, some of my best friends are smokers,” says one his supporters, who wished to remain anonymous. “I fully support his cause, and sincerely hope he makes an impact with this debate. The sooner we get this problem taken care of, the better.”

“Coraline” is a treat for the senses, a movie so imaginative and filled with limitless possibilities that it completely sweeps you away to its dark, yet intriguing, fantasy world in no time at all.

Director Henry Selick, who’s made a career out of animated films like this, has completely topped himself with this one.

Everything from the eye-popping art direction (which is credited to five different people) to Selick’s jaw-dropping production design to Bruno Coulas’ stunningly original musical score, to Pete Kozachik’s lavish cinematography, help create a world so dark and mysterious that you kind of hate to leave it once the movie finally ends.

Selick also establishes a cheerfully macabre, yet delightfully off-kilter, vibe that fits the movie beautifully. There are scary moments throughout “Coraline,” but nothing that would be overly scary for younger viewers. It is as creepy as it needs to be.

Based on a book written by Neil Gaiman, (which I intend to read very soon) the movie follows the misadventures of Coraline Jones (Dakota Fanning), a very mean little girl who has just moved into an old, out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere apartment complex populated by some most unusual characters.

On the very top floor, there is a tall Russian entertainer named Mr. Bobinsky (Ian McShane), who is trying to start his own little rat circus.

On the bottom, there are two creepy dog-loving sisters (Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French) who have stuffed all of their previously deceased dogs and hung them on their wall because, well, they didn’t have the heart to bury them.

Yes, all of this sounds a little demented, but it really isn’t. In fact, it’s actually quite hilarious.

One day while snooping around the apartment, Coraline finds a hidden door sealed behind wallpaper that leads her to another world. This world is basically the same apartment complex where she now lives, but it’s more lavish and cheerful there (in contrast to the dreary overcasts of the real world) and it is run by her “Other Parents,” who have buttons sewn over their eyes but win Coraline’s affection because they practically cater to her every whim.

Because her real mom and dad (Terri Hatcher and John Hodgman provide voice work for both versions of the parents) are too wrapped up in their work to pay Coraline any attention at all, she decides to spend as much time as she can with her Other Parents.

Of course, nothing is as it appears to be. It’s like the old saying goes: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

One of the things to stand out about “Coraline” is the fact that it isn’t afraid to take risks. Selick creates a full-realized world filled with menace, horror and grotesque creatures. He never sugarcoats the proceedings or throws out any cutesy-poo elements to water down the material.

He remains consistent throughout the course of the movie, going to places that most family films these days seem too scared to go, which isn’t to say that the movie is dark just for the sake of being dark. There is a good message for children here that suggests that they should be happy with what they have, and with a character as mean and spoiled as Coraline, the message is conveyed in a convincing and compelling way.

Coraline is a wonderful character (despite her drawbacks), because she seems like an average young girl. When she mistreats the eccentric neighbor kid, Wybie (Robert Bailey, Jr.), or grows irritated with her neglectful parents, it’s always portrayed in a true to life manner.

It’s the very fact that Coraline is so mean in the beginning that provides the story with an arch. You believe the transition she undergoes in the movie, and because she’s such a well-rounded character, you care about the outcome as well.

With solid voice acting (I especially like Keith David’s work as Wybie’s black cat) and unforgettable imagery (I loved the magical garden Other Father makes in Coraline’s honor), detailing just what a magical movie “Coraline” is remains impossible.

It’s rare for any modern film to be compared to such genre classics like “The Wizard of Oz” and “Mary Poppins”, but “Coraline” is worthy of that comparison. It really is that good.

Everything you’ve heard about Avatar being a sensational visual feast is true.

From our first view of the planet of Pandora, to the colorful shots of the wildlife of the planet, to the jaw-dropping scenes of mountains floating in the sky, Avatar offers up visual images that have never been seen before on film.

