Have a movie in mind that you would like the YellowJacket to review? Want to contribute a guest article or video yourself? Email Carly Robinson@letu.edu with your ideas!

In their last album, “Until We Have Faces” (2011)*, RED somewhat began to move away from these roots. After listening to “Release the Panic,” little doubt remains that the band is changing. The strings and piano have largely been abandoned in favor of continued guitar riffs with electronic backgrounds, and their overall sound may be better described as metal than rock. Nevertheless, a change in itself should not be blankly labeled as good or bad. After all, every band changes. The question is, has the new direction of “Release the Panic” been a change for the better?

First, let’s look to the message. The album tries to tell a story and communicate truths. The title track captures the panic and chaos felt in our society; “Perfect Life” decries leading a life of hypocrisy and shallowness; “Damage” is a disturbing cry of a broken person. These tracks show what RED intends to do with their music: engage with our world. The essence of RED is authenticity. Is this message conveyed well by the music? Unfortunately, the band’s new sound, while more hard or intense in its delivery, just does not convey this authenticity as well as their previous albums. Too much of the music feels over-produced. Tracks like “Same Disease” may be catchy, but are quite repetitive and uninspiring in the end.

So, is Release the Panic a wash in the otherwise great discography of RED? Hardly. Once the harder songs have passed, there are still some gems to be found. “The Moment We Come Alive” excellently resolves the tension created by the album’s title track. “Glass House” declares beautifully,

“You have shown

You can break right through this glass house of our souls

Make us whole again

Make us whole”

The end of the matter is this: RED has still created some great music in “Release the Panic.” Even if the style may be foreign to some fans or less appealing than their older sound, the solid message of their music remains. My hope is that RED can regain their most authentic sound even as they continue to develop as a band.

Overall rating: 7.5/10

Written by Andrew Pearson.

*editor's note: the album is named after C.S. Lewis' last and reportedly favorite novel, Till We Have Faces. There you go, Steve!

Taylor Swift is a secular artist, but her songs are a more wholesome alternative to the general selection of country and pop songs. This latest album has 12 tracks, and each is filled with some fun and sad stories about love relationships gone well and bad.  Track 4 “I Knew You Were Trouble” starts as a slow rock song, then quickly changes when dub step is added. Swift still remembers to add country and ballads to her album with “State of Grace” and “Treacherous.” The song "Stay Stay Stay" is one of my personal favorites. It is a catchy tune, and a sweet romantic love story.  The song "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" has quickly become a radio hit and is one of the best known songs on the album. The title song "Red" has an interesting blend of contemporary and pop.

Taylor Swift put her own feelings and emotions on the line in the lyrics of these songs. Her relationship struggles and successes are deeply conveyed in this album. Her openness and change may bring her more popularity and success for the future.  If you’re a Taylor Swift fan, I know you'll enjoy this album. I just recently began to listen to more of Taylor Swift’s songs. I enjoy her classic country style songs, but this pop/country mix is a good and welcome change for the artist. Overall, I would give it a 4 out of 5 stars for sound, quality, and lyrics.

Written by Elise Silvey.

I'm here with another review and this time it's about a movie that's still in theaters. (Plot Twist!) During the weekend of Fall Fest, I had the pleasure of watching the movie Looper. What is Looper about? In the year 2044, the world has taken a turn for the worse, poverty seems to be commonplace in all countries and the richest people are the ones who work for a group of crime syndicates called “Loopers.” Loopers, we learn, are paid assassins who kill victims from 2074—the year in which time travel has been invented. When the Looper's contractor wants to erase evidence of illegal time travel, they send back the future version of the Looper,to be killed by his past version,thus closing the loop. Our protagonist is one of these Loopers named Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). The story begins when his 30 older version (Bruce Willis) is sent back for him to kill…but things go horribly wrong, and his future version escapes.. For the remainder of the movie, Joe’s primary motive is to kill his older version before his contractor punishes him. His future version, however, has his own agenda. Once again, there might be some spoilers, but I will try to keep the most important plot points under wraps.

