Nick's Movie Reviews

Blogger No More...

2011-04-05T16:04:00.003-04:00

As of today, I will no longer be using this blog for film reviews. However, I will continue to write reviews for my own website, which I will link to this post. If there is anybody out there who actually reads this, I hope you'll continue to read my work on my new site. Thank you for your readership. www.nicksmoviereviews.com

Rango (2011)

2011-03-20T10:03:00.004-04:00

Movies I thought of while watching Rango: High Noon, The Man with No Name Trilogy, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Cat Ballou, Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Yojimbo, Unforgiven, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Movies I did not think of while watching Rango: Rango.

At what point does a movie stop being its own film, and start becoming a clip show of Hollywood's greatest hits? When John Logan was writing Rango, perhaps he should have put a little less effort into paying homage to so many great films. His basic story is a very interesting one: a lizard that has been kept as a pet suddenly finds himself in an old west town called Dirt, where he has reinvented himself as a gunslinger. That lizard (voiced admirable by Johnny Depp) is the titular Rango, who enjoyed putting on theatrical performances in his terrarium before he suffered an environment change. Shortly after establishing himself as an expert marksmen (accidentally), Rango is promoted to town Sheriff by the Mayor of Dirt (Ned Beatty), a character obviously derived from John Huston's character in Chinatown. But as Rango delves deeper into an investigation about the town's water supply, he finds that the old west may not be the best place for a thespian lizard.

The main problem with Rango is lack of identity. The lead lizard himself is sufferring an identity crisis throughout the film, constantly asking through gloomy voiceover "who am I?" While watching Rango, I sometimes felt as though the movie were asking me "what am I?" The only thing I can say for sure is that Rango is a western, through and through. But where Logan and director Gore Verbinski go wrong is they constantly remind us of past great films, but fail to make Rango anywhere near as good as them. It reaches a point where you ask, "well, why don't I just see those movies?" The highlight of the film comes in the very beginning when Rango is running away from a hawk with another desert creature. This scene is both funny and exciting, and one of the few times that Rango is it's own film. After the scene ends however, the clip show begins.

The animation of Rango is really the saving grace of the film. Every character, though ugly, is beautifully rendered. The most interesting character to look at is bad guy Rattlesnake Jake, voiced by Bill Nighy. His winding, scaly body leads to a tail topped with a Gatling gun instead of a rattle. Every scene with him is thrilling to watch, and in fact were the only times during Rango when my heart actually felt involved in the film. Unfortunately, his scenes don't show up until much later in the film, and they are very scarce even then.

One more important thing that must be stressed is that Rango is NOT a children's movie. Despite being produced by Nickelodeon, this film is riddled with adult humor that children will not understand. On top of that, the humor is not even that funny. You may smirk at an inappropriate comment, but there is very little to laugh at here. Even though the MPAA chose to leave the word "violence" out of it's rating, Rango is littered with it, from claims to cutting off other characters "giblets" to a supporting character who constantly walks around with an arrow through his eye.

Rango is an hour and 47 minutes, but feels a lot longer. It has terrific animation, well crafted action scenes, but an overall slow pace and a very annoying lead character in Rango. Many will find the references to other films endearing and fun, but I found them to be distracting. You are probably better off just watching any of the films I listed earlier. My rating (3/10)

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

2011-03-04T22:58:00.006-05:00

How many hours a week do you spend playing video games? Chances are, your number doesn't even come close to the people in The King Of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. The film centers around unemployed Washingtonian Steve Wiebe, who is attempting to break a world record for highest score ever on the original Donkey Kong arcade game. The man who's record Wiebe must overcome is renowned gamer Billy Mitchell, who set the benchmark in Donkey Kong over 20 years ago. In the world of competitive gaming, Billy Mitchell is the king. Always seen with a mullet and American themed ties, Mitchell is the cockiest gamer you can ever hope to encounter, and he has the world records to back it up. Does Wiebe have what it takes to dethrone this giant of the gaming world? By the end of The King of Kong, you're certainly going to hope so.

The King of Kong is a documentary that unfolds as a terrific underdog story. Steve Wiebe is an easily sympathetic character who we enjoy watching succeed and hate watching fail. On the other end is Billy Mitchell, the quintessential villain who gets by on reputation alone, and is damned proud of it. He has minions (other gamers) who are hopelessly devoted to him and will do whatever they need to in order to keep him on top of the leaderboard. Mitchell doesn't even grant Wiebe the chance of facing off with him one on one, for reasons known only to himself. It's almost as though Wiebe is Mario, the world record is the Princess, and Mitchell is Donkey Kong. No matter how many barrels Wiebe jumps, whenever he gets within grasp of the record, Mitchell just picks it up and moves to the next level. The rivalry born from these two competitors throughout the film becomes so intriguing that you cannot help but invest all of your attention towards it.

Director Seth Gordon needs to be heavily credited with making The King of Kong such an entertaining film. His clever editing paints Mitchell as a truly awful human being, someone you would never want to be friends with or look up to in your entire life. It also doesn't hurt that Mitchell is a gold mine for unashamed, self-centered remarks. Meanwhile, we see Wiebe in a much more respectable light. He is a soft-spoken family man that never says a negative thing about anyone. Some would say this shows an obvious bias that is driving the film, but I don't think that is such a big deal. After all, we are just talking about video games here. The King of Kong was obviously developed to be an entertaining film, and any decisions by Gordon to skew information was for the audiences benefit. In reality, Wiebe and Mitchell are actually on very friendly terms, but you wouldn't want to watch a film about two buddies having a friendly competition, would you? However, if you are very picky about your documentaries being 100% truthful, perhaps you can void yourself of this delightful film.

The King of Kong is filmed mostly in the style of cinema verite, meaning the camera is completely objective and follows events as they happened. Occasionally though, interviews with the cast are placed in order to get a direct reaction to some of the events. This was definitely the best option Gordon could have taken, as it allows every ounce of emotion, whether it be humor or sadness, out of every scene.

For any readers who are scared of the idea of watching a documentary, I implore you to give The King of Kong a chance. It is not a political statement dealing with blood diamonds or animal cruelty. It's simply a fun film that you can have a blast watching. It follows a plot just like any other movie, so it won't bring you out of your comfort zone all that much. Or perhaps you'd rather just play video games. My rating (9/10)

Boy A (2007)

2011-02-19T08:38:00.009-05:00

Everyone got into trouble when they were children. Most of the offenses were trivial: breaking a vase, running with scissors, pouring milk on the dog's head. But what of the children who do truly reprehensible things? Things that adults go to prison for. When Jack Burridge (Andrew Garfield) was a little boy, he and his friend Philip killed a fellow student. Sent to trial being known to the public as "Boy A", Jack was convicted and spent the rest of his youth and all of his teenage years in jail. But at age 24, Jack is being released (at the chagrin of all of London), and ready to start life anew. With the help of fatherly social worker Terry (Peter Mullan), Jack finds a place to live and a job delivering packages. He even stirs up a romance with curvy co-worker Michelle (Katie Lyons) which leads to his first sexual experience. All seems to be going well for Jack until an act of kindness brings him under the spotlight, and threatens to reveal his identity.
There is an obvious moral question posed in Boy A. Are children who do evil things inherently evil? Do they remain in the same state throughout their lives, or can their indiscretion be chalked up to naivety? As we watch Jack on a personal level, we see that he is a being fully capable of kindness and sensitivity. We see him stand up for a friend and fall into love like a newborn pup with Michelle, and we cannot help but like him. We also get a look into his past as a neglected child who is frequently bullied at school. He is clearly determined to prove that he is a changed person. He changed his name from Eric to Jack upon leaving jail so that he can literally become a new man. But not all of London can see Jack on the level that we are. They just know about what he did in the past, and for them, that's all they need to know. Unfortunately, we can't see how Jack's friend Philip fairs outside of jail, because he committed suicide.
The titular Boy A is played brilliantly by Andrew Garfield. You may recognize him from the 2010 masterpiece The Social Network and photos as the new Spider-man in the upcoming franchise reboot. Boy A was Garfield's first ever leading film role, and it is nothing short of astonishing. As a man forced to leap from child to adult without that learning stage in between, Garfield plays the role with just enough boyish charm to really seem like somebody who never grew up properly. He is helped by a strong supporting cast, specifically Peter Mullan as Jack's social worker. Every scene between the two characters is exceptionally engaging, as you really feel a strong connection between these two actors.
Boy A is not always an easy film to watch, but it is definitely a rewarding experience. Because of the intriguing dilemma brought up in Mark O'Rowe's screenplay, this film is sure to stir up some debate amongst intellectual circles. At 106 minutes, Boy A leaves at a good moment where we don't even begin to lose interest in Jack's struggles. You will be invested in this film all the way up to the emotional finale. My rating (8/10)

The Fighter (2010)

2011-01-06T08:37:00.002-05:00

Family is the most important thing in the world. Families support us, make us feel accepted, and always look out for our best interests. But for Mickey Ward, family is exactly what's holding him back. A struggling boxer in Lowell, Massachusetts, Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) paves streets while in between losing fights. He is coached by his brother, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale), the former "pride of Lowell" who once knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard in a match, but is now just a disappointing crack addict. Dicky claims to know exactly what is best for Mickey, helping him pick fights and devise strategy, but more often than not, Mickey just ends up with a bruised face and hurt pride. When Mickey starts dating a strong-minded bartender named Charlene (Amy Adams), his family dynamic is disturbed as she encourages him to stop working with his brother and manager mother and start training more seriously. Mickey has to reluctantly decide what is truly the most important to him: his family or his career.

The Fighter has been a passion project of Mark Wahlberg for many years. Since 2005, he has tried to get the true story of Mickey Ward on the big screen. Now that he finally has, he can be proud of his final work. Mickey is not a particularly interesting character. He could be, if only he was allowed to speak more often in his motor-mouthed family. He is consistently drowned out by brother Dicky, mother Alice, and his seven sisters who are as talkative as their hair is tall. Even after he meets Charlene, she is the one that does most of the arguing with his family. But Wahlberg still delivers a terrific, nuanced performance, using body language as a major means of communicating. He frequently gets the look of a small child who knows he is being overshadowed by his older siblings. This seems rather fitting, because Wahlberg's terrific performance is greatly overshadowed by the actor who plays his older brother, Christian Bale.

Bale is simply astounding in his portrayal of down-for-the-count Dicky. Dropping all the muscle and weight he had put on for The Dark Knight (which he will need to put back on for the sequel filming this year), Bale perfectly achieves the look of a boxer turned crack addict. The way he handles his body through movement is as precise as a well timed left hook. Bale should be a favorite to win Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards. Another strong competitor for an Oscar should be Melissa Leo, who is brilliant as Mickey and Dicky's mother, Alice. It is a guarantee that at some point you will want to tear her hair out, because she is just so believable as the cocksure head of the family. Leo's performance cuts deep into the audience, as her character cuts deep into Mickey. When she spars with Amy Adams' Charlene, the two create a scathing atmosphere that permeates the whole room.

The Fighter is very much a performance driven film. In fact, without all the exceptional performances, The Fighter would be a rather mediocre, run of the mill sports drama. Director David O. Russell does a good enough job behind the camera, but never really quite takes the film to it's heights. The boxing scenes are done from spectator point of view through a granier lens, and they are not as exciting as they could have been. The film also ends without showing a single one of Mickey's fights with Arturo Gatti, which are arguably the best boxing matches in history. There is a significant emotional conclusion to the film, but physically, there was a severe lacking.

Come Oscar season, The Fighter will get serious consideration for all the top awards, and it makes sense that it would. It is certainly one of the best films of 2010. The acting through and through is superb and deserves recognition. One should hesitate before granting it any writing or directing nominations though, as both were pretty pedestrian. If you can truly appreciate great performances, you will really enjoy this film. My rating (7.5/10)

The Social Network (2010)

2010-10-02T21:22:00.002-04:00

Our way of living has been defined by many key creations in history. Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook. One may find it strange that Zuckerberg would be included on a list of great inventors, but think about this for a moment. Before Facebook, to write on somebody's wall meant to take a pen and draw on some one's house. "I have to pick my strawberries" was something only a farmer would say. Making friends involved going out to social events and speaking with people in the flesh. Now, with the click of a mouse you can connect with hundreds of "friends", like their status, play bejeweled, and spend a good chunk of your day "creeping" on people's profiles. Our every day lives and even our language have been updated, and it is because of Mark Zuckerberg, organizer of the biggest social gathering in human history.

The Social Network revolves around the birth of Facebook back at Harvard University in 2003. Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland, Adventureland) plays Zuckerberg, a socially inept genius with one friend in roommate Eduardo Savarin (Andrew Garfield). After being dumped by his girlfriend in the first scene, Zuckerberg takes to the internet to create a website as way to get some revenge. No it's not Facebook yet, but the website he creates becomes so popular in just four hours, it manages to crash Harvard Univesity's server. Impressed, twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer in both roles) commission Zuckerberg to help create a website they have been thinking of. A social networking site. Zuckerberg agrees, but rather than help them, he designs his own website with the help of Savarin, and thus Facebook is born. But the journey to fame is no easy walk, and Zuckerberg's life becomes filled with controversy.

The Social Network just might be a perfect movie. Writer Aaron Sorkin will more than likely earn an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (the book being "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich). Expertly crafted, Sorkin brings the audience a witty, intelligent, cocky, quick, and sharp film, a perfect parallel to the main character Zuckerberg. Along with this, Sorkin manages to take a rather uninteresting plot and shape it into an intense two hour heart pounder that you will not want to see end. This film is driven heavily by dialogue, yet it moves with the pace of a summer blockbuster, due in part to the astute direction from David Fincher.