James Cameron is a visual artist, and the way he uses colors here is so intoxicating that it literally takes your breath away. The first time we see the natives of Pandora in their village is a visual marvel, but the scene when the tree they hold in high regard is destroyed by the military is a small masterpiece in its own way.

That scene alone makes the movie worth seeing.

And the natives themselves, known as the Na’vi, are brought to life using seamless photo-realistic effects. These aren’t just indistinguishable computer generated images (CGI) creations. These blue-skinned, 10-feet tall creatures are living, breathing beings with a surprising range of emotions.

Not since Gollum from “Lord of the Rings”, has a CGI creation felt so alive.

So yes, Avatar is a visual wonder that deserves to be seen on the big screen. However, the storyline (which is probably not something people are going to pay a lot of attention to) is sadly preachy, derivative and predictable.

Many of the story elements feel like stuff we’ve seen in countless other movies. One of the biggest films this movie brings to mind is the 1991 movie “Dances with Wolves.”

The story takes place in the year 2154, when the military has settled on the planet of Pandora to mine a valuable mineral that Earth needs. Since the air isn’t breathable, scientists use avatars, Na’vi look alikes that are grown organically, in order to venture out and gather what they need.

The hero of the story is a paraplegic named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who is called to participate in the avatar program as a bodyguard for the main scientist, Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). However, during one of their expeditions, Sully is chased down by one of the wild animals, and is seperated from his team, only to be saved by the brave Na’vi native, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

She takes Sully to the high counsel, and the Na’vi welcome him to their village and teach him to be more like they are. Eventually, Sully falls in love with Neytiri, and grows to love the Na’vi. Eventually, Sully finds himself defending the Na’vi from a military invasion led by the bloodthirsty Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephan Lang).

The American military is portrayed in a very one-note manner. They destroy Pandora’s natural wildlife without hesitation. Also, the military is willing to murder the natives for their “natural resources,” and are led by a man who convinces his troops that the Na’vi are savage killers that can only be defeated when the military decides to “fight terror with terror.”

Militants from Earth even speak in some of the most tired “tough guy” action movie clichés, with some of the soldiers saying things like “Come get some!” and “Is that all you got?”

The parallels to current events are obvious and heavy-handed, like the many movies covering this same topic since Sept. 11. The dialogue says nothing new in a way that we’ve seen before.

However, the scenes involving Sully interacting with the Na’vi natives are entertaining, as Sully has to learn how to tame a couple of the wild animals, become one with nature (in a really neat touch, the tip of his avatar’s ponytail can connect with the animals and wildlife) and romances the lovely Neytiri, who is also fancied by the mean-looking Tsu’tey (Laz Alonso).

There is a lot of history given about the planet of Pandora, which is why the visuals make the movie worth seeing. The images aren’t pretty for the sake of being pretty. Cameron has created a fully-realized world with its own set of rules and its own backstory. It is a fascinating world populated by fascinating aliens.

Then there are the action scenes, of which Cameron is a master. The climactic battle is thrilling, delivering the required money shots and big explosions, but also keeping the characters’ emotions front and center. There is a real sense of danger and emotional weight in this scene, it isn’t just mindless violence and noise.

“Avatar” is an entertaining and compelling science-fiction adventure, and it deserves to be seen on the big screen. It’s just a shame that with as much thought that went into the look of the movie, not enough thought was put into the screenplay.

It would seem like an arduous task to choose a best film of the decade, seeing as how this was the decade that saw the likes of such flawless gems like “Crash,” “Pan’s Labyrinth,” “Children of Men,” “Juno” and many more.

However, when all is said and done, there is only one film that has challenged me, frightened me, haunted me and devestated me more than any other film this decade. This film is, in fact, so mesmerizing and powerful that it deserves to be mentioned alongside other cinematic treasures like “The Godfather,” “Citizen Kane,” “The Exorcist” and “Casablanca.”

Said film is none other than Ji-Woon Kim’s 2003 juggernaut “A Tale of Two Sisters.”