Before I discuss the main protagonists, I want to give some props to the supporting cast. Emily Blunt was excellent as the tough single-mom, Sara. Her character started out as unapproachable, but as the story continues you begin to realize that she's just fiercely dedicated to protecting her son. The rest of the cast also is in top form. Among the cast are some you would probably not expect to see in this sort of movie; names like Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo. A breakout award definitely goes to young Pierce Gagnon as Sara's son Cid. Good child actors are few and far between and this role was not even close toeasy. Gagnon had a role where he was required to be likable yet frightening, and he pulled it off superbly.

Now as for our leads, I will have to tackle them both separately. I'll start with Bruce Willis because he is the more experienced one. I can say with confidence that few people have not seen a movie with Willis. Right now he could be consideredamong the greats, and everybody knows him as one of the foremost action stars. The Willis movie that first convinced me of his talent is a comedy called 'The Kid'. (Ironically, the plot also involved a younger version of him.) I suppose in that movie I realized that I liked Willis as an actor. In Looper, Willis has aged well. Not only are his action scenes superb, but the dramatic scenes are just as intense. The second lead, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, has also been a force to be reckoned with in the past few years. As a kid, one of my favorite movies was 'Angels in the Outfield', and even back then he was one of those rare “good child actors.” (And yes, I'll admit that I had a tiny crush on him… but in my defense, now everybody has one.) Levitt has matured nicely into the industry, something that anyone who has seen 'Inception' can attest to. This performance tone that I think serves as the best exhibition of talent in his career.

Now, the burning question is, did they pull of playing the same person? According to some behind-the-scenes research I did, both actors studied each other’s speech patterns and mannerisms to give a more realistic performance,  and I would say that they did well. There is one scene in which young Joe and old Joe are talking in a dinner that Levitt's character frequents, and in that moment I was nervous that the waitress might recognize Willis to be the same person as Levitt. However, there is only so much a cinematic performance can do convince you that two people are the same person, which brings me to my next point.

I don't often think about make-up design in movies, but for this one I have to give mad props to the artists in charge of Levitt's prosthetic. If the acting didn't sell you, then the make-up will, because they did an amazing job working to make his jawbone structure look like something that would eventually morph into a Bruce Willis jaw line. One of my favorite scenes is a transition of the thirty years that passed between Levitt and Willis' time-line. The seamless transition between actors was awesome to watch. Somebody had better give the make-up department an award for this.

On a related note, the soundtrack for this movie was also very fitting. It was mostly typical “intense action movie” orchestral pieces that one is used to, but for some of the fight scenes we were treated to some dubstep-esque melodies, which really made the action feel even more heart-stopping.

Another plus for this movie was the setting. It might not have been the most optimistic view of the future, but the look of it was very close to home. There was the usual futuristic technology that one finds in movies of this genre, and even some random people telekinetically making coins float, but the essense of the movie made you feel like it all really wasn’t too far removed from where we are today. The atmosphere had a vaguely Steampunk feel, with a bit of a “technological/Victorian” vibe about the whole setting.This movie is what I like to call an intelligent action flick. Sure the action was very exciting, but the focus was still on the story. It was about the characters and how far they are willing to go for the things they want to protect. It also does its best to keep the loop-holes (pun definitely intended), that usually come with time travel stories to a bare minimum. As much as I like this movie, it is R rated, which means the violence wasbloody, there was rampant swearing, drug abuse of the eye-dropping variety, and a couple sketchy nude scenes. However, the nudity was pretty much over with by the first act and mostly serves to set a tone of the self-indulgent life-style that Levitt's character leads. Still, I probably wouldn't take children or my mom to this movie. Teenager perhaps, if they're mature about it. I give this movie 4/5 Yellow Hoodies, because even though I can understand Rian Johnson's creative decision, I could have done without the raciness. If you don't want to take my word for it, see what other people are saying at Rotten Tomatoes. Have a great week, hope to write again soon!

This is the third and final installment of our "Summer of the Superheros" trilogy of reviews. If you missed part one and part two, go ahead and catch up first!