Jesse Eisenberg is flawless as the flawed Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. Never hitting a wrong note, Eisenberg captures Zuckerberg's awkward, work driven, condescending demeanor in every frame. It should not surprise anyone to find Eisenberg's name in discussions for Best Actor come Oscar season. But the real surprise coming from The Social Network is the supporting performance from practically unknown Andrew Garfield as Zuckerberg's only friend Eduardo. Garfield is outstanding as the modest, business-headed CFO of Facebook. Eduardo's story is tragic, and Garfield's performance draws out heaps of sympathy from the audience. A Best Supporting Actor nomination could be on the horizon for this young actor, and it would be well deserved. It's also worthy to note that Justin Timberlake gives a very strong performance as Napster creator Sean Parker, who infiltrates his way into Facebook and turns Zuckerberg against his friend Eduardo.

But the part of The Social Network that audiences will find to be the most stimulating is analyzing the character of Mark Zuckerberg. This is a man not driven by money or fame. He does bad things, but is not inherently a bad person. At one moment he will commend his friend Eduardo and in the next breath he will demean him, both sentences being in the same tone of voice. His motivations are never explained, because it is more than likely Zuckerberg himself does not understand them. Are his actions later in the film defined by Parker interfering in his life? Is Zuckerberg legitimately a bad person? If money and fame do not motivate him to perfect Facebook, then what exactly does? These are all difficult questions, and you will have fun finding the answers.

It should be noted that although most of the basic events that take place in this film are real, the circumstances surrounding them have been greatly exaggerated and falsified. The writers of the book and film respectively took creative license in order to make a more entertaining story, which is what the business is all about. However, this does not take away from the impact of the film at all. The Social Network will stand as a defining film of our generation for years to come. My guess is, you will "like" The Social Network. My rating (10/10).

Kick-Ass (2010)

2010-05-31T10:58:00.008-04:00

Being a superhero is as close as a fictional character can get to becoming a celebrity. Many people forget the names of actors and actresses, but nobody is going to dig through their mind trying to remember who the guy in the bat suit is. This easy notoriety is the reason so many of us fantasize about having superpowers (and don't pretend that you don't). So, how come nobody has tried to be a superhero? This is the exact question Kick-Ass' protagonist Dave Lizewski asks his two nerdy friends as they hang out in their local comic book store. If you ask me, it's to prevent movies like Kick-Ass from being made.

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a textbook nerd. He has big glasses, a cracking voice, and is utterly invisible to the popular crowd at school. His favorite hang out spot is a comic book store with his two friends that do nothing to improve his image. Fed up with being useless in a world run by crime, Dave decides that what we really need is a superhero. Equipped with absolutely no combat skills, a green wet suit, and some clubs, Dave assumes his alter-ego as Kick-Ass. Little does Dave know that he is not the only superhero on the block. After narrowly being killed by thugs, Dave is saved by Big Daddy and Hit-Girl (Nicolas Cage and Chloe Moretz), a father-daughter team set on seeking vengeance for a past atrocity by crime lord Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). Soon after, Dave discovers that being a superhero may not always be worth the fame.

Kick-Ass is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Mark Millar. I have not read the graphic novel, but I have no doubt that it was much better than this film. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding Kick-Ass because of Chloe Moretz's role as Hit Girl. There is apparently something about a 13 year old sporting a trucker's foul mouth and a tendency towards bloody violence that just did not sit right with most parents. Well, I'm no parent. Hit Girl was one of the only good things about this movie. As a source of several of the few laughs to be had, Chloe Moretz does an apt job of keeping this otherwise lackluster film afloat. But the real treat was seeing her interact with her character's father, Big Daddy, played brilliantly by Nicolas Cage. Cage and Moretz bring undeniable chemistry to the screen, and are an absolute delight to watch. The best scene in the entire film comes when we first meet Big Daddy and Hit Girl as their plain clothes selves, Damon and Mindy Macready. Former cop Damon is teaching his daughter how to deal with pain...by shooting her in the chest while she wears a bullet proof vest. This scene gave me hope that this movie would have many more brilliant scenes to come. Unfortunately, this movie was not called Big Daddy and Hit Girl. It's Kick-Ass. So let's discuss the titular hero.

Do you know how fun it is to watch somebody who cannot fight, try to beat up a group of criminals? You may think it's kind of funny for a few minutes, but after a while it just becomes kind of sad. Well that is how I felt watching Kick-Ass. First of all, the character of Dave Lizewski was one that I had no feelings towards. Aaraon Johnson was not doing enough to create a main character that was worthy of my sympathy. I did not care about him. Because of this, my interest in the character was void. There may have been some hope when he became Kick-Ass, but I soon discovered another problem. It is just no fun to watch somebody flail their arms around in a green wet suit. I understand that his inability to fight was the point, but that doesn't make it a good point. Every film has two basic sides: the point (message, theme, etc) and the entertainment (emotional responses). You can have effective entertainment without having an effective point, but you can NEVER have an effective point without effective entertainment. You can make a film about the most important subject ever, but if I don't like the way you tell the story, than why should I care? Sadly, Kick-Ass does not gain fighting skills throughout the course of the film, so any scene with him is just as monotonous as Johnson's voice over.

Well maybe Kick-Ass shouldn't be graded on its performances. After all, it has been advertised as a high-octane violence fest. Surely, the action sequences are top notch and worth the films downfalls. Well, don't be so sure. There are actually relatively few fight scenes in Kick-Ass, and there are even fewer that are actually fun to watch. The best fight in the film belongs to Big Daddy. It was well choreographed and excellently filmed. Unfortunately, it lasts only about 20 seconds. The majority of the fighting in the film is done by Hit Girl, and though her moves are eye-poppingly exciting the first few times around, they became rather stale near the end. I felt like I was watching the same scene over and over again.

Kick-Ass is a movie that should have remained a graphic novel. It's protagonist did not transfer well to the screen, and neither did it's style. Perhaps if the film focused more on Big Daddy and Hit Girl it would have been a lot better, but that probably would have upset the fanboys of the graphic novel. I cannot recommend this film to anybody over the age of 30 or under the age of 17. This film is perfect for the college crowd but will not sit well with anyone else. And I have a feeling that in a couple of years, not many people will even remember it. My rating (4/10)

Big Fan (2009)

2010-03-20T22:04:00.001-04:00

This review can be found at http://www.7tavern.com/4/131/1895

Moon (2009)

2010-01-31T11:48:00.006-05:00

Sam Rockwell is perhaps one of the most under-appreciated actors working today. Despite excellent turns in The Green Mile and Matchstick Men (just to name a few), Rockwell never received the real notoriety he deserves. Now at age 40, Rockwell may have finally found the role which will grant him A-list status. Moon is the futuristic story of Sam Bell, a man who has been stationed on the moon in order to collect a valuable energy source. With two weeks left on his three year contract, Sam is looking forward to returning home to see his wife and daughter. But just as his trip home looms around the corner, he begins noticing some strange occurences going on around his solitary station. With robot companion GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), Sam attempts to unravel the mystery behind his mission.

Moon is the debut film for writer/director Duncan Jones, who was formerly famous for being David Bowie's son. Jones' ideas are familiar enough to any science fiction fan. The ideas of solitude and dehumanization are prevalent throughout the film, which seem to be staples of the genre. But Jones handles these tried and true ideas with care, and uses apt direction to bring them to life. His frequent use of wide, expansive shots is key to showing Sam's loneliness. In one particularly powerful scene, Sam drives out to the middle of a wide open range and begins to cry for his home. Jones brilliantly places the camera in a position that shows Sam's vehicle all by itself on the moon's surface, with Earth looming in the background. As a first time writer, Jones also understands that most audiences do not like to be kept in the dark too long about a film's mystery. By revealing the "secret" halfway through the film, we were able to appreciate Moon as a character driven powerhouse.

But the true reason anybody and everybody should see Moon is Sam Rockwell's beautiful performance. As essentially the only actor on screen for what must be 95% of the film, Rockwell is burdened with keeping this movie afloat for the 97 minute runtime. Masterfully, Rockwell tackles this chore with ease, turning this one man show into Academy Award material. Unfortunately, Sony Pictures decided to not send this film out for consideration, a move which has caused much uproar in the film community. There is no doubt that Rockwell would have been nominated for Best Leading Actor, and he maybe could have won,

Just because Sony snubbed this film does not mean you should too. Moon is one of the best science fiction films of the decade, giving new life to old conventions of cinema. This film should be at the top of your movie rental list. My rating: (9/10)

Paranormal Activity (2009)

2009-10-30T15:44:00.000-04:00

Has the best horror film of the decade been discovered? Audiences and critics alike have heaped praise on Paranormal Activity as being one of the scariest movies they’ve ever seen. Steven Spielberg even claims that while watching the film in his home, the door to his room inexplicably locked from the inside, and he had to call a locksmith to set himself free. The film’s producers set up a viral campaign asking for one million signatures if people wanted the film to get a wide release. In less than a week, the million signature mark was achieved. But is this a case of bandwagon hype, or has something special truly been found in Paranormal Activity?

Paranormal Activity is a lower than low budget film that was conceived by video game designer Oren Peli. The story follows couple Micah and Katie, who have been experiencing some strange occurrences in their new home. Shot from the point of view of the camera that Micah bought to document the disturbances, we are placed directly in the house that is supposedly being haunted by a demon that has followed Katie since she was eight years old. After consulting a psychic who claims to be unable to help them, the couple must do what they can to flush the demon out, or at least just survive.

Expecting a let-down after all the hype, I was pleasantly surprised by Paranormal Activity. Though the all out “scares” were hard to come by, Peli does a great job of creeping out the audience using clichés such as “stuff moving by itself” and “loud noises coming from the other room”. He even finds a way to make the worn out handi-cam gimmick seem new again, just by placing the camera on a tri-pod once in a while. Despite a rather dull first 20 minutes, once the paranormal activity in question starts, it is very hard to look away. Rookie actors Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat (I wonder where their characters got their names from) do a well enough job to keep the eerie tone of the film alive. Their dedication to the roles was definitely essential to keeping Paranormal Activity watchable.

However, the claims of Paranormal Activity being something special are a bit of an over-statement. Though it was an effectively creepy film, I would not say it was unnerving enough to keep me up at night. Shortly after leaving the theater, the effects of the film wear off and you can go about your day undisturbed.

Overall, Paranormal Activity is good enough for an unsettling movie-going experience, and is certainly much better than most of the so-called “horror” films being released today. You also may be interested in knowing that there is an alternate ending to the film online, which is said to be Peli’s original ending before the studio made him change it. My rating (7/10)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

2009-08-22T20:07:00.003-04:00

"We ain't in the prisoner-takin business. We in the kiliin Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin". This line, spoken by Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, should just about sum up Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. The "We" in question: eight Jewish-American soldiers (accompanied by German defect Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) that have vowed to deliver 100 Nazi scalps each to their leader, the aforementioned Raine. Their group's name: the Inglourious Basterds. Don't ask about the spelling. It's never explained. These men have made quite the impression on the Third Reich, angering Hitler himself and landing on the radar of "the Jew hunter" Colonel Hans Landa (superbly played by Christoph Waltz). Showing no fear for possible death, the Basterds join a mission called Operation Kino. The mission, being carried out with the help of German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark (a traitor to her own country, clearly), involves suicide bombing a movie theater that happens to be inhabited by the four major heads of power in the Third Reich, including Hitler. Little do the Basterds know that while they carry out their plan, the owner of the movie theater, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) has her own scheme in the works. When Dreyfus was a teenager, her family was murdered by Hans Landa, and she considers this to be the perfect time for revenge. Will either parties succeed in their mission? History says no, but Quentin Tarantino didn't set out to make a historically accurate film.

THE REST OF THIS REVIEW IS LOCATED AT http://www.7tavern.com/4/28/1264

7Tavern.com

2009-08-05T10:49:00.002-04:00

Recently, I was invited to publish my reviews on the website www.7tavern.com. Naturally, I accepted. Though I will be posting most of my full length reviews there from now on, I will not be abandoning this blog. I will still be posting shorties, second viewings, and I'll probably publish the first paragraph of all full length reviews, with a link to 7tavern.com so you can read the rest of it. Thanks for reading everybody!

Bruno (2009)

2009-08-04T19:03:00.002-04:00

In 2006, a wave of the most frightening and dangerous disease known to man swept the United States from coast to coast. It affected nearly everyone in some way, and three years later, it still has not fully died out. I am talking of course, about Borat-itis. From the mind of Sacha Baron Cohen, a character came forth that was so naive and lovable that audiences and critics alike embraced him with open arms. As I walked through the halls of my high school, I could not go more than 15 seconds without hearing a poor impersonation being spouted by a student. Claims of "great success" and an epidemic of "high fives" nearly decimated the hallways, and I was unsure if they could ever recover. Now in 2009, Cohen has unleashed a new character that will not be as loved, not be as sympathetic, and (most importantly), not be as quoted as Borat. I speak of Austrian fashionista Bruno, an extremely openly gay television host who is played shamelessly by Cohen. After making a fool of himself at a fashion show, Bruno becomes blacklisted from working in Austria and decides to move to America to become "uber famous". Shot mockumentary style just like Borat, we follow Bruno in his quest through such "get famous quick" schemes like pitching a show to a TV network, adopting an African baby, or making a sex tape with Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Whether he is as quotable as Borat or not, Bruno is a hilarious character, and the film by the same name is equally as funny.

Bruno is a film that is certainly not for everybody. It contains an excessive amount of graphic homosexual intercourse, it is shocking and eye-opening (I'll explain this later), and it includes at least 30 consecutive seconds of close up male genatalia. But for those of you, like me, that just find the comedy in these things, you'll see that Bruno is one of the funniest movies of the year. Any film that can get Paula Abdul to willingly sit down on a "Mexican chair person" and casually carry on an interview is worthy of praise. Bruno's outrageous premise is held together by it's fearless lead, Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen pulls absolutely no punches as he totally immerses himself in his role. Not wavering to homophobic hunters or terrorists, Cohen shows an impressive ability to withstand a dangerous situation just to drag the absolute most comedy out of it. In one scene, Bruno finds himself at a swingers party and becomes locked in a room with a rather domineering swinger. As she whips him repeatedly with a belt, Cohen does not stop the shoot or drop character, but instead jumps out of a window and runs off into the night. Dedication such as that is nothing short of brilliant.