Words cannot even begin to describe what a fascinating movie this is. To simply call it a horror movie is a great injustice. Although the movie is scary, it is also so much more than that.

For starters, “A Tale of Two Sisters” is a movie about the repercussions of sin, as everything in this movie seems to stem from one character’s betrayal of his wife, which ends up having an effect on every member of his family.

It also works as a subtle and complex look at guilt and how people struggle to find redemption. In fact, the film’s somewhat biblical opening shot shows someone ‘cleansing their hands,’ and the rest of the movie is motivated by the characters trying to wash away the guilt of something that is going to be with them for the rest of their lives, no matter what they do.

Finally, the movie is a devistating and immersive look at a young soul that has been sadly damaged beyond repair. To go into too much detail about this would be to ruin the experience for those who have not seen the movie.

Let it be said that one viewing of “A Tale of Two Sisters” is not enough, because the movie has so many layers to it that it is practically impossible to catch everything on the first viewing.

Take, for instance, the scene where the older sister Soo-Mi (Su-jeong Lim) finds her younger sister Soo-yeon (Geun-Young Moon) locked in a closet after being attacked by their wicked stepmother (Jung-ah Yum). One will undoubtedly be touched by Soo-Mi’s actions and words as she tries to comfort her younger sister, but it isn’t until you revisit the movie that you’ll truly understand why this scene qualifies as the most heartbreaking scene I’ve witnessed all decade.

The climax of the movie is especially terrific, as it completely immerses you in one character’s damaged mind in such a way that you start to feel the fear, confusion and hopelessness as the character on screen. By this point, you’re no longer merely an observer. Like every great movie, the director makes you live and experience everything the character on screen is living and experiencing.

It is truly a cinematic out-of-body experience.

And then there is the relationship between the two sisters Soo-Mi and Soo-Yeon, which is both sincere and compelling. I dare anyone to watch the scene where Soo-Yeon climbs into her sisters bed, after something scares her in her room and not be touched.

Everything about this movie is pitch perfect. The acting is superb. The story is intricately structured and flawlessly paced. The cinematography and use of colors are simply hypnotic.

No other film released in the last ten years can hold a candle to this beautiful movie. It is in a league of its own. This isn’t just the best film of the decade; it’s also one of the ten greatest movies ever made.

There is not a shred of reason for anyone to see this shockingly inept and reprehensible toilet-stain of a movie.

The experience of watching “Orphan” is akin to bathing in a tub of vomit for two hours: It’s a disgusting movie that leaves you feeling nauseous and unclean long after it’s over. There are violent horror movies, and then there are movies like “Orphan,” ones that are made not to scare or entertain the audience, but to cause them to experience deep feelings of sadness and sickness.

Who was this movie made for? Horror movie buffs? Certainly they will be as tired as the rest of us by all the cheap “gotcha” moments in the movie, which are of course followed by the obligatory musical sting.

Director Jaume Collet-Serra even does this annoying visual trick of having the camera sneak up on certain characters when they have their backs turned until we realize, thank God, there’s no one really there.

It didn’t work the first time, and it gets downright irritating after the fifth or sixth time.

After opening up with a blood-drenched prologue that goes on a lot longer than it should, the movie tells the story of the happily married John (Peter Sarsgard) and Kate (Vera Farminga), who are quite possibly the blandest movie couple to have ever cursed the big screen.

A year after Kate has a miscarriage with her third child, the two of them go to a nearby Catholic orphanage in hopes of adopting a little girl. There, they find the Russian born Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman, who is not the least bit scary), who is so mannered, polite and talented that she completely wins them over within a matter of minutes.

When Esther first arrives at the house, she is immediately greeted with hostility by the oldest son Daniel (Jimmy Bennett), but is met with a lot of love and affection by the deaf youngest daughter Max (Aryana Engineer).

Everything seems to be fine until, one day, a girl at school is thrown from a slide and fractures her ankle, and the kindly Sister Abigail (CCH Pounder) is found dead in the woods.