The Avengers

Sick of the word hype yet? Well too bad, you'll just have to deal with it a little longer. “The Avengers” had the best kind of hype a movie could ask for. Not only was this a superhero movie, it was a marketing pioneer. For the first time, a cross-over a-la comic book was being adapted to the Big Screen. Not only was a comic-book movie never set up like this before (as far as I know), no movie has been set up like this. “The Dark Knight” might have gotten critics to take comic-book movies seriously, but 'The Avengers' is most changing the game altogether. Those who weren't pumped for this movie’s release were at least curious to see how this venture would turn out. I was right there with the other nerds, excited to see how this would turn out. Best. Way. To. Start. Summer. Vacation. EVER!

I have argued that this movie counts as a modern epic in my World Literature class, and I stand by that opinion. This movie at least hits five of the six requirements of an epic narrative: superhuman protagonist(s), vast universe, supernatural forces, elevated style (the art of writing comic-books is so underrated), and deeds of valor. (Dr. Palacios, can this count as extra credit?) This movie hits all the right notes. I cannot imagine anyone who wouldn’t enjoy this movie, even those who didn’t see the previous movies that led up to this one. The characterization allows newcomers to connect with protagonists without alienating core audience with too much exposition. Instead, watching “The Avengers” gives you a better appreciation for the previous Marvel movies, and makes you want to watch them all in the row just see if you'll discover something new with this changed perspective. Not only did this movie succeed during its box-office weekend, have an exclusive Indian theme song, and exponentially make schwarma sales increase, but it was so popular that they put it back in theaters for Labor Day weekend.

There is no denying that 'The Avengers' is a success in many different levels. Sure, its Stan Lee cameo was not quite glamorous (it was sweet, but it was no “Amazing Spider-Man”), but it has given us a shining example of what a summer movie should be. It had its emotional moments, well-written dialogue, and action scenes with explosions galore, and it never gets stale. It was almost unfair to give the other two movies ratings because there just wasn't a way they were gonna compare to this masterpiece. I would love to give this movie a 5/5, but I'm not sure that would be sufficient. 'The Avengers' deserves 5 Golden Hoodies molten and reshaped into one perfect Hoodie to rule them all. From what I have heard, not even the nerds care that it is not completely faithful to the original source material.

I would like to close by saying this has been a great year for super-hero movies. This summer we witnessed an ending, a new start, and a centerpiece of collective movies. Each of these movies had their merits and shortcomings, but all were earnest in their presentation of a story. This year might not be something that will be etched into the history of cinema, but it won't be easily forgotten either. These films give me hope that Hollywood still cares about making good movies.

Written by Deborah Palmer

Welcome back to "Summer of the Superheroes," a three-part review of the top comic book blockbusters from summer 2012. In part 2, YellowJacket reviewer Deborah Palmer shares her thoughts on "The Amazing Spider-Man." If you missed part 1, you can find it here. If you can't wait to read part 3, you're in luck-we've already published it...here.

Remember how I said all of this summer’s superhero movies had hype? Well, this movie had its fair share. Boasting a good cast and a competent director, it promised to be a more mature reboot of the Sam Raimi franchise, which had done marginally well. With all hype comes skepticism, though, and I admit I was one of the skeptics. The repeat seemed a bit too soon, and while I had not looked on favorably on the last Spider-Man movie, I didn't think it warranted a re-imagination quite yet. I honestly had more fears about this movie than “The Dark Knight Rises.” Imagine how relieved I was when I was proven wrong. This movie might have come out too early, but it was necessary. This was the movie we should have gotten in the first place.