But behind the heavy layer of lubricant, Bruno does have a point to it. This film is the ultimate satire of celebrities, doing whatever it takes to get into or stay in the limelight. Bruno goes as far as interviewing a known terrorist in hopes of getting kidnapped, to become famous. Sure nobody in real life would ever do such a thing, but this obvious metaphor is something that holds a lot of truth. Bruno also takes aim at parents who essentially "sell" their children for a chance at spotlight. As he interviews parents who are willing to let their children participate in a photoshoot, the questions he asks get to be outright insane. "Is your baby comfortable with working heavy machinery?" "Does your baby like the scent of phosphorous?" "Would your baby be comfortable with undergoing liposuction to lose an extra 10 pounds?" Yet all of these questions were met with a "yes" from the parents. Seeing these parents agree to these horrible things is an eye-opening experience. And if those questions weren't enough to convince you that these parents are insane, maybe this will do it. "We have chosen your baby to be dressed as a Nazi Officer, pushing a wheelbarrow, with a Jewish baby, into an oven. Is that OK with you?" "Sure".

Though Bruno is hysterical and creatively satirical, I cannot recommend it to most people. Some of the things seen in this film cannot be unseen, and that may disturb people. Sometimes parents look the other way at R ratings and allow their children to see a film anyway. In this case, parents need to be warned that this film is NOT FOR CHILDREN!!!!! AT ALL!!!!!! UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!! If you have issues with homosexuality or graphic male nudity, you'll probably want to steer clear of this film as well. However, if you are fine with all of these things and accept the fact that this is just a movie, you'll probably enjoy it. My rating (7.5/10)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

2009-07-09T13:24:00.006-04:00

This review will be the first of what I'm calling "Shorties". Every now and then, if I want to post a review but simply do not have the time to devote a full length article to it, or if I want to get it out of the way for another review, I'll write a Shorty. These will be far less detailed than full length reviews, but it will still get my point across (hopefully).

With Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Michael Bay has once again dominated the summer box office. This second installment has been a smash hit, raking in $672 million worldwide in 3 weeks. But is all this attention really necessary? In 2007, Transformers delivered the high octane adrenaline rush a summer movie-goer craves. It's story took a back seat to flashy special effects and a very appealing Megan Fox. So what does Revenge really offer us in terms of originality? The answer is not much.

In this unnecessary sequel, director Michael Bay, along with writers Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Ehren Kruger, drags us through the exact same film that he released two years ago, but with more Transformers, less plot (I didn't think that was possible), more suggestive shots of Megan Fox, and a little more length. To speak frankly about Revenge of the Fallen, it was a terrible film. No good performances, a terrible script, and noticably long. But who really cares about those things when they buy a ticket for this movie. You want to know about the action. Although the action was fairly impressive, there really wasn't much here that wasn't in the first film. It was more of the same, and it got pretty boring. I am also surprised that there has been no backlash by the African American community about the blatant stereotypes that the writers sprinkled into this film. Two brand new Transformers, Mudflap and Skids, are walking caricatures of all the generalizations of African Americans in our society. I was kind of insulted by it, and I'm white! I couldn't believe this cheap attempt at comic relief. Truly reprehensible.

I can't take too much credit away from Revenge of the Fallen, because it was never really trying to be anything more than it was. It had no aspirations, rather than to be loud and entertain. For that I give it credit. Also, suprisingly, I understood more of what was happening on screen in this film than I did during Public Enemies. For that, I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a 5/10

Public Enemies (2009)

2009-07-03T11:58:00.003-04:00

From the first scene of Michael Mann's Public Enemies, I knew the ride would be bumpy. As John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is led through the front gates of a prison, the camera jostles up and down in motion with the characters walking, but with extreme exaggeration. After a few lines of mumbled dialogue the cameraman evidently has a seizure while Dillinger and his jailhouse friends stage a breakout. As Dillinger and his buddies, including John "Red" Hamilton (Jason Clarke) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff), exit with guns blazing, not a moment of it is comprehensible through the frenetic cinematography and abrasively loud gunfire. This is just the beginning of the numerous complaints I have about Public Enemies.

In the year 1933, suave criminal John Dillinger is running wild in Chicago. Robbing banks in "a minute and 40 seconds. Flat." has made him public enemy number 1 for J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) FBI. With Dillinger gaining popularity in the public eye for his easy-going demeanor, Hoover is desperate to get the criminal to the electric chair. So he hires Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the man who hunted down and killed Pretty Boy Floyd, to spearhead the manhunt for Dillinger and his associates, including notorious Fed killer Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham). But the bulk of the story follows Dillinger in his troubled life, trying to balance his "work" with the love of his life, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard).

The number one reason Public Enemies fails is it's writer/director Michael Mann. As I described in my opening paragraph, Mann's choice of cinematography was a poor one. Choosing to use an HD handheld video camera, Mann probably wanted the viewer to feel as though he was standing next to John Dillinger. Instead, I felt like I was watching a cheap re-enactment put together for the History Channel. By placing the camera directly into the actor's faces, a sense of claustrophobia sets in, and it makes sitting still very difficult. If that were not bad enough, during the gunfights, understanding what is being shown to you is near impossible. The camera moved so fast and so unsteadily that I would think one character was being shot, and then later in the scene he'd appear again perfectly fine. After just a few seconds of this home video-esque style, my head began to hurt and I started to feel woozy. Throw in the fact that Mann made the gunshots as loud as a sonic boom each, and I couldn't listen to the film either. During a scene showing the famous battle of Little Bohemia, after 20 seconds I had my head buried in my chest, eyes shut, with my hands over my ears, because I was becoming so uncomfortable. My sight and sound, the two senses one needs to enjoy a film, were actually rejecting Public Enemies.

If that weren't enough, Mann's writing skills were lacking greatly as well. (Though he shares billing with 2 other people, it's easier to just write his name). Though full of slick conversation, Public Enemies just doesn't make sense at some points. For example (nothing I'm about to say is a spoiler): the first 40 minutes of the film, the FBI is looking everywhere for Dillinger, and they frequently say they have no leads. Then in the next scene, while Dillinger is in a hotel room with Frechette, the FBI busts down the door and arrests him. That's quite the magic trick Mr. Mann, but how is it done? How could it be that the FBI can go from clueless to busting down his door in a matter of one scene? Well he doesn't explain it, so keep dreaming. For all I know, they did discuss it briefly, but who knows through the mumbled voices of almost every actor in the film. Anybody who has seen a film with Christian Bale knows that he has mastered an American accent. However, the chore of speaking in a southern accent proved too great the task for him. In one of his worst performances, Bale can't quite speak clearly enough to help out the audience. As a friend of mine affectionately put it, "it was like he borrowed his accent from Foghorn Leghorn, and he forgot to use it sometimes". Couldn't have said it better myself. The starpower of Johnny Depp, who tries very hard to save this sinking ship by giving a good but forgettable performance, can't distract us from the fact this film's screenplay is awful. It is painfully slow during most scenes, and then frantically hurried in scenes where valuable information is being thrown around. No medium was ever found in the script, and so the transfer to the screen was just as bad.

Since Mann chose to "put us in the action" rather than tell us an actual story, Public Enemies was an all out failure. Even if I were to forgive the flaws of the screenplay and most of the acting, I'd still give this film a scathing review because of it's direction. It just goes to show that a cast list alone cannot make a film good. You know what I would like to see? A film based on Baby Face Nelson, played by Stephen Graham again. I felt Graham gave the best performance of the film, and I'd like to see him again in the role. That movie might be good. Public Enemies, not so much. My rating (2/10)

I Gotta Catch Up

2009-07-02T09:35:00.004-04:00

I've been on break for almost 3 months now and I am deeply upset with myself. In an attempt at redemption for those lost months, I'm going to write brief reviews of most of the films I've seen in that time. I promise, full reviews will follow.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Talk about starting the Summer off with a whimper. This much awaited prequel to the popular X-Men franchise had so much going for it on paper, but failed to produce anything worth watching. The most disappointing aspect of Wolverine was the shoddy special effects that looked like they were borrowed from an episode of "Smallville". Obvious green screen usage made multiple scenes irritating to watch. There was even a point when my girlfriend, who had slept through half the movie, woke up and immediately said to me, "I can see the green screen". You literally could see where the floor was ending and the green screen was beginning. This is inexcusable for such a highly anticipated summer blockbuster. Hugh Jackman gave his all as the title character, and I applaud him for that. As his brother and nemesis, Sabretooth, Liev Schrieber also delivers a pretty good performance, though was under-utilized. This trend continued with most of the supporting characters in the film as well. Ryan Reynolds, who appears on screen for all of 5 minutes, steals the show as Deadpool, the mercenary famous for breaking the fourth wall. No other performance is really worth mentioning other than Taylor Kitsch, as Gambit. Ever since the X-Men franchise began, fans have wanted to see Gambit on the big screen, myself included. When the time finally came to see the universal favorite, we were handed a terrible performance by an actor who couldn't keep his accent straight. In one sentence, Gambit would be from Louisiana. Then in the next, France. Then just American, but with a speech impediment. All in all, disappointment, thy name is X-Men Origins: Wolverine. My rating (4/10)

Star Trek- This is what summer is about! Though I knew absolutely nothing about the original series, this film version of Star Trek was still thoroughly enjoyable throughout. JJ Abrams, of "Lost" fame, handles the material as a seasoned professional, perfectly balancing cheesiness with tense action. Perhaps the most surprising thing to come from this film was the plethora of great performances. Chris Pine plays James T. Kirk, a young womanizer born from a former Starfleet Captain. Pine does a surprisingly good job as Kirk, fitting the part as if it was tailor-made for him. The most exceptional performance belongs to Zachary Quinto as Spock. In his first big screen outing, Quinto shows an impressive aptitude to really dig into a role. The half human-half Vulcan Spock is a volatile character, and it is shown clearly by Quinto. And since Star Trek is after all summer fare, let me talk about it's blockbuster qualities. Unlike Wolverine, this movie knows how to properly use special effects. As characters fight hand-to-hand with enemies on the hood of a ship, it never even crosses your mind that the scene has been altered by computers. Though the film has some flaws (in it's script especially), it is still a thrilling ride and probably one of the best films of 2009, thus far. My rating (8/10)

Up - OK so, me and Pixar have a bit of a beef. Since I have "grown up", I have failed to be impressed by the movies Pixar released year after year. However, year after year, movie critics from coast to coast praise their films as being amazing and then complaining that animated films don't get nominated for Best Picture. It never fails. I didn't care for The Incredibles. I HATED Ratatouille. I thought Wall-E was OK. When would the time come when I finally agreed with those gushing critics? With Up, that time may have, not arrived, but gotten much closer than before. Finally, I genuinely enjoyed a Pixar film for the first time since A Bug's Life. Not only did this film look amazing (which is usually the only compliment I give to their films), but actually made me laugh and stay interested in the characters. Though the main character was a grumpy old man, I found him to be one of the best characters Pixar has made. The gold star of this film which cemented it's place as a great film for me was a cute talking dog named Dug. Words can't explain how cute and hilarious Dug is. You'll have to see it for yourself. My rating (8/10)

Brick - This film was not released this year, but I just recently watched it. It was a film noir set at a modern high school where Brendan (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a loner, goes deep into the world of drugs and mayhem to solve a murder mystery. The film was written and directed by Rian Johnson, and then edited on his home computer. Even with the noticeably small budget, Brick was shot very impressively and was in all an entertaining film to watch. The screenplay, which can only be described as clever, may have been too smart for it's own good. Johnson, who wrote the film as an homage to film noir, got a little too carried away, having his modern teenagers talk like Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon. This was the only part of the film I didn't really care for. I liked how Johnson didn't hold onto the film's secrets for very long. We find out halfway through what is going on, and I appreciated that. I can't stand when films make you wait until the very last scene to wrap up EVERYTHING. Throw in a very good lead performance by Gordon-Levitt, and you've got yourself a pretty good film. My rating (7/10)

That's all for now. A review of Public Enemies will be up shortly. I'm back!

Milk (2008)

2009-04-19T13:00:00.003-04:00

"My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you!" This quote may not mean anything to most of us today, but when spoken by Harvey Milk himself in 1970s San Francisco, this was a battle cry that meant hope for homosexuals everywhere. To this day, the issue of homosexuality has been prevalent in our society. Great strides have been made to settle the dispute, but none have birthed a final conclusion. Intolerance of homosexuals became a past time for some Americans, and Harvey Milk was the man looking to find those people another hobby.

Milk is the true story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), the first openly gay man elected to a public office. Forced out of New York because of his inability to live his lifestyle freely, Harvey took to the road with his lover Scott Smith (James Franco) in search of a haven for homosexuals. The two arrived in San Francisco only to discover just as much prejudice crawling through the city as anywhere else. Determined to help the world realize that all men are created equal, Harvey runs for office multiple times but comes out on the losing end. Despite losing Scott because of the chaos of politics, he kept pursuing office and eventually won a seat as City Supervisor in 1977. Contending with the views of fellow Supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin), Harvey now had to face a huge threat that endangered the jobs of millions of homosexuals: Proposition 6. Led by State Senator John Briggs, Proposition 6 called for all homosexual teachers at public schools to be fired in order to prevent them from teaching their students to be gay. This absolutely absurd claim sparked huge uproar in the gay community, specifically from Harvey Milk. Chronicling his life from his move to San Francisco to his murder (not a spoiler, as both his death and murderer are revealed about 4 minutes into the film), Milk is a fantastic film that teaches us about the life and teachings of this pioneer in history.

It is almost impossible to determine where one should begin to discuss Milk. With such flawless execution in every aspect of the film, it seems unfair to start one without talking about the other. Writer Dustin Lance Black, who received an Academy Award for his Best Original Screenplay, did a terrific job of not simply stating facts about Harvey Milk's life but telling a story that dug emotions from the deepest trench of my soul. To admit something about myself for a moment, I am not exactly what you would consider a "sympathizer" of the homosexual lifestyle. However, Black's perfect blend of realistic drama and occasional humor (Dan White: Can two men reproduce? Harvey Milk: No, but God knows we keep trying!) made me connect with each and every character and start to think of things in a new light. Director Gus Van Sant complimented Black's writing beautifully with an eloquent style that was not in the least bit showy. Subtle and simple camerawork did not fancify the story but simply enabled it to be told in a direct matter for the purpose of entertainment and enlightenment. Van Sant, whose films have been hit and miss (a shot for shot remake of Psycho counts as not just a miss, but a complete and utter misfire that made Alfred Hitchcock weep in his grave), is at his creative best here by being as least creative as possible.