Of course, I’m not giving much away when I say that Esther is responsible for everything since, for one, the trailers give away the plot.

The scene involving the nun is particularly off-putting. After Esther pushes Max right out in the middle of the road and Sister Abigail swerves her car, she comes up behind the woman, starts bashing her head in with a hammer, and asks little four-year old Max to help her drag the body into the woods.

Then, when Sister Abigail turns out to not be dead, Esther starts bashing her head in some more, the cinematographer, Jeff Cutter, makes sure to linger on both the hammer crushing the woman’s skull and little Max looking on in horror.

Is this supposed to be entertainment? Some will try to defend this vile heap of garbage as being “daring” and “a return to what horror is meant to be.” This is funny because, the last time I checked, horror movies were meant to be scary, thrilling or at least somewhat creepy. “Orphan” is none of these things. It’s a incompetently made freak show that exists in a moral vacuum, seeming to relish every second that a small child is threatened, brutalized or otherwise tormented by little Esther.

The director seems to have this repellent need to exploit and victimize young children as a way to get cheap thrills.
The scene where Esther grabs a six-shooter and points the pistol at little Max’s face is more appalling than thrilling.

And speaking of appalling, what till you hear the much advertised secret that Esther is harboring. Not only is the final twist laughably absurd, but once you look back at the rest of the movie in retrospect, it’s also inexcusably detestable.

The cinematography is ugly and drab. The editing is graceless. The screenplay by David Johnson is filled with scenes that are as ridiculous as they are unnecessary (there is one instance where John and Kate engage in some graphic sex in the kitchen, where their children can easily walk in on them).

Orphan is such a maddeningly awful piece of junk that I literally cannot put into words just how much I physically, spiritually and intensely despised this movie.

Do yourself a favor: This movie is 123minutes long. That is 7,383seconds of your life that you will never get back. Don’t waste your time on this.

When the family room on the third floor of Reese Library was first opened to the public in the fall 2006, there was a young couple with a newborn child who could not afford child care.

Due to their situation, one of them was going to have to drop out of school so they could take care of their child. However, when they heard about the family room, they were able to look after their child and work on their homework as well, and neither dropped out of school.

To this day, the family room is still serving student parents. Michelle Lazenby, an early childhood education major, said that the room is convenient for study time.
“I have used it 2-3 times this semester,” she said. “It is definitely a good thing.”

The room was created three years ago when President William Bloodworth Jr. asked all units of Augusta State University to brainstorm ways of keeping students successful. The idea for the family room was suggested by Jamie Basset, a nursing major.

Jamie had three children of his own, and wanted a place for his kids to stay because they would make noise every time they were in the library.

The family room is broken up into two segments. One is a play area for the kids, which features a TV, as well as children’s films to watch, games to play and books to read.

The other area is a place for the parents to study, which also features a couple of computers where students can type their papers.

Even more convenient for parents is the fact that if their children tried leaving the playroom, there is an alarm attached to the locked door in the playroom that will sound, alerting only the parent in the other room.

“It isn’t like a fire alarm or anything,” said Camilla Reid, associate director of Reese Library. “It’s loud enough to alert the parents in the other room.”

To gain access into the room, students will need to have an Augusta State student ID and sign a release form at the circulation desk in order to gain access to the code that will allow them into the room. There is a phone in the family room that, once picked up, will go straight to the reference desk downstairs.

There are a couple of guidelines for parents bringing their child into the family room. Children under 14 are not to leave the family room and are not be left unattended, as unattended children may wander off or become disruptive to others in the library

Older children are allowed to sit in the main area of the library to do homework or read, but they need either a guardian’s permission or a pass from their high school before being allowed to do so.

There are a couple of ideas for the future of the family room, one being installing an internet-free computer in the playroom so that kids can play games. According to Reid, there is no printer in the room, so anyone using the computers in the family room that needs to print any assignments have to go into the main area.

“We hope that soon we can have a printer in the family room,” Reid said, “so that parents won’t have to leave the room.”