The film opens in medias res with the titular heroine (played by the often remarkable Mia Wasikowska) throwing herself into the cold, wet, wilderness of the English countryside and landing on the front door of St. John (played by Jamie Bell). After the delirious girl is taken in and cared for, we flashback to the beginning of Brontë’s novel, moving through Jane’s situation as the unwanted ward of her wealthy aunt, as well a brief sequence of her education at the Lowood School. These flashbacks pepper the present action of the film as Jane becomes acclimated into the small parish St. John (pronounced ‘Syn-Gyn’) runs as the minister.

We learn that Jane left Lowood for the gothic Thornfield to work as a governess to Adele, the illegitimate child of the byronically charming Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Intrigue and romance ensue.

As this is largely a love story, the chemistry of the two lead actors, Wasikowska and Fassbender, determines a great deal of the movie’s success. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much there. Both actors found their individual characters with enough confidence to exist on the screen, but the attraction between the two was understated at best. The film lacks the romantic magic of the novel, probably because Director Cary Fukunaga tries to give us the more realistic Jane Eyre.

Outdoor sequences are shot with hand cams that bounce behind Jane as she walks down garden paths and picks flowers with Rochester. The interior scenes look almost like a different movie as Fukunaga takes full advantage of what a film set offers. He lights and places his objects meticulously with a dense array of muted colors that make every frame look like a Vermeer painting.

The film is paced well, coming in at two-hour runtime (pretty standard for a Victorian adaption) but leaves a few some elements of the plot only half-explained so that anyone not familiar with the novel might have some questions at the end. All-in-all, what is supposed to work in this film works, but not too memorably or, for that matter, impressively. If you like Brontë or think it might help you chat up coeds at The Warehouse, you might want to see it; and if not, there’s still the new Pirates, and it’s still in 3D!

Yes, the sluggish economy and high unemployment in America obviously has a lot to do with low sales (particularly in entertainment markets_, but market research company NPD Group released a study earlier this month that showed that it isn’t just money. 42% of consumers cited not wanting to wear glasses as the reason for not yet purchasing a 3DTV. The study also showed that while there has been a great increase in consumer awareness of 3DTV’s, there has been no increase in sales, or even so much as an increase in the desire to own one. When critics and purchasers of 3D alike show nothing but praise, why is it so hard to get the general public’s attention?

A fear of change to take the next technological step seems the only logical answer. However, just like all adaptions and improvements in television history, success is inevitable. James Cameron recently predicted a future engorged with 100% 3D, “3D is how all broadcast entertainment will be done. Sports, episodic drama, scripted, unscripted—everything.” Of course Cameron is only speaking of 3D’s involvement in movies and television, but the third dimension could play a heavier role in all of our technological gadgets.

But, while printers, digital cameras, videogames, and various handheld devices are just a few contraptions receiving a 3D makeover, none of these trailblazing pieces are seeing much success. A recent report by Public Knowledge vents, “Just as with the printing press, the copy machine, and the personal computer before it, people will see 3D as a disruptive threat. Others will see it as a groundbreaking tool to spread creativity and knowledge.” The report warns consumers not to be afraid, “It is critical that those who fear not stop those who are inspired.” A bit more rational, the video game industry recognizes the need for more time to adjust. Killzone 3 studio manager Herman Hulst explains Killzone 3’s 3D abilities, “3D is a great option, and it’s here to stay. But just like when we moved from mono sound to stereo sound, you have to wait for the audience to be ready. You don’t force people to adapt. After a while, they won’t want to go back.”

All the same, the day everyone decides to leave the second dimension and venture off into the third shouldn’t be far off. Apple, fresh off its success of the easy-to-use iPad, has already filed a patent on a method of 3D image projecting without the need for glasses. The brand that makes its name off of simplicity appears to be giving 3D a makeover for the stubborn consumers who still refuse to add another apparatus to their viewing technology—namely glasses.

Many consumers who sit in a room equipped with stereo sound, LCD screens, HD channels, and surround sound speakers still don’t seem to realize the changes, and challenges, they endured to enjoy their current home entertainment systems. The bottom line is that 3D televisions offer literally everything current set-ups have, and a hell of a lot more, yet they continue to collect dust at the local Best Buy. Hopefully not for long.

When the movie starts those familiar with the prior installment, the wildly popular The Hangover of 2009, may be experiencing a bit of déjà vu. A woman leaves a wedding party in-waiting with a cell phone to her ear. On the other end is Phil (played by Bradley Cooper), looking like a man who’s just gone through hell and back, explaining that the wedding won’t happen. “It happened again,” he says. And, indeed, it did happen again. After flying to Thailand for the wedding of Stu (Ed Helms), Phil and Alan (Zack Galifianakis) mean to give him one last night of fun. This night of fun, once again, completely passes the audience by for the sake of being pieced by together by the three after they wake up in a seedy hotel room in the middle of Bangkok.  Just like last time, they have no recollection of the night prior, and of course, just like last time, they all have killer hangovers. The rest of the film involves them wondering around the city trying to find another missing fourth member of their party, and running into another cast of outrageous characters they were supposed to have met the night before.

The jokes are primarily the same, in context if not content. That being said, if anyone appreciated the perverse, absurd, and unabashedly vulgar humor of the first Hangover movie, they can rest assured that the ride is different enough and hits hard enough that they’ll still find themselves nearly asphyxiating from laughter. If the old truism holds that nothing is as funny the second time around, The Hangover Part II may be the exception that proves the rule.

As I’m sure you can tell, this is a trailer for the upcoming film The Losers. It looks pretty good! I for one will probably see it in theaters and try to enjoy the experience. Here are five reasons why I think you should do the same:

1. Zoe Saldana is really really, ridiculously good looking.

2. Rocket launchers!

3. It’s co-written by Peter Berg (of Friday Night Lights).

4. Something something something comic books.

5. STRINGER BELL!!! (Idris Elba, aka The Best)