The piece de resistance of Milk is the one who not only brought the words, but the man, to life. I am referring to Sean Penn, who won his second Academy Award for Best Leading Actor for this role. My initial reaction to Penn winning this award was one of disbelief and anger, because although I had not seen the film yet, I had heavy doubts that he could have been much better than Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler. Having seen Milk, I can say both men were equally worthy of winning the award, and the reason it was granted to Penn was probably due to the fact that Hollywood is a liberal place. This does not take merit away from Penn's performance, which was nothing short of outstanding. His contribution mixed with Van Sant and Black brought the era to life and put me right in the center of the action. What is perhaps most surprising about Milk is that there were a number of supporting performances that were just as praise-worthy as Penn's. Josh Brolin delivered a very powerful performance as Harvey Milk's executioner Dan White, earning him an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor. White, a man bent on protecting the sancitity of traditional family life, perhaps even confused about his own sexuality according to Milk, feels his world begin to unfurl as he starts losing support and he watches Milk start to gain some. His morals and ethics are shook to the core, and Brolin displays them easily for us to see. But to just give Brolin a nomination for Supporting Actor seems unfair to Emile Hirsch and James Franco, who both gave exceptional performances. As Harvey Milk's close political advisor and fellow gay activist Cleve Jones, Hirsch encapsulates the role and helps keep the movie afloat in scenes that in other hands would have sunk. The most unexpected performance of Milk was that of James Franco, whom I have never seen in a good dramatic role. I was shocked to find that while watching the film I had completely forgotten it was Franco and I just felt like I was watching Harvey Milk and Scott Smith. Perhaps there is a future for him in serious films after all.

Admittedly, my general views on homosexuality have not changed much since watching Milk, but I have gained a better understanding of the situation. The very idea that this film resonated with me at all should give you an idea of how powerful it's message was. One can only wonder that if this film was released a few weeks earlier, would the recent Proposition 8 have passed in California? Something tells me that if everybody watched this film, whether the ideas stuck or not, the immediate reaction would have been to vote "No". This is all a relative thought, however. If you are a strict, God-fearing person, this movie will not affect you at all probably. But if you are like me and your feelings about homosexuality come from your own mind rather than a book, you may be more inclinded to succumb to the bias of Milk.

Clocking in at just over 2 hours, I was never bored with Milk and felt that I could have watched it again immediately afterward. To those of you who are concerned about watching men kissing other men, I assure you that at no point does the film become uncomfortable to watch, as long as you have a mature mind about you. Whether you watch Milk as a historical text or a vessel of entertainment, you are guaranteed a terrific experience from a truly brilliant movie. My rating (10/10)

Adventureland (2009)

2009-04-05T09:52:00.005-04:00

In 2007, director Greg Mottola made a huge dent in the world of comedy with the hit Superbad. With the assistance of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, he delivered one of the funniest films of the year and still kept it sincere underneath the loads of vulgar language. In 2009, Mottola went out on his own and wrote and directed the film Adventureland, a project probably very close to his heart because he worked at the real Adventureland long ago. For his sake, I hope this was not an account of his actual experiences there. Not only was this film about as funny as stubbing your toe on the refridgerator, it was overrun with whiny characters that pulled no sympathy from me.

It's 1987 and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) just graduated from college. Before attending Graduate school at Columbia, James wants to spend some time in Europe in hopes of losing his virginity to an easy foreign girl. But when the cost of his trip increases unexpectedly, James is forced to find himself a summer job to pay for the difference. Enter Adventureland, the local amusement park where James' friend Frigo (Matt Bush, the kid from the AT&T commercials, and the only funny part of this film) works. After a brief interview with park manager Bobby (Bill Hader) and his wife Paulette (Kristen Wiig), James begins his thrilling career as a game shack attendant. Life looks bleak for James until he is spotted by Em (Kristen Stewart), another game attendant. The two spark up a friendship that soon turns into romantic feelings for James. But Em's chaotic home life and an attractive musician mechanic named Connell (Ryan Reynolds) jeopardize James' chance of making this summer one he will remember forever, in a good way at least. Falsely advertised as a comedy, Adventureland is a drama chronicling the life of a post-graduate loser in Reagan era Long Island.

Adventureland did have one aspect going for it in it's favor. It was a realistic film in how people, specifically younger generations, interacted with each other in their awful job environment. The awkward and somewhat gloomy nature of these poor souls was a truthful account, so in that respect Mottola did a great job at writing. However, this brings up a serious problem in the film. Real life is not all that funny. In Superbad, the friendship between the two main characters was real, but events in the film were heavily exaggerated to accommodate the comedy of the film. In Adventureland, everything that happened was practical and thus much less funny. Mottola left little room for comedy and instead put heavy effort into developing his characters. In a dramatic film, character development is key. There needs to be a significant amount of it in order to draw an audience in. However, a comedy does not need nearly as much attention put in to the characters. In a good comedy, such as Superbad, the very beginning of the film introduces us to exactly who our main protagonists are. As the film progresses, subtle actions inside the comedy reveal more and more about the characters, but we are never force fed the material. Mottola takes this short 5 minutes of character introduction and stretches it into a full hour. Because of this, there is no light-hearted interlude between the moments we meet our friend James and the main issue of the film. It is drama through and through, and I was looking for a comedy.

Perhaps the biggest disease that Adventureland suffered from was the fact that it was a character driven film with boring characters and lackadaisical actors. Jesse Eisenberg plays the soft spoken intellectual James in a static way that is reminiscent of Michael Cera. Both emit an air of pathetic awkwardness, and neither ever really raise their voice beyond a certain level. The only difference is that Michael Cera is actually funny. Line after line Eisenberg delivers with the same "enthusiasm", and never once did he bring a smile to my face. Much like Paul Rudd's character in I Love You, Man was embarrassing to watch, Eisenberg overplays the quirkiness of his role and never shows the maturity that his character supposedly gained. The lone bright spot as far as performances go belongs to Kristen Stewart, who may have actually been too good for her role. The confusion and mayhem that was Em's life is brought forth with stunning strength though Stewart's performance. I say she may have been too good for this role because since everybody else was so awful and she was so spot on, the gap between was uncomfortably recognizable. However good of a job Stewart did though can be overlooked by the fact that she too, has not a single comedic line in Adventureland. So far, we have a comedy with two main characters. One is pathetically unfunny despite his best efforts, and the other is straight-laced and meant to amp up the drama. Forget good performances, somebody say something funny! It was here that the supporting cast contributed hugely to the film. Matt Bush as James' pestering friend was by far the funniest aspect of Adventureland, but was unfairly underutilized. I have seen Bush in a few TV commercials and I was glad to see that he transferred well onto a big screen. His future in the film industry will hopefully long, despite his upcoming project, Halloween 2. And of course, Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig deliver as always but are, like Bush, rarely on screen. Martin Starr, as James' game shack mentor Joel, provides little to nothing to film, and may as well have been dropped from the script entirely.

It can be argued that Adventureland was not meant to be a comedy in the vein of Superbad but rather a touching coming of age story. This statement I can live with, but respectfully disagree. This film has been marketed vigorously as a hilarious follow-up to Superbad so that is exactly what I expected. Marketing this film as a comedy makes about as much sense as marketing Schindler's List as a great date movie. But judging Adventureland as a coming of age tale does not help it much. Because of the dismal acting and irritating characters, the journey into manhood didn't interest me in the slightest. The final resolution to the film is predictable and conjured not a single emotion from me. The characters themselves showed little emotion to any situation presented to them. They simply looked bored, and that made me bored with them.

Adventureland is a very long 107 minutes that is only good for a few chuckles and one solitary worth while performance. Greg Mottola has fallen victim to the sophomore slump, falling well short of the expectations brought about by Superbad. To those of you who may complain that I am being unfair by comparing this film to Superbad, let me say this. Adventureland as a lone film was boring, not funny, and a waste of $8. My rating (2/10)

Special (2006)

2009-03-23T17:56:00.004-04:00

This was a movie I watched a while ago and it just popped back into my mind today. I discovered this film accidentally, and I am glad I did. I had my television on Reelz Channel and a show called Secret's Out with Leonard Maltin came on. I was about to change the channel when he began talking about this film. It intrigued me, so I looked it up.

Since I haven't seen it in some time you will have to excuse my brief and vague discussion of it.

This independent film is the touching story of bored meter maid Les, who is searching for something else in his life. In an attempt to perhaps make his existence a little less mundane, Les volunteers to take part in an experimental drug test. But soon after his first dose, Les discovers a shocking side effect to his medicine: super powers...sort of. Believing he was given these powers for a reason, Les goes around town dressed in all white walking through walls, reading minds, teleporting, and doing all the things that superheroes do. Even though his friends don't believe him, Les begins to feel that he has something he had never had before: a purpose. This is an inspirational tale about a simple man that appeals to all of us.

Main character Les is played beautifully by Michael Rappaport, who is mostly known for his work on television (you may know him as Donald Self from Prison Break, or the father on the short lived Fox series The War At Home). Rappaport portrays the everyman Les with ease and in turn delivers a deeply heart-felt, profound performance that truly resonated with me. This is the only leading role Rappaport ever had and he tackles the feat with the fluidity of a household name. It's just a shame that this film probably doesn't even exist in the mind's of 97% of Americans.

Sure the production value is low and I could have probably recreated the cinematography with a hand-held camera, but this was not a film to look at superficially. Who among us can say they have not felt utterly unnecessary in the grand scheme of the world? What are the chances that you can actually make a name for yourself and be known to even just a few people that you don't know yourself? There are people this fortunate, but it does not happen to everyone. It is this frightening thought that may act as a spark plug for many of us, causing us to do something that could make our future a little less predictable. Then again, some of us, actually most of us, may avoid the risk and simply accept the cards we have been dealt. Special shows the story of a man who represents the former, and after seeing it, you can decide for yourself if the decision was a wise one. Maybe Les' story will inspire you to try something new, and see where it leads you.

I implore you to seek out this film. I am not promising the greatest film you have ever seen, but just a simple film with a huge heart, which is something we all need to experience one day.

Se7en (1995)

2009-03-19T13:04:00.004-04:00

Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, and pride. These are the seven deadly sins as written by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, updating the work of Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th century. These cardinal vices are said to be the seven most objectionable sins a man can commit. However, for the 15 centuries this list has been around, mankind cannot seem to abide by the rules. Millions and millions of people everyday, including myself, indulge in these sins, and feel no immediate consequences (what awaits us in the afterlife, we can never be sure). Perhaps we should look upon this as a blessing, for if everyone in the world that committed one of these sins was chastised for them at once, there would not be much of a population left today. For this, we should thank our lucky stars that we do not live in the world of Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt). Mills has just transferred to a dark, ominous, unnamed city that oozes all things evil. For his first case Mills is paired up with Detective William Somerset, the very man he is replacing, to investigate the strange murder of a morbidly obese man found with his hands and feet bound and his face down in a plate of spaghetti. When another seemingly unrelated murder is discovered, the detectives start to suspect that they are dealing with a serial killer who chooses his victims based on the seven deadly sins. With five more murders to expect, Somerset and Mills have to piece the puzzle together before they, or someone they love, gets hurt. Although the story is unique, Se7en is executed ineffectively and leaves the viewer wanting more (not in the good way).

A friend of mine once described Se7en as "if Fight Club had a baby with Saw, you would get Se7en". For the most part, this is a fairly accurate description, but don't be fooled. Mashing two really good movies together does not always create a great movie. In this case, it churns out a a very average movie that aspires to be something unforgettable. Director David Fincher, famous for Fight Club and recent Best Picture nominee The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I think he has a thing for Brad Pitt), adds his noticeable touch behind the camera, but without the strength you'd expect. Given the film's unpleasant subject matter, it would make sense for the setting to be a generic rainy city that shows no light, or no signs of hope for its inhabitants. But there is a difference between dark and pitch black, which Fincher sometimes forgets throughout the film. If he wanted to give Se7en the feeling of a film noir, he should have just gone ahead and done the entire movie in black and white. Fincher was not a bust at the position of director, but simply made some mistakes that hindered Se7en's progress. Some scenes were shot superbly, one in particular when the SWAT team and Mills and Somerset discover the victim for Sloth. This scene was one of the few that I felt truly captured the ugliness, grittiness, and severity of this created world.

Se7en may not have succeeded as a whole, but there was one moment in the film where everybody involved surpassed brilliance. The people in particular are director David Fincher, screenplay author Andrew Kevin Walker, and the casting directors of the film. I am referring to the reveal of the serial killer, aptly named John Doe. There is one scene in Walker's terrific screenplay (one of the few things of this film that was terrific) where Somerset and Mills sit at a bar discussing the situation at hand. Somerset turns to Mills and says, "If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations. But he's not the devil...he's just a man". At that point the viewer thinks this is just a message Somerset is relaying to Mills. Time passes in the film, and we reach the point when Joe Doe presents himself. Fincher sets the camera on Doe's legs and shows nothing more. The anticipation grows because you cannot wait to see who they got to play this maniacal freak. Did they get a tall, lurching actor with a booming voice and a built upper body? Is it an unknown actor done up with makeup and prosthetics to seem deformed? No, it was just...well actually, I'd prefer not to say. It ruins the surprise. But when the camera finally moves up and shows John Doe's face and you discover that it is _____ ______, you understand exactly what Somerset was talking about. This was nothing more than a plain man, one that you would see riding the subway or walking his dog. It just goes to show you that appearances can be deceiving.