One of my biggest problems with the original trilogy was the leading man, Tobey Maguire. Initially I thought he was too ugly for the role. As I grew older and my tastes more refined, I realized that the role didn't call for a traditionally attractive persona anyway, and I learned to accept him. Despite that, I still couldn't completely connect with his portrayal of Peter Parker. My first impression of Andrew Garfield was that he was sufficiently goofy looking; when I actually saw his performance in the movie, I abandoned the original trilogy and never looked back. Now you might be wondering why Andrew Garfield's performance was superior to that of Tobey Maguire. Well let me put it this way: he was nerdy! Allow me to elaborate, Maguire is a competent actor but when he was Peter Parker, all I saw was the stereotypical, Hollywood nerd. Garfield didn't just pretend to be some kind of stale representation of a nerd, he was an honest-to-goodness, slouching, introverted nerd. Not only was he a realistic nerd, he was a realistic teenager. And best of all he actually had a motormouth as Spider-Man.(Spider-Man quipping in a Spider-Man movie, what?! What kind of madness is this?!)

Overall, the performances in this movie were top-notch. The relationship between Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker was slightly awkward, but very sweet (And less stalker-ish than in the first franchise). The awkwardness was intentional, because hey, Parker's still a nerd. I don't know if the chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield was because they are good performers, or because they are actually dating; their portrayal made me not care. This movie also made the bully, Flash Thompson, more three-dimensional. Two of the best performances by far were Sally Field and Martin Sheen as Peter's aunt and uncle, respectively. The two might not have had much screen-time, especially Martin Sheen,considering Uncle Ben's fate, but each scene they had was sufficiently poignant and/or sombre as the scene called for. I especially applaud this movie for giving Aunt May a presence, which was quickly brushed to the side in the Raimi version.

One of the weak points of the movie was the motivation of the villain, the Lizard. Denis Leary did well to make the Curt Conners character relatable, yet when the time came for his descent into darkness, I wasn't quite sure where that was coming from. On the other hand, the writing was otherwise stellar, as it achieved a feat of great magnitude. The writers successfully said 'With great power, comes great responsibility' . . . without saying 'With great power, comes great responsibility.' If all this is not enough reason for you to watch this movie, then at least do it for the Stan Lee cameo. I don't want to spoil this because it is just so awesome, but trust me when I say this cameo is by far the best Stan Lee cameo in the history of yet. “The Amazing Spider-Man” gets 4 1/2 out of 5 Yellow Hoodies, for proving my expectations wrong in the best way, and for that epic Stan Lee cameo. I enjoyed this movie, and I'm sad that Spider-Man won't be joining the ranks of the Avengers anytime soon.

Written by Deborah Palmer.

This article is the first of a three-part series reviewing superhero movies that premiered this summer. You can read parts two and three next if you enjoyed this one. Let us know what you think!  Stay classy, San Diego.
~Nathan Brazil

Hi, this is Deborah Palmer again.

Some of you might remember me from my 'Incredibly Close & Extremely Loud' review. To those who didn't, welcome to this article. I review movies and stuff. Now for this article, I will be tackling a favorite subject of mine: Superhero movies. This year was a really good year for those sorts of movies, and I saw all of them. (Except the Ghostrider movie, but that came out in February, which is practically last year. Sorry, Nick Cage!) Let's face it: out of the summer movie blockbuster season, the comic book movies were the crown jewels. So, for a treat I'm going to give you my take on all three, ending with my favorite. (As a side-note, I liked all three, but to different degrees.) There will probably be some spoilers; however, I will try to withhold them to the best of my abilities. Now that I've got the preliminary intro out of the way, let the show begin.

The Dark Knight Rises

This was actually the last super-hero movie I saw this year. A common theme of all three of these movies was the hype, and oh boy was there hype for this movie. Coming right after the success of 'The Dark Knight,' this movie had a tough act to follow. In fact, most people were wondering if this movie would even come close to its predecessor, let alone outdo it. 'The Dark Knight' was the movie that made the Academy Awards take comic-book movies seriously. Of course, the death of Heath Ledger complicated matters by forcing Christopher Nolan to rewrite his script without one of his main antagonists. The ever-increasing cast also made some people speculate if this was indeed a Batman movie, or an 'Inception' reunion. Some questioned Nolan's choice to cast Anne Hathaway as fan-favorite supporting character, Catwoman.

Catwoman. Surprisingly non-feline-like?