Staying with the idea that appearances can be deceiving, the most disappointing aspect of Se7en was the below average acting from a stellar cast. Seeing the names Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman on the poster can trick a viewer into thinking they are watching a film with terrific acting, but alas, it is only a trick. Pitt in particular does little to really invent his character Detective David Mills. More or less, he seemed to simply recite the lines as he read them off the script. At the end of the film, when Mills is faced with a particularly difficult decision, Pitt's acting slips into near comedy as he just contorts his face trying to look emotional. He might as well have been saying, "Oh wow look at how emotional I am being right now. Don't I just look so conflicted?" No, he just looked foolish. Morgan Freeman does a better job with Detective Somerset, but still doesn't put his best foot forward. With Freeman, most of his acting in Se7en came from his countenance. Unlike Pitt, whose face is too young and smooth, Freeman exudes the feeling of a man who has spent way too much time in this unforgiving city. He is tired of the senseless crimes he is forced to investigate, and he wants out. Aside from his face, though, Freeman is a standard addition. The one performance in this film that was complete was that of the man who I'd prefer to keep unnamed, so like his character, I'll simply call him John Doe. Doe's interactions with Pitt and Somerset are truly unsettling. His calm, even voice matched with the simple face will confuse you, because you won't believe that such horrible crimes were being committed by this man. Doe's screen time is hardly enough, and I would have liked to have seen more of him.

Despite all the negatives of Se7en, I would say there are just enough positives to balance them out. But a fair warning to all of you. There are lots of disturbing, realistic images in this film that you may not enjoy. Also, if you are not a fan of depressing endings, you definitely will not enjoy this film. At 127 minutes, Se7en does lag a bit, but like I said, there are just enough positives to recommend this film. My rating (6/10)

Crank (2006)

2009-03-09T17:22:00.008-04:00

Do you ever feel like you just need a break from the world? Do you ever just want to leave and go to a place where things don't make sense, and nobody questions it? Do you want to see a man inject himself with an overdose of Epinephren and then go on an adrenaline fueled rampage through an entire city? If you answered yes to all of those questions, I have the perfect remedy to feed your need for senseless violence. Crank is a film so out of the realm of realism that your brain may freeze from all of the impossibilities. Jason Statham, a name synonymous with "awesome", stars as Chev Chelios, a professional hit man who has run into a problem. A rival killer has injected him with a mysterious poison that will kill him if he lets his adrenaline drop too low. Set on getting revenge before he dies, Chelios does whatever he can - driving through a mall, Epinephren shots, sex in public, the usual - to keep his heart racing. But don't worry about the plot. The plot is completely irrelevant. Crank is chock full of amateur camerawork, horrific writing, dismal acting, and overall inconceivabilities...but damn is it a good time.

It is pointless to discuss the technical aspects of a film such as Crank. It would be like trying to find a new perfume fragrance at a farm. You can try all you want, but you won't be happy with what you find. What Crank offers you is an exhilerating thrill that never ceases to be ridiculous. Rookie writers/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor be sure to never lead us on to thinking this movie was meant to be taken seriously, and that is why it is such a success. Although their directing repertoire consists of only shaking cameras, poor CGI, and countless jump cuts, they keep the action going and actually make Crank watchable. Plus, it always helps to have the number one tough guy in Hollywood today headlining your film. It could be said that Neveldine and Taylor have created the perfect men's movie: violence, sex, violence, loud noises, Jason Statham, and violence. Deep down, I think even the most refined man secretly wants to see a guy cut off another mans hand that was holding a gun, and then pick up the hand with the gun still gripped in it, and shoot the man with the gun with his own finger on the trigger. Not in real life, of course. That would be disturbing if it was real.

Much like Jean Claude Van Damme and Sylvestor Stallone before him, Jason Statham has made a name for himself in the world of over the top action flicks. This olympic diver turned archetypical Hollywood bad-ass first made his mark on the action world back in 2002 with The Transporter, and he has yet to lose his touch. In Crank, Statham simply does what he does best, and that is beat people senseless all while talking in that guttural, rough voice. Like his movies before this one, we are basically treated to The Jason Statham Show, because it is his mere presence that keeps us wanting to watch more. Crank is essentially just the next movie in a long series of films that I call Jason Statham Beats The Crap Out of People. Since this movie came out in 2006, he has starred in four more action films, and has five in development credits, one of which is a sequel to Crank. Statham is a man in high demand, and why not? Men want to be him, and according to my girlfriend, women definitely want to be with him. There are a few co-stars in this film, but they really don't matter. Amy Smart seemed like she was wandering around some movie sets, seeing if anybody needed a part filled, and they just grabbed her and tacked her in here. She only had about 12 lines in the entire film, and I probably could have delivered them better.

Chances are that if you want to watch Crank, you do not care about who is in it, how well they did, how the story is, or who directed it. You just want to know if this film is going to excite you and make you feel the rush you crave. The answer is a resounding "YES!". At a quick 87 minutes, you have just enough time to enjoy your energy high without crashing from an overdrawn story. Crank does not take itself seriously, and offers quite a few laughs that should keep you happy too. Who ever said that a movie has to be good, to be good? My rating (7/10)

2001: A Space Odyssey -- Is the Fourth Time the Charm?

2009-03-09T17:20:00.006-04:00

2001: A Space Odyssey has been widely renowned as one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Despite rocky reviews upon its first release, it managed to carve itself a place in history, gaining credibility as time rolled on. 2001's unique look at what the future may behold (the film was made in 1968, mind you) has surprised audiences to this day because of its accuracy. Nearly every technological impossibility in the film has become not just a possibility, but a probability in our near future. With the help of author Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick set out to make "the first good science fiction film", because he believed everything to that point was garbage. I haven't seen many science fiction films from before 1968 so I cannot comment on his statement, but when I first saw 2001 I did have something to say: "2001: A Space Odyssey was TERRIBLE". I hated this movie such an intense amount that it hurt my head to think that Stanley Kubrick made it. The film dragged along at such an indolent pace that I truly believed I had died and was now enduring what I thought was the tenth circle of Hell.

That was the first time I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey. A year or so later I received the Stanley Kubrick DVD set for my birthday and with it came the dreaded Hell movie. When I finished with the rest of the set I decided that maybe I should try again. After all, it did seem like the film you would need multiple viewings to appreciate. So I popped it in, got through about one hour, and that's when things went black. Before I knew it my mother was waking me up on the couch, the TV still on with the DVD menu on screen. I threw the movie back in its case and considered it a victory that I fell asleep before I had to watch the entire film. Another few months had passed and I was bored as sin. So I figured hey, I'm already as bored as I can get, the only way I could go is up. So this was 2001's chance to redeem itself for me. Once again I put the movie in, and hoped for the best. I got about as far as I did the second time, and then I got up out of my chair, walked to the DVD player, contemplated smashing it with a baseball bat, and then simply decided to take the movie out and put it away. You may be asking why I keep subjecting myself to this film and just accept the fact that I hate it. If you know me, you know that I am a huge Stanley Kubrick fan. I love basically all of his films, and I frequently express how much it annoys me that he never received an Oscar for writing, directing, or producing. However, his one Oscar win was for Best Visual Effects for, you guessed it, 2001. So basically, I wanted to love the movie that gave my favorite filmmaker his only Oscar. I loved all of his other non-winners, it only seemed right that I should love the one that did win. So that's why I watched it a fourth time.

Today, much like the day when I watched this film the third time, I was bored beyond words. But I was in a good mood, and felt like watching a movie. I went through my collection of 250+ DVD's and came across my Kubrick set and saw 2001. I thought to myself that I would give it one more shot, and just this one more. Now that I've been in this class for a bit and actually know how to identify good filmmaking, maybe the experience will be different. From the beginning, a difference was noticeable. I wasn't squirming, I wasn't fast forwarding, and I wasn't crying in agony. I didn't even notice that it took almost 26 minutes for the first word of dialogue to be spoken, and that a total of 88 minutes of the film was silence filled with classical music. After the film ended I was surprised to feel that...I liked it. I didn't love it, I didn't think it was great, and I still didn't understand most of what I just saw...but I didn't hate it anymore. The meaning behind the film, the danger of technology, actually interested me this time around possibly because I've matured. I started to think about the question, are we allowing technology to get out of hand? Can these advances backfire in our future?

When the movie first begins, we see the dawn of man, which was basically a bunch of guys in ape costumes. If you can ignore that, you see what Kubrick was really trying to show us. This was our most primitive form. This was a world filled with danger, where it was either kill or be killed. In a single frame cut, we jump from the dawn of man to a space station in outer space, showing how quickly technology can creep up on us. As the movie progresses we feel that since that time a million years ago, we have grown as a race. But in the end, main character Dave Bowman has to revert back to the kill or be killed mentality and put an end to the humanistic computer HAL. So no matter how advanced we become, our instincts will always be the same and really nothing has changed.

Still, I found parts of 2001 to be overly drawn out, especially the ending when Bowman is traveling hyperspeed through space and we see an orgy of colors parade across the screen for about 10 minutes. Not to mention the countless questions left open to interpretation by the filmmakers. This is something that could be fun for some people, but to a point it gets frustrating. Arthur C. Clarke once said (regarding his collaboration with Kubrick) "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered". I think this is a smart way of saying "we wrote this, but we didn't think it all the way through, so we are going to have you think about it". I like to believe that rather than my favorite director is a jerk.

So after the fourth try, I finally like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Maybe after some more viewings I'll grow to love it. But let's just go baby steps for now.

Tropic Thunder: A Second Look

2009-03-03T13:39:00.009-05:00

If you have not read my first review of Tropic Thunder please go to August 2008 in my archive.

The summer of 2008 was a great season for comic book films. Not only did every single superhero flick flourish at the box office, but most of them received critical praise as well (with the exception of Hancock). With all that success revolving around action films, the summer really needed a comedy to round itself off and make it a truly memorable one. Late in August, I reported that Tropic Thunder was the film that fulfilled that need. I mentioned how the performances of Robert Downey Jr, Tom Cruise, and Brandon T. Jackson saved the film from it's somewhat flimsy story. The Academy went as far as to nominate Downey Jr for Best Actor in a Supporting Role as the 81st Oscar ceremony. Even now, I feel this nomination was well deserved as Downey Jr really nailed that role down to a T. Tom Cruise also received a Golden Globe nomination with Downey Jr for Supporting Actor in a Comedy, which was a bit much, but after all, it's just the Golden Globes. Either way, it was not just me that felt some of the performances in Tropic Thunder were praiseworthy.

Last month, I finally bought Tropic Thunder hoping it would be just as funny the next few times around, and I was a little disappointed. Not a significant amount, but there was a definite letdown. All of the performances I once praised were still great and I feel like I will always give them high marks. Downey Jr was just as brilliant to watch the second time as he was the first. Cruise's foul mouthed movie executive Les Grossman was still an outrageous character that provided lots of laughs and that little extra bit of satire. However, all of the negative aspects of the film that I pointed out in my first review became much more evident and harder to avoid this second time around. The problem with comedies is that there are very few of them that have the ability to last. A joke that could have you rolling in stitches the first time you hear it may not even coerce a chuckle out of you the second time. In Tropic Thunder, I remembered most of the jokes of the film, and Downey Jr's performance, although still terrific, was less surprising as the first time. So sadly, there wasn't much opportunity for me to laugh out loud during my second viewing of this film. Instead, I kept noticing how Ben Stiller and Jack Black were uncharacteristically bland and one dimensional. I really noticed how it took the film a very long time to get rolling out of the starting gate. When I saw it in theaters I noticed this as well, but not to this extent.

Tropic Thunder was no one hit wonder though, and I don't mean to imply that. Even on second viewing there were numerous laugh out loud moments and once again, great performances. The biting satire commenting on why actors make some decisions in their career is scarily accurate and still a potent theme. And since the direction can't change from one viewing to the next (only the way you view the direction can differ), the action sequences were still well put together with the perfect blend of violence and comedy. So although it may not be the ideal comedy that will live on forever, and it will probably do nothing else but diminish even more over time, Tropic Thunder is still a good experience, although less of one than I originally thought. My new rating: (6.5/10)

RocknRolla (2008)

2009-03-01T17:33:00.008-05:00

So what is a Rock-n-Rolla? The marketing campaign for this film circulated this question through every possible medium, causing a terrible case of "annoying fake British accents" amongst our friends and family (a condition similar to "Borat-itis"). Before RocknRolla was even released, people were buzzing with fake British enthusiasm to find the answer to this question. However, when the film was finally released, we discovered people didn't so much care about finding the true meaning of a "Rock-n-Rolla" as much as they did masquerading as a British person. This is evidenced by the fact that RocknRolla only made about $6 million and never broke into the top 10 at the box office. Even I, who was a fan of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, didn't bother seeing this film. It's a good thing I didn't waste my money. RocknRolla tries to be as fun and charismatic as its predecessors, but falls into a veritable mine field of movie faux pas.

RocknRolla is not a sequel as I may have led on, but simply a film in the same vein as Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. After deviating from the "multiple storyline" gimmick since 2000, writer/director Guy Ritchie returns to the form that made him famous for his latest film. Sadly, the eight year break seems to have gotten to Ritchie and he was unable to bring himself back to his heyday. RocknRolla loosely revolves around Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson), the self-proclaimed King of the Old School who runs most of London. Lenny is currently trying to make a deal with some local Russians, and as a token of affection Russian head Uri Omovich (Karal Roden) allows him to hold on to his lucky painting. To Lenny's dismay, the painting is stolen from his home by his estranged son, rock star Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell). While he searches for his junkie offspring, Lenny and his confidant Archie (Mark Strong) must also keep relations with the Russians running smoothly, keeping it a secret that he lost Uri's beloved painting. Unfortunately, tensions rise as the shipment of money between the two parties continually gets stolen by One-Two and Mumbles (Gerard Butler and Idris Elba), two crooks who were tipped off by shifty accountant Stella (Thandie Newton). As the story progresses, everyone's world begins to fold into everyone else's, meeting at an end that was more of a whimper than a bang. Much less cohesive and interesting than his previous efforts, Ritchie wastes his opportunity at a comeback on this scrap heap.

To some degree, RocknRolla is a pretty film. Not in terms of the events sprawled out on the screen, but rather in how Ritchie and cinematographer David Higgs show what is being done. The use of somewhat dirty coloring conveys the grimy feel of the world these no good characters are living in. Ritchie also sometimes redeems himself with a clever filming style, specifically in one scene as One-Two and his partner Mumbles are being chased down by some unstoppable Russians. The rest of the film however, is a total loss and an incomprehensible mess. The smash-bang execution that Ritchie perfected in Snatch was obviously short-lived, as was his ability to spin an engaging story from his mental yarn. The mostly central story following the whereabouts of a missing painting is hardly enough to keep the viewers eyes forward. Even a ten year old who just drank seven Red Bulls would start to get bored. Ritchie fails to create a single memorable character from his basic, bland script. Even as I'm writing this, I frequently have to visit the IMDb page of this film to remind myself of the character's names. I can't even remember if Stella, the accountant, worked for Lenny, Uri, both, or neither. You could say that this is no more than the fault of my own memory, but I argue that Ritchie didn't do a good enough job to plant these faces in my head as he did in Snatch.

In both of Ritchie's previous multi-story films, the plot is driven by a maniacal kingpin who has "commoners" groveling for mercy. In RocknRolla, this role is stepped into by two time Oscar nominee Tom Wilkinson, a consistently impressive actor that most recently knocked me out with his portrayal of Benjamin Franklin in the HBO mini-series "John Adams". To my chagrin, Wilkinson brings the biggest disappointment of the film in the form of his surprisingly weak performance. An intimidating kingpin Tom Wilkinson does not make, so much as a man who is just a jerk. The characters in RocknRolla may have feared Lenny Cole, but that is just because the script told them to. As a viewer, I was as daunted by Cole as I would be of a Pomeranian with a mean streak. In Snatch, Ritchie created a villain that truly induced fear and with the perfect performance of Alan Ford, the character Brick Top was one to remember. Lenny Cole is a boring scoundrel with no lasting power. Even Cole's growing opponent Uri was portrayed in a rather tame manner. With the exception of one scene that shows his power, Karal Roden never gets the opportunity to show how devilish his character is. The supporting performances from the entire cast, including Thandie Newton, Gerard Butler, Jeremy Piven, Mark Strong, and Ludacris, are all nothing but exercises in mediocrity. The only showing anywhere close to being worthy of celebration is Toby Kebbell's drugged out, hyper-violent, comically apathetic Johnny Quid. His character's farcical behavior gives RocknRolla a slight ray of sunshine in an otherwise dank cave. However, his talents are grossly under-utilized and for most of the movie we are subject to the flat stories of the other characters.

RocknRolla could have had a place on my DVD shelf for years to come right next to Ritchie's other accomplishment's, but instead I will never have it enter my home again. It's unnecessary length is the final straw, closing in on two hours. Snatch was by no means short and was only ten minutes shorter than RocknRolla, but it was at least filled with things to appreciate. If you want to watch a caper flick that's fast paced and highly satisfying, watch Snatch. If you want to watched a caper flick that tries to be quick but instead gets bogged down by it's stale story, watch RocknRolla. My rating (3/10)

81st Academy Awards

2009-02-22T16:41:00.005-05:00

The Academy Awards were held yesterday and so we finally have the definitive answer to which film is the best of the best of 2008. Although I don't agree with some winners, for the most part there were not many surprises. The ceremony itself had lots of potential to become the most enjoyable Academy Awards in a very, very long time. Hugh Jackman's energetic and hilarious opening number really started the show off with a bang and gave me hope that things this year would be easier to watch. But of course, you can't have an Oscar ceremony without several boring, unnecessary montages. This year they decided to create a different montage for every genre of film. The only one worth watching was Judd Apatow's comedy montage starring Seth Rogen and James Franco as their characters from Pineapple Express. Turns out the skit was actually a lot funnier than Pineapple Express.

The second absolute disaster and by far the worst change made to the functionality of the ceremony was the presentation of the acting awards. Rather than have two people come out and introduce the nominees with clips of their performances, we were instead forced to endure an introduction to the FIVE presenters, and then listen to ALL FIVE PRESENTERS give long and uninteresting monologues about the nominees, and then NOT SHOW US A CLIP. Who was the bright light that thought of that idea?! Not everybody gets to go out and see most of these films, so they enjoy seeing the 10 seconds clips. But no, the Academy basically just said that if you didn't see the film, then screw you. Wouldn't you have been a lot happier if you got to see Heath Ledger's performance shown one more time? Atrocious.

And lastly: Sean Penn?!?!?! I cannot fathom how Sean Penn could have possibly been better than Mickey Rourke. Granted I haven't seen Milk, but I did see The Wrestler. Mickey Rourke actually brought tears to my eyes. I had to force them back to keep them from rolling down my cheeks. The last time I cried at a film, I was 7 and watching Air Bud. Plus, Penn has already won an award. If the race in an acting category is that close, the scale should tip in favor of the person who hasn't won an award yet. That could just be how I feel about it, but I think it makes sense. Anyway, here is a list of basically all the winners at the 81st Academy Awards.

Best Animated Feature - Wall-E

Best Achievement in Visual Effects- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (should have gone to The Dark Knight)

Best Achievement in Sound Editing- The Dark Knight

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Song- Slumdog Millionaire for "Jai Ho" by A.R. Rahman

Best Original Score- Slumdog Millionaire - A.R. Rahman

Best Achievement in Makeup- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Achievement in Costume Design- The Duchess

Best Achievement in Art Direction- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Achievement in Editing- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Achievement in Cinematography- Slumdog Millionaire (should've gone to The Dark Knight)

Best Adapted Screenplay- Slumdog Millionaire - Simon Beaufoy

Best Original Screenplay- Milk - Dustin Lance Black

Best Achievement in Directing- Slumdog Millionaire - Danny Boyle

Best Supporting Actress- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Best Supporting Actor- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight

Best Actress- Kate Winslet for The Reader

Best Actor- Sean Penn for Milk (should've gone to Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler)

Best Picture- Slumdog Millionaire

In Bruges (2008)

2009-02-16T19:03:00.008-05:00

Bruges - (pronounced Broozh) city in Belgium

Have you ever been to Bruges? Well I haven't. When looking up a place to vacation, my family isn't looking at the brochure that says "Visit beautiful Belgium!" The city of Bruges is a medieval town with beautiful buildings and canals, but if you aren't held over by sightseeing, you probably won't want to go there. They don't even have a bowling alley. Being so obscure and unknown to most, it turns out to be the perfect place to, I don't know, hide out a couple of hit men who messed up their last job? That's exactly what Harry Waters (Ralph Fiennes) decided to do. After an unnecessary victim was claimed on their latest hit, Ray and Ken (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) are ordered by Harry to hole up in the little known city of Bruges in Belgium. While Ken has no trouble enjoying the gorgeous scenery, Ray hates everything about the city as he frequently expresses in rather vulgar terms. It could be that Ray is just upset because it was he who made the mistake on the job, and the guilt is destroying him on the inside. Not even a date with beautiful Belgian girl Chloe (Clemence Poesy) or a comically racist dwarf (Jordan Prentice) could cheer him up. After a few days in Bruges, Ken receives a phone call from Harry, and we discover that the reason the two men were stationed in the secret city is not as simple as it seemed.

Even after reading the plot synopsis, I'm going to venture to say you still don't quite know what to expect from In Bruges. I wasn't too keen on seeing it after hearing what it was about, but good word of mouth brought it to my DVD player. I've never been happier to give a movie a chance. I could talk about In Bruges for an hour and never would a negative word cross my lips. Beautifully written, the film is endlessly witty, darkly hilarious, and sincerely devilish. Writer-Director Martin McDonagh won an Academy Award in 2005 for his short film Six Shooter and he could be on the fast track to earning his second win for In Bruges' original screenplay. McDonagh's script has the ticklish punch you'd come to expect from a Coen brothers black comedy. Every line in In Bruges is relevant and comes back to say "hello" later on in the film. Don't let your ears drop for a second because you're likely to miss something that could make you laugh afterward. If his writing wasn't enough, McDonagh's direction is spectacular. The city of Bruges is laid out before you with stunning beauty and succeeds as not just a setting, but as a character in the film as well. The city serves as a prison to central character Ray, or even an eternal hell. No matter what he tries to do, his sins continually bring him back to Bruges.

But a script is just a bunch of pieces of paper if it doesn't have the actors to give it life. Colin Farrell gives the best performance of his career as morally affected hit man Ray. Before In Bruges, I had never seen Farrell in anything I had enjoyed (besides one episode of "Scrubs"). But in this role, he shows terrific ability that I've never seen from him before. Farrell does not simply have to play some tough guy executioner, but portray one that has a revelation about the true meaning behind his crimes. At times Farrell is drop dead funny, and then at the drop of a hat becomes the face of anguish and the epitome of guilt. Farrell received a Golden Globe for his performance and it was an accomplishment well-earned. Co-star Brendan Gleeson deserves equal praise for his turn as Ray's pal Ken. Ken has to make sure he keeps Ray's head above water and prevent him from doing something he may regret. Gleeson does an exceptional job of showing us how difficult it is for his character to make the decisions he is forced to make. Dealing with both the depressed Farrell and angry Fiennes, Gleeson's character is the middle piece that provides a balance between all the players. Rounding out the terrific ensemble is two-time Oscar nominee Ralph Fiennes as the temperamental boss of the duo that have caused him much grief. If Farrell and Gleeson weren't enough, Fiennes arrives halfway through the movie to add an entirely new aspect to the film. The moment his character arrives in person, the pace of the film kicks into another gear. So if you were getting bored of the sentimental displays of affection between Ray and Ken (even though they are not boring, very short, and are not maudlin in the slightest), you immediately became engaged again. Fiennes gives a fine performance that helps drive In Bruges to it's wonderful conclusion.

Behind the dark comedy of In Bruges there are some powerful underlying questions. What is Heaven? What is Hell? What exactly decides whether or not we make it into these places? While in a museum Ray and Ken come across a painting of The Last Judgement by Hieronymous Bosch. Throughout the film Ray openly despises everything he sees in Bruges, but when he sees this painting, even he is taken aback by it. Ray and Ken then begin to discuss the matter of the after-life, and how they feel they will be judged. Ken says he does not believe in places to go after death, but Ray has a line about ending up in purgatory, that "in betweeny one", that really stood out and had major relevance to his character. "You weren't really s*** but you weren't that great either". It's vulgar, it's short, but the truth behind it is unyielding. Disregarding Ray for a second, think of yourself. Would you consider yourself to be a great person? Do you feel you have done enough deeds in your life to warrant the status of a "great" person? Or, have you been, well, in a nicer way of saying it than Ray, crap? Would you say your existence has had no benefit on the human race whatsoever and if anything you've only made things worse? I'd certainly hope not. Yet I would say most of the human race falls in the middle of those two standards, including myself. So what are we to expect? Stuck in purgatory forever, dealing with absolute nothingness? And where exactly are all these places? Is Hell an actual set location or is just one place we really dislike, like Bruges for Ray? Or maybe I'm making a big deal out of a simple line. Your decision.

I was afraid of saying it before, but after viewing this film again I feel it is something I must say. In Bruges is one of my favorite films of all time and if it didn't fly so far under the radar back in February of 2008, it would be considered great by all. There are plenty of digs at Americans, but they aren't too bad and they are actually pretty true. There's even a moment when Harry insults our culture by saying even in killing people we are less civilized than the rest of the world. In Bruges is not long at all and you may even want it to go on longer once it is over. With so much to love, I can hardly think of anybody disliking this film. And if you are like me, you may put Bruges on your vacation list one day. After seeing how pretty it looks on film, I want to know what it's like in person. Maybe I'll find Ray there. My rating (10/10)

My Top 25 Favorite Films Of All Time: 5-1

2009-02-14T11:50:00.010-05:00

Here you go, my top 5 favorite movies of all time. I mentioned that numbers 25-6 are likely to change over the years, but I highly doubt these are going to drop out of the top 5 any time soon.

5) Saw (2004)- Even though it spawned less than average sequels, the first Saw was one of the most original horror films I had seen in years. It accomplished something that I never thought was possible: create a killer that the viewer actually, well, agrees with. John Kramer was a nice average Joe who just wanted to help people and all he got in return was an inoperable frontal lobe tumor. As Jigsaw, he spread a message that is one you can actually be sympathetic with. "Those who do not appreciate life, do not deserve life". Although it is a bit extreme, it makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it? Not like Freddy Kreuger or Jason Voorhees, who are formally dead people coming back for revenge. That doesn't make any sense. What I really liked about Saw was that although there were numerous deaths, the movie focused more on the mystery than it did the killing. The sequels lost sight of this and became all about the gruesome aspects of the plot.

4) Young Frankenstein (1974)- This is how spoof comedy is done! I see movies nowadays like Disaster Movie and Epic Movie and it makes me ashamed to be an American. Only because it sickens me to think movies like that could be made and actually make money! It doesn't paint a nice picture of the American people. Those movies call themselves spoofs but I just call them disgraceful. Mel Brooks was and will always will be the king of the spoof comedy, and Young Frankenstein is his crown jewel. Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman are priceless and although I've seen the movie about 20 times, they still crack me up.

3) The Shining (1980)- Hands down the best horror movie of all time, period, end of story, no ifs ands or buts about it. Stanley Kubrick's mastering of the tracking shot gave the film the eerie sense of creeping evil around every corner, and it scares the living daylights out of me. Jack Nicholson's diabolically insane Jack Torrance is the epitome of horror. Even though Shelley Duvall over-acted her role a disgusting amount, Nicholson countered it by being perfect. Kubrick captured the essence of what truly horrifies people and executed it flawlessly. Watching people get killed is not what is scary, but rather the sense that someone is about to be killed. There is only one on screen murder in The Shining, and it is quick and done rather tastefully.