This movie had the potential to either be legendary, or legendarily horrible. I myself was not sure what to expect from this movie. Up to that point I had never seen a Nolan film that I hated, so I had faith that he could at least make a decent finale; yet there was that small chance that this movie could ruin my summer. Fortunately, Nolan got to keep my personal track record. I'm not saying it was perfect, in fact, of the Nolan movies “Dark Knight” still remains my favorite Batman movie…but all in all, I loved the film. The soundtrack was tight, the plot was mostly consistent, and all the actors gave great performances. Anne Hathaway may not have been the Catwoman I envisioned, but she perfectly captured that smug personality mixed with depth of character that Selina Kyle represents to me. Tom Hardy was a joy to watch, if only because his enthusiasm for the role just oozed from him.

Still, some hardcore comic-book fans had many issues with this movie, though I will only address two to save time. The first is that with the amount of new characters, there was hardly any focus on the returning characters, most prominently the title character himself. Now, I didn't have a problem with this because from a narrative perspective, it seems to make sense. (Warning: Spoilers start here) Not only was this movie the end of this trilogy, but it was the final venture in Bruce Wayne's career as The Batman. However, within the movie the legacy was being passed on to a new group, or more specifically Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. In order for the audience to accept this newcomer, they had to spend time with him and learn to sympathize with him. Also, Batman broke his back—an inevitable fate for his face off with Bane—which didn't give him much to do. I doubt the movie would have been much better if it kept cutting back to Bruce to confirm that his back is still broken. The other issue is with Selina and Bruce's relationship. Most people agree that it was not developed enough. I actually agree with this sentiment; one of the drawbacks of Bruce barely appearing in the movie is that there was little time to explore why he had a connection with Salina in the first place.

Now the film’s ending might put off the fandom who strongly believe that Batman never retires. To that I say, “chill.” Maybe this movie didn't stay 100% faithful to the source material, but it remained faithful to the universe that Nolan created. The movie, and for that matter the whole franchise, remained true to the theme of the Batman comics; the never ending battle for the soul of a city. True, Batman retired, but who's to say that it was permanent? For all you know he might take up the cowl in few years after the movie ends. Heck, in the comics even death didn't stop Bruce from being Batman, so I don't think you should worry about him taking some time to just live. You also have respect the fact that Nolan didn't go with the gimmick of stretching the final movie into two parts (no offense to Harry Potter and Hunger Games fans... and even *shudder* “Twihards”). Overall, I give 'The Dark Knight Rises' 4 out of 5 Yellow Hoodies. Sure the writing could have used some additional drafts, but based on the circumstances, I can understand. At the very least it redeemed the DC movie franchise of Green Lantern. *more shudders*

Written by Deborah Palmer.

From the creators of “Fireproof” comes a dramatic film of tragedy, victory, and healing. Four men, officers in the local sheriff’s department of Albany, GA, embark on a journey together to discover the true role of Christ-following fathers in the modern American society. Adam Mitchell (Alex Kendrick) plays the primary role in the film as a husband and a father of two children. When death strikes his family, Mitchell is confronted with two choices: 1) to allow despair to overwhelm him, or 2) to be the courageous man his family needs to carry them through the grieving process. African-American Nathan Hayes (Ken Bevel), a recent addition to the sheriff’s force, is faced with the challenge of a 16-year-old daughter who doesn’t understand why her parents will not allow her to date. Shane Fuller (Kevin Downes) is divorced and shares custody of his son. Rookie officer David Thomson (Ben Davies) is dealing with the reality that he has a daughter whom he has never met and never helped to support. Javier Martinez (Robert Amaya), a Hispanic immigrant struggling to find work, joins these four men in their journey. With the commitment to serve and protect their families, will these four men be able to stand against the pressures that threaten to overwhelm them?

“Courageous” brings a much needed message to a society in which roughly 24.7 million (36.3%) children grow up without their biological fathers (‘Courageous’). “Fatherless homes produce: 63 percent of youth suicides (Bureau of Census); and 90 percent of all children with behavioral disorders (CDC). In a recent survey, 7 out of 10 participants agreed that the physical absence of fathers from the home is the most significant family or social problem facing America” (‘Courageous’). The film calls out to the character of all men, regardless of their race, nationality, culture, or language. Kendrick explains, “The issue of fatherhood transcends all classes and all races. The importance of a father in the home is crucial to the health of the family structure” (Heart of Courageous).

In addition to proclaiming a counter-cultural message that society desperately needs to hear, “Courageous” is also entertaining to watch. “Christian” films can have the reputation of being boring because they carry such serious messages. Although the action and drama in “Courageous” may not be as climactic as modern-day thrillers, the film is still attention-grabbing.  “Courageous” is the first film I have ever witnessed to cause practically everyone in the theater to laugh aloud, or to tear up, at precisely the same moments throughout the entire story (not just a few chuckles spread out here and there). Everything that takes place in the movie is realistic. The characters on the screen could easily be your next-door neighbor or your best friend’s dad. You probably know what it is like to have a close family member die (or at least know someone who does); same with experiencing divorce. So, go see “Courageous” if you haven’t already, or purchase it to add to your collection. This film is a “must see,” and I highly recommend it.

“So where are you men of courage?...It’s time to rise up and answer the call that God has given to you, and to say, ‘I will. I will. I will’” (Courageous).

Sources

Courageous. Dir. Alex Kendrick. Provident Films, 2011. Film.

“‘Courageous’ Holds Message for the Family Fathers.” AndalusiaStarNews. AndalusiaStarNews, 1 Oct. 2011. Web. 6 March 2012.

CourageousTheMovie.com. Provident Films, 2012. Web. 6 March 2012.

The Heart of Courageous. Dir. Alex Kendrick. Provident Films, 2012. Video Recording.

Why This Film?

Although “Etxtremely Loud and Incredibly Close” (ELIC) is not in theaters anymore, it is a recent movie release as a rental and in the iTunes store, and is just obscure enough as to be of interest but little known about. How did I find out about it? When I was still a high-school student, my sister came back for the winter holidays from college and brought with her a DVD of 'Everything is Illuminated,' starring Elijah Wood and directed by none other than Liev Schreiber (Sabretooth from "X-men Origins: Wolverine").

The movie was about a young Jewish man traveling to the Ukraine to find the woman who helped his grandfather escape to the United States in World Ward II. The movie follows his adventures with his tour guides and their dog as they try to find this mysterious benefactor. The movie was upbeat if a bit somber at times, considering its subject material. The setting especially hit home with me, maybe because of my upbringing in a country bordered by Slavic provinces.

So what does this movie have to do with “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” apart from the unorthodox name? They are both based on novels of the same name, written by Jonathan Safran Foer. Based on this connection, I will be making light comparisons between the two movies, but will try to focus on ELIC for the review.

Summary

Oskar Shell (Thomas Horn) is a studious, neurotic, and socially awkward 9-year-old boy whose best friend seems be his father (Tom Hanks) until his untimely death during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Before his father passed on, he had a habit of sending Oskar on creative wild-goose chases, which he calls Reconnaissance Expeditions. The goals of these challenges are to exercise Oskar's mental abilities and to help him experience new things. The last expedition was to find the supposed 'Sixth Borough' of New York City, which was unfortunately left unsolved. A year after the “Worst Day” (9/11), Oskar finally collects the bravery to go into his father's room and stumbles upon a key of unspecified origin as he looks through the closet. The only clue towards the key's use is the word 'Black' on the envelope in which he found it. Desperate to keep his father's memory alive, and despite his amplified phobias since 9/11, Oskar sets out on a personal Reconnaissance Expedition to find every person with the last name Black and to try the key in any lock he comes across in his journey. Throughout the story he struggles with his relationship with his mother (Sandra Bullock), and is briefly accompanied by his grandmother's mute, elderly tenant known only as 'The Renter'(Max von Sydow).

Critique

Before discussing the young lead actor, I would like to briefly touch upon the adults. My bias has always been that Tom Hanks can do no wrong, and in this movie it is no different. He is same charming lovable self he tends to play, but one of his better scenes is actually when his voice has been recorded on the answering machine during the terrorist attacks. He conveys a slowly increasing panic,  despite the fact that he is trying to reassure his son that things will turn out fine. Sandra Bullock does a great job, too, in portraying a mother who is desperately trying to connect with her high-maintenance child after a tragic accident. Although she does not have quite as much screen time, I enjoy Zoe Caldwell's performance as Oskar's playful German grandmother, who occasionally assists him in his scavenger hunts. Arguably the most impressive performance, however, Max von Sydow as mute, traumatized Holocaust survivor. There are some other notable actors as well, (i.e. John Goodman) but it is now that I would like to speak about young Tom Horn.

It is common fact that child actors rarely are good, and since this is Horn's official debut (his only other notable appearance was in an episode of Jeopardy), the scrutiny is even harsher. Despite Horn being a few years older than the character he plays, I think he portrays Oskar well enough. He's precocious and inventive, but he still gives the character a naïve outlook on life. When he gets angry you can hear the frustration in his voice, but he also knows when to be subdued. All in all, the performance truly earned the awards it received.

Comparison

In “Everything is Illuminated,” Schreiber has Elijah Wood's character learn about life in a vastly different culture than he accustomed to, In ELIC, Stephen Daldry (of 'Billy Elliot' fame) does something similarly, except Oskar is discovering life in his own surroundings. Although the music and camera work are vastly different, it is amazing how the original stories having the same writer can bring about the same familiarity. Daldry uses many creative swoops and cuts to keep the audience stimulated, whereas Schreiber is more minimalistic. The music is more somber in ELIC than its counterpart, yet both bring out a relaxing sensation.

The movie in itself is very heartwarming. At times it can be difficult to watch, such as the scene where Oskar and his mother have an argument. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and the swearing and insensitive remarks he makes are unfortunately really the way real children talk to their parents sometimes. The only thing that unnerves me is the way Oskar's mother never seems to be aware of his gallivanting around town. True, it is said he lies to her about the nature of his trips, but until the end of the movie it seems like she pretty much is free-range parenting him.

Overall, I'd recommend “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” to everyone, provided you do not have anything against swearing children (few and far between) or long movies (2 hours and 10 minutes, including credits). I give this movie 4 1/2 out of 5 “Yellow Hoodies.” Until next time, how about you go on a 'Reconnaissance Expedition' of your own?

Written by Deborah Palmer.

The main interface - sleek and simple!

Been busy lately? Feeling an information overload? Have too many people to see and places to be? Want to get a better grip of what is happening on campus? Or do you just like cool iPhone apps? If you answered yes to any of the above, then Dustin Masters has good news for you! This semester, the Computer Science senior unveiled his new iLETU app, a convenient all-in-one tool that can simplify and streamline your life at LeTourneau. It’s like the Swiss Army Knife of campus life--or, if you think Swiss Army Knives are for sissies, a Leatherman multi-tool! Although it is not flawless, iLETU does a great job of consolidating lots of helpful information into one place. It has an easy-to-use interface and is a bargain at only a dollar. Here are some first impressions:

Features

iLETU is packed with information and shortcuts: campus announcements, hours for various on-campus facilities, Saga menus, calendars (campus, YAC, and athletics), intramural sports, Yellowjacket articles, and the Campus Bullet. (the Campus Bullet, also by Dustin Masters, is a neat place for LeTourneau students to buy and sell stuff à la Craigslist; check out the YellowJacket’s review or visit the site here) The Saga section is a little iffy because BonAppétit's website does not always coordinate with what the LeTourneau cafetieria serves; in general the menu is accurate, with a few repeated meal listings. The athletics and intramurals sections in particular are major.

Interface

Thanks to its simple, intuitive interface, switching between iLETU’s many features is easy. However, the interface looks different between most sections. In some cases, such as the dense intramurals section, this means it’s harder to navigate; overall this means the app does not yet have a nice, unified look.

Conclusion

Although it does not look perfect, the iLETU app combines an impressive amount of useful LeTourneau information for your convenience and time-saving. Recommended!

Written by Felipe Vogel.