2) Memento (2000)- Story-telling at it's finest. Christopher and Jonathan Nolan's tale of a man with short term memory loss searching for his wife's killer is intriguing and perfectly executed. The unique style in which the story is told has never been paralleled, making it a true masterpiece. After 10+ viewings, Memento remains potent and effective

1) A Clockwork Orange (1971)- I don't know if you figured it out yet, but I am what you would call a "Stanley Kubrick fan". There is no argument in my mind that A Clockwork Orange is among the greatest films of all time. The first time I watched it, I was shocked. I was shocked that the content of the film was able to be released in 1971. This was pretty intense by today's standards. After some research I discovered that A Clockwork Orange was originally rated X, incited riots, and caused Kubrick and his family to receive numerous death threats. I guess it wasn't as accepted as I thought. Small fact: 1972 was the first year Jack Nicholson presented the Best Picture Oscar. Although he was a rather small name at the time, no highly regarded actor would present the award on the off chance A Clockwork Orange won. They did not want to be associated with the film. So, Nicholson was asked and he accepted. If you ask me, there were two atrocities that took place at the 1972 Academy Awards. 1- Malcolm McDowell was not even NOMINATED for the Best Actor Oscar. That has to be the most egregious snub in Oscar history. 2- The French Connection beat A Clockwork Orange for Best Picture. I've seen The French Connection. It was unbearable. And it wasn't because I didn't want to like it because I didn't want it to be better than Clockwork. I truly found it impossible to watch. After reading the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, I only grew to love the movie even more. In the translation to film, Kubrick only lost the meaning of the film in that he left out Chapter 21. Other than that, it was a perfect translation and an absolute masterpiece. I've introduced multiple people to A Clockwork Orange and they are all glad I did.

That concludes my list. I hope you find something that we have in common. Following is a list of runners up that just missed out on being in the Top 25.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)- Johnny's charisma and the adult fairy tale plot are extremely entertaining to watch, but Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley make parts of the movie (and both sequels) unwatchable.

In Bruges (2008)- Excellent film with excellent performances by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson and an excellent script with an excellent resolution. Just, excellent. The only thing keeping this out of my 25 is that I've only seen it once, so I don't know if it has lasting power.

V For Vendetta (2005)- The character V is down right cool and his cause is one to believe in. My only qualm with the film is its length and its lasting power. After a few viewings I wasn't as in love with it. I still think its enjoyable and I watch it when it's on, but I wouldn't call it a favorite.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)- My relationship with this film is really strange. The first time I saw it in theaters I was like, "wow, that was amazing". I loved everything about it. I loved Burton's style, Depp's performance, the music, and hell I even liked Helena Bonham Carter (I do not care for Helena Bonham Carter). The second time I watched the film, I discovered I did not like it nearly as much as the first. I was close to even saying I didn't like it. Then I watched it a third time, and it was amazing again. I watched it again recently, and it was just OK. So I guess depending on my mood, this movie could make the list, but it is far too volatile to be placed on the list permanently.

My Top 25 Favorite Movies Of All Time: 15-6

2009-02-13T17:05:00.007-05:00

Hey everyone. This is the second half of my list of favorite movies of all time. I'd like to reiterate from the first post that this list is highly tentative and will most likely change over time. But at this moment, the list is correct.

15) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)- Perhaps the best adventure film of all time, this Indy flick is my favorite of the franchise. Perhaps it's Sean Connery's delightful accent.

14) American Psycho (2000)- Christian Bale is terrifying and hilarious in this satirical look at the world of yuppie businessmen.

13) American History X (1998)- The captivating performance by Edward Norton and the sensitive subject matter made American History X one of the most enjoyable movie watching experiences of my life. It also presents an answer to the question of how far people are willing to take racism before they realize it isn't helpling anyone. The first half of the film almost justifies the reasons for racism and actually convinces you that it is OK. But in the latter half of the film, after Norton gets out of prison, reason enters his mind and thus fills the movie sending a powerful message to the audience. If the ending doesn't leave you feeling like you just got punched in the gut, you are made of stone.

12) Hairspray (2007)- Yea that's right, you got a problem with that? I've seen this movie 10+ times and I still like it just as much as I did the first time. Shutup. I am not!

11) Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)- I dare you to watch Anchorman and not sprinkle some lines from it into your daily life. I remember when this first came out everybody and their mothers was speaking in a deep voice and saying things like "Milk was a bad choice!" It didn't even have to make sense in context, but we'd say it. It also marked the beginning of Judd Apatow's reign as the King of New Comedy.

10) Full Metal Jacket (1987)- This time Kubrick takes on the Vietnam War and, as usual, he delivers with something special. Taking you from the moment someone arrives at boot camp all the way into battle, the atrocities of war are evident throughout. Vincent D'Onofrio's final stand of insanity is heart stopping, and poor Matthew Modine never did anything worth watching again.

9) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)- "Ni!"

8) The Shawshank Redemption (1994)- Talk about a fantastic ending. There is never a better feeling than when good overcomes evil and everything is put right in the world. Probably because this never happens in real life, so when we see it in a movie, we eat it up. If it wasn't for Forrest Gump, this movie would have won the Oscars it deserved. Don't get me wrong, I liked Forrest Gump, but only like the first 2 times I saw it. I've seen Shawshank about 8 times and I still love it.

7) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)- I don't care if author Ken Kesey refused to watch this movie because it changed so much in the translation to film, I could watch this movie for him and let him know that it's fantastic. As a matter of fact, I found it to be an improvement on his book. Take that, Mr. Kesey. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest became the first film since It Happened One Night in 1934 to win the big five Academy Awards (Best Screenplay, Actress, Actor, Director, and Picture). And come one, you gotta love Jack.

6) The Dark Knight (2008)- Yea I know it's still early and that in a few years I will probably drop The Dark Knight on the list, but for now I'm still crushing like a school girl on it. Like Iron Man before it, The Dark Knight proved a superhero movie doesn't always have to be thought of as a mindless action flick. I find it to be one of the best crime epic's I've seen, and I am looking forward to hearing Heath Ledger's name announced as winner of the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award on February 22nd.

Come back tomorrow for the SUPER RIDICULOUS CRAZY CONLUSION OF MY LIST!! Nah it won't be that crazy, but come back anyway.

My Top 25 Favorite Movies Of All Time: 25-16

2009-02-12T17:51:00.010-05:00

Hello loyal readers. I felt like posting today but I didn't feel like doing a full on review. Instead, I thought I'd have some fun and create a list of my top 25 favorite films of all time. Now this list is highly tentative and will most likely change soon. But right at this moment, as I type this, what I have now is what I truly feel. You will see a wide array of movie genres here and some of the films may surprise you. My top 5 favorite films were judged based on entertainment value, lasting power, and technical achievement. Movies 25-6 are based more on entertainment value and lasting power. I didn't judge them all based on technical stuff like directing and writing and things of that nature. I decided that to stretch this experience out and to keep you from having to read one super long post, I will just list numbers 25-16 today.

25) Paths Of Glory (1957)- Stanley Kubrick's second major film about the cruelty of man is not just thought provoking but a thrill to watch.

24) The Birdcage (1996)- Two words: Agador Spartacus. Hank Azaria's legendary supporting role is just the icing on the cake of this hilarious movie that has had me laughing since I was a little boy.

23) Secret Window (2004)- It's not the most original psychological thriller, but even after numerous viewings I find myself more than satisfied by the resolution. Revenge is a sweet, sweet thing.

22) Iron Man (2008)- One of the biggest blockbusters of 2008, Iron Man was one of the greatest superhero films ever made. It proved that a big budget action flick could be both intelligent and unabashedly fun. It also helped revive Robert Downey Jr's career...big time.

21) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)- Michel Gondry's exploration into the agonizing world of love is engaging throughout and filled with top notch performances. Jim Carrey at his absolute finest.

20) Ghostbusters (1984)- Ah Ghostbusters, my first love. Well, the first movie I ever loved. My big brother groomed me to like this movie when I was extremely young and it just stuck. I used to have the outfit and a proton pack and everything. I miss childhood. Nevertheless, the movie is still hilarious. Don't worry about the sequel. Even Bill Murray said he didn't like the sequel.

19) The Big Lebowski (1998)- "That rug really tied the room together". Enough said.

18) Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)- Another Kubrick gem, this satire garnered 4 Oscar nominations including Best Writing, Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Picture. You are guaranteed to laugh at at least one of Peter Sellers' 3 great performances. Dr. Strangelove is also the movie that brought the famous line "Gentleman you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

17) Fight Club (1999)- I can't believe I went 10 years without seeing this movie. After the first time I watched Fight Club, I was mildly impressed, but I didn't get the hype. I watched it again the following day and I realized that "wait a minute, this movie is friggin GREAT!".

16) Clue (1985)- This could probably classify as a "guilty pleasure" of mine, although I don't feel guilty about it. I've seen this movie about 9 times and I still love every minute of it. If you love the game like I do, this movie is going to be in your list as well.

Check back tomorrow (probably) for numbers 15-6!

He's Just Not That Into You (2009)

2009-02-07T11:59:00.007-05:00

February is probably my least favorite month of the year. It is the time when movie studios are caught in the middle of their release schedules. Their Oscar nominees have all hit theaters back in December, and they have to wait a few more months until they could release their blockbusters. So February is the time where movie studios dump off their below average work and hope that their garbage smells better than everyone else's. This means we get movies like The Pink Panther 2, another Friday the 13th, and a whole mess of lousy romantic comedies. Every now and then you do see a genuinely good film in February, such as last year's surprisingly good romantic comedy Definitely, Maybe. I should have known it would be too much to ask for consecutive February's with smart, original films with actual entertainment value to boot. He's Just Not That Into You, based on the popular self-help book by Greg Behrendt, is original but noticably ostentatious and desperately lacking the ability to keep my attention for more than four minutes at a time.

The diabolically intricate plot mostly revolves around Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin), a certified loser in love who can't seem to read the signals that men give her. She looks to her co-worker friends for help but all they can offer are the same meaningless pieces of advice that have become commonplace in our society. But irony lies in the fact that Gigi doesn't know that these friends are the worst possible candidates for help, because they are all having relationship issues themselves. Beth (Jennifer Aniston) has been dating Neil (Ben Affleck) for seven years and still doesn't have a ring on her finger. Janine (Jennifer Connelly) thinks she is in a pleasant marriage but is unaware that her husband Ben (Bradley Cooper) is cheating on her with Anna (Scarlett Johansson), a yoga instructor that he met at a convenience store. But oh no, the plot doesn't stop there. Anna is also teasing Conor (Kevin Connolly), who is trying desperately to convince her that he is the man for her. Meanwhile, Conor is trying to build a a reputation as a good real estate agent by working with Mary (Drew Barrymore) (who I imagine is an advertising agent, although the movie never specifies), who looks for love on internet dating sites and ultimately comes up with nothing. So in this mess (and that really is the only word to describe it), Gigi does manage to find one person that she can talk to and gain helpful advice from. Conor's friend Alex (Justin Long), a certified player that doesn't make it a habit to become attached to any one girl. He's Just Not That Into You tries desperately to be intelligent, but instead is nothing more than a jumbled Rubick's Cube with missing colors.

With such a diverse ensemble and a story that covers all ends of the relationship spectrum, the real charm in He's Just Not That Into You probably should have been bred from the fact that it is highly relatable. The events that take place in the film are, for once, actual every day occurrences! How many romantic comedies have you seen with a ridiculous storyline that makes you bury your head in your hand because it is trying way too hard. It's never just two people who may or may not like each other and so the game of cat and mouse begins. It's always stupid things like Made Of Honor or 27 Dresses or some Hugh Grant movie. But the Gigi character in He's Just Not That Into You is one that I've seen so many times. Not in movies, but in reality! Dating is a tough game to play, and some people just don't get the hang of it. Ginnifer Goodwin as Gigi is but one of the few performances I found to be genuine and enjoyable. Her adorable naivety speaks so much to the main core of the film, which is that nobody really knows what the hell is going to happen. She also exudes an unmistakable energy with co-star Justin Long, the bartender that doubles as her relationship counselor. Long is charming and shows a great deal of maturity in his role. Since he's most known for his roles in Accepted and Dodgeball, it is still in the mind of a movie-goer that he is a young, lovable goofball. Long overcomes this stereotype with ease. And women take notice, everything that Long says in this movie is the absolute truth. Trust me.

Despite some very good performances, He's Just Not That Into You falls into every trap set by a romantic comedy, even with it's unique idea. I have not read the book, but if it progresses the same way the movie does, I'm glad I didn't read it. Screenwriters Marc Silverstein and Abby Kohn show no aptitude in their field and fail to capitalize on the rare opportunity of having an original plot. No wonder this is their first movie they've written since Never Been Kissed back in 1999. With so many different things happening in a script, you would imagine something could happen that would really surprise a viewer. This is never the case, as I was able to decide what was going to happen five minutes before the characters in the movie did. Director Ken Kwapis does not help the matter. He was unable to keep the convoluted plot together and made He's Just Not That Into You verily unwatchable. He should have called Christopher Nolan for help, he's a master at keeping a movie in order. Kwapis has directed multiple episodes of many television shows like "The Office", and has been in charge of disastrous movies like License To Wed and Dunston Checks In (although I must say the latter is a tiny bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I know it's awful, but cmon, its an orangutan). Given that record, he should stay with his television career and leave directing movies to someone else.

My feelings on He's Just Not That Into You are clearly split down the middle. On one hand, it has some very entertaining performances that aren't what you would typically see in a romantic comedy. The casting director did a magnificent job finding the people that would bring these roles to life. It makes sense that Kevin Connolly, the boyish looking man from "Entourage" would be the guy taken for a ride by an unfaithful girlfriend, reasonably played by Scarlett Johansson. The ending, however cliche and obvious, succeeds in being heart-felt and tender, even making me crack a smile. Briefly. Don't let my girlfriend tell you anything otherwise. But then on the other hand, the pace is unbearable and the writing is clumsy and hackneyed. Not to mention it is half an hour too long. If you are a woman, you will find lots to love about He's Just Not That Into You. If you are a man, you'll just have to take comfort in knowing that you are doing something nice for your girlfriend. If you are a man, and you are seeing this movie just for yourself, I am going to have to deduct 3 man cards from you. My rating (5/10)

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

2009-02-01T12:50:00.006-05:00

It is always in style to root for the underdog. Just yesterday, I watched Super Bowl XLIII and cheered for the Arizona Cardinals the whole way through. When the underdog loses, like the Cardinals did, it is never as disappointing as if the favorite loses. Most people just acknowledge that hey, that's why they were underdogs. But when the unlikely party pulls through and shocks everyone, like the Giants in last years Super Bowl, there is an undescribable feeling that takes over, leaving a permament smile on your face and a temporary flutter on your heartbeat. This years Best Picture favorite Slumdog Millionaire is perhaps the greatest individual underdog story ever told, and (sorry Dark Knight) the best movie of 2008 (that I've seen). The story follows Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), an uneducated young man who grew up in the slums of Mumbai. Jamal is a contestant on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" and is one question away from winning the top prize of 20,000,000 Rupees. The show's host Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor) is not convinced that this boy from the slums could really know all the answers and secretly has him arrested under suspicion of cheating. During his brutal interrogation, Jamal tells the Police Sergeant (Irrfan Khan) the story of his life, and how his tumultuous relationship with his brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) and his unwavering love for the beautiful Latika (Freida Pinto) taught him all that he knows. Although devoid of caped crusaders and villains in war paint, Slumdog Millionaire is a different kind of hero story that gets my vote for Best Picture.

Believe it or not, Slumdog Millionaire was at one point meant to be a straight to DVD release. If that had happened, the Academy would have had to create a new "Best Straight to DVD Movie Ever Made" category so this movie could win. Initially when I left the movie theater after watching this film, I didn't think it was as great as I do now. But last night, as I lay restless from the heart pumping Super Bowl, I had time to think about the movie more in depth. By the time morning rolled around, I came to the conclusion that Slumdog Millionaire was in fact a fantastic achievement in modern cinema. Danny Boyle, director of such films as Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine, was the man behind the camera for this film, and I'm afraid my limited vocabulary won't be enough to praise his work. What must be acknowledged first is how he captured the heart breaking every day lives of regular people who unfortunately live in delapidated slums. Living in a world where the police will neglect to intervene an attack even after they see a man on fire is just one of the injustices that must be dealt with in these areas. Not to mention the living conditions which can only be described as pits of squalor. An aerial shot of miles of tin roofs is a disheartening reminder that there are not just a few people subjected to these conditions. Boyle brings these truths to the screen in such a way that no human can turn a blind eye to these facts anymore. I would love to take some of the heartless people from my school to see this movie and try to show them what spoiled and ignorant brats they are. Slumdog Millionaire never loses credibility thanks to Boyle's magnificent directing. He effectively mixes past and present tense without turning the movie into a disjointed mess. Credit should also not be taken from writer Simon Beaufoy, whose screenplay is perfect and never hits a sour note. The collaboration between Beaufoy and Boyle makes every moment of Slumdog Millionaire one to be remembered.

But an underdog story isn't truly great until you have a good underdog to root for. It is here where Dev Patel, Ayush Khedekar, and Tanay Chheda rise to the occasion. Each actor portrays the slumdog Jamal Malik at different ages and each find a way to grab at your heart. While Patel is the oldest and is receiving most of the noteriety surrounding Slumdog Millionaire, it is Khedekar, who played the youngest Jamal, that I was most intrigued by. I am not often impressed with child actors, but Khedekar is a bright exception. He accomplishes a feat that not many professional adult actors have the ability to pull of convincingly: emotions. Khedekar displays a wide range of emotions from excitement to sadness, and love to anger. He and co-star Rubiana Ali (youngest Latika) bring more romantic chemistry to the screen than quite a few professional stars (Katherine Heigl and James Marsden in 27 Dresses, Dane Cook and Jessica Alba in Good Luck Chuck, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley in all three Pirates of the Caribbean films). Patel is merely the icing on the cake, drawing the viewer in with an innocent face and a sterling performance.

As I mentioned earlier, the appeal of Slumdog Millionaire lies in it's brilliant underdog tale. It is unknown whether or not this film will be considered truly great in the future, but for now, one thing is for certain. Slumdog Millionaire is an outstanding achievement in entertainment and regardless of whether you prefer summer blockbusters over Oscar contenders, you will like this movie. If you are worried that 20% of the film is spoken in Hindi and you won't enjoy reading the subtitles, Danny Boyle has you covered. Rather than just put the words up on the screen, he masterfully finds a visually beautiful way to keep you in the loop. At a reasonably quick two hours, you won't ever feel let down by Slumdog Millionaire, I guarantee it. My rating (10/10)

P.S. - Stay during the credits for an amazing choreographed dance sequence involving every member of the cast.

The Machinist (2004)

2009-01-27T22:19:00.009-05:00

Insomnia is a devious little parasite. It can be caused by any number of things, such as an emotional trauma, withdrawal from drugs, or even just jet lag. Serious sufferers can go weeks without sleep, causing major damage to the person's ability to function. The accepted cure for insomnia is not any type of medicine, but rather a type of therapy. First you must pinpoint what exactly is causing someones insomnia, and then work to relieve that issue. Trevor Reznik (Christian Bale) is having some problems with insomnia. He has gone over a year without sleep and there does not seem to be a reason why. His lack of rest has left him an emaciated shell of a man who's more bones than body. Reznik spends his sleepless nights either with his call girl girlfriend Stevie (Jennifer Jason Leigh) or at an airport diner talking with waitress Marie (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon). During the day he works at a factory operating heavy machinery, an activity dangerous in itself, made even more so by his drowsy state. When new worker Ivan (John Sharian) distracts Reznik while he is helping a friend, a terrible accident occurs that Trevor feels he is being blamed for. His paranoia continues to feed on the accusations from his co-workers that Ivan does not exist. As Reznik's self destructive search for the truth encompasses his life, he starts to learn more than he bargained for. Although not particularly original, The Machinist is a unique thriller deserving multiple viewings.

Christian Bale is without a doubt one of the best actors of his generation. He has consistently taken on various challenging roles and more often than not he is successful. In movies like American Psycho, Batman Begins, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn, 3:10 To Yuma, and this summer's Oscar snub The Dark Knight, Bale time and again takes his roles to the next level and beyond creating unforgettable performances. But what strikes me the most about him is his absolute dedication to his roles. In American Psycho, Bale was in peak physical condition, so much so that when he had to film a shower scene, every woman working on the movie dropped by to watch him. For his role in The Machinist, Bale dropped to a sickly 120 pounds, grossly underweight for his 6 foot frame. That wasn't enough for Bale, who claims to have wanted to drop to 100 pounds, but the filmmakers wouldn't allow him to for health reasons. It got to the point where filming running scenes was painful for him, because he had no leg muscles left. Just one year after The Machinist, Bale starred in Batman Begins, a role that required him to be, once again, in top physical form. Bale put back all his muscle and then some, causing the filmmakers to force him to lose some weight again because he was getting too big. But along with his dedication, Bale's acting ability in The Machinist is impressive. As his character turns from paranoia to hysteria, Bale gives a pitch perfect performance that will ensnare you in his world.

It is very easy to become involved in The Machinist. Director Brad Anderson does a masterful job of giving this film not only just a distinct look, but a feel. The primarily grey and dull atmosphere hypnotizes the audience, drawing them in to the unusual world. It is as though we are looking through the eyes of this poor sleep depraved man and directly at the crumbling world around him. Anderson's expert handle on the pace of the film allowed no room for low points, and only a continuous increase in suspense as every scene passed. The combination of Anderson and Bale brings The Machinist to a status above ordinary, which helps the fact that the script was not exactly fresh. Although not a direct rip-off of any particular film, The Machinist shares numerous elements with numerous films. The twist ending is especially affected by the stale writing because it has been seen countless times. Screenwriter Scott Kosar had only written one film before, and it was the god awful remake The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. After The Machinist, Kosar penned another remake of The Amityville Horror. When one spends much of his efforts copying and pasting the work of others, it obviously seems to get in the way of their original writings. The story is not totally killed by these cliches, but it is definitely damaged.

The Machinist is an above average thrill ride that is guaranteed to entertain. There is no chance to get bored thanks to the stunning direction and solid performances from the entire cast. It's only downfall being it's predictable ending and altogether average screenplay, The Machinist is not an achievement to be missed. My rating (7.5/10)

Below are pictures that show Christian Bale's ridiculous weight transformations for his roles.

Left: The Machinist

Right: American Psycho

Be Kind Rewind: What the Hell Was I Thinking?

2009-01-26T18:38:00.008-05:00

Back in July of 2008, I wrote a review of the Michel Gondry film Be Kind Rewind. In it, I had written about how it was a predominantly nice film that wasn't so much funny as it was sweet and fun. It reminded me of how my friends and I made our own movies and I liked that I could relate to it. I only gave it a 5.5 out of 10, but that is still a mild recommendation. Recently on a free preview of Cinemax, I got the chance to watch Be Kind Rewind again. I recalled all the nice things I had written about it and thought I'd give it a second watch. After an hour, I had to shut off the television because I couldn't take it anymore. I had made a mistake.

I never said Be Kind Rewind was a very good film. Whenever somebody asked me "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" I never said it was a good movie. My answer was always the same: "It was nice. Very pleasant." I am deeply sorry for misleading you. There is nothing nice or pleasant about this movie. In my first review I made a point of saying how the script was awful, the direction was trite, and the acting was subpar. Those statements stand where they are. But I did say that I enjoyed Jack Black's performance as the eccentric conspiracy theorist Jerry. Holy hell I must have been slipped acid before watching this movie the first time. The second time around, it was Black who I hated THE MOST. He was nothing more than an annoying pestilence. Also at second viewing, the lazy direction and camerawork proved to be not just trite but unyieldingly soporific. It was seriously as though my friends and I through this movie together in a week. And do you know how I said I liked this movie because it reminded me of my friends and the fun we had making our own movies? Well I'm over it.

Sure I didn't watch Be Kind Rewind all the way through the second time, but I wasn't going to subject myself to the rest of it again. After shutting it off, I just thought back to what the ending was, and realized how unfulfilling and inconclusive it was. Forget all the stuff I said before, because I retract it all. My new rating (1/10)

Gran Torino (2008)

2009-01-25T09:30:00.006-05:00

I am not a racist. I believe that every race has their benefits and shortcomings, including my own. But who among us can say we haven't laughed at some racial humor in our lives? I like to think that it's healthy to poke fun at everybody once in a while, just as long as it is in good fun and not meant to be offensive. Comedians everywhere do impersonations of different races that we are not ashamed to laugh at. Racism in movies and television can be somewhat different depending on how it is used. American History X was a fantastic film that focused on how racism can destroy lives, and it was absolutely nothing to laugh about. However, racism in a movie like Borat is meant to inspire laughter and not to be taken seriously in any sense of the word (although I guess you could say Borat was more anti-Semitic than racist. Same point though). But with all the professional comics out their, who would have thought that the best racial and insult comedian to ever live was Clint Eastwood?

The content of Gran Torino is in no way a comedy. It is the story of bitter Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), who after losing his wife now lives alone with his dog Daisy. Walt spends his time fixing things around the house, drinking beer, and caring for his beloved 1972 Gran Torino. At the wishes of his late wife, local priest Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) checks up on him every now and then, but Walt, who has trouble connecting with own children, wants nothing to do with him. But if you asked Walt what annoyed him the most about his life, it would be his neighbors. We've all had neighbors we didn't care for. Maybe they didn't clean up after their dog in front of your house. Maybe they borrowed your lawn shears and never returned them. Walt's reason? They are Asian. An entire neighborhood of Hmong people surround Walt, and he is not happy about it. When his next door neighbor's teenage son Tao (Bee Vang) tries to steal his Gran Torino as a sort of gang initiation, the family forces their son to work for Walt as penance. As Walt gets to know Tao and his family, his old ideals begin to fade, and he even takes Tao under his wing, teaching him life lessons and protecting him from the gang that is after him. Gran Torino is a film that defines character growth and is richly entertaining, albeit not always for the right reasons.

The single driving force behind Gran Torino is its director and star Clint Eastwood. Without his presence, this film would have suffered vastly. Although Eastwood's age prevents him from bringing physical charisma to the screen, his verbal deliverance of insults and lessons make his performance unique and interesting. The septuagenarian actor claims Gran Torino will be his final film in front of the camera so he can stay behind the camera, and I feel this performance is one Eastwood can go out on happily. Whether he wanted to or not, he brought forth a deadpan comedy that would make Vince Vaughn proud. A single scene where he would walk through the house of a Hmong family and throw around racial slurs as though nobody was there provided for more laughs than all of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer's movies put together. (Although it can't be hard to top two laughs). Eastwood's performance was thoroughly entertaining, but because it was for the wrong reason, I can't really say it was great. When Eastwood wasn't rolling me in the aisles, he spent his time growling at people and just looking genuinely angry at everything. Even when his character shows kindness he still ends up looking like he wants to hurt me. The accomplishment in Eastwood's performance lies solely in how he convincingly made his character turn from a miserable grouch to a kind-hearted hero. He also taught me about four new insults I plan on dispensing to my friends.

Without the professionalism of Eastwood, Gran Torino falls short on every mark. The entire Hmong supporting cast was comprised of rookie actors who have never been in a movie before, with the exception of Doua Moua, who played the gang leader. Perhaps by surrounding himself with the talentless hoi polloi, Eastwood thought his guttural mumblings would make him seem like the mumblings of a Best Actor candidate. Nice try, Mr. Eastwood. Gran Torino also becomes unsure of itself as it plays on. At first you feel the movie will primarily be about Walt protecting Tao from the gang, while at the same time learning the lesson of tolerance. But the film ends up abandoning the gang aspect and just focuses on Walt and Tao's relationship for most of the movie. Then at the end, the gang, after lying dormant for about 45 minutes, re-enters and steals the ending of the movie. I acknowledge that this could be argued as making the movie "dynamic", but I choose to think it makes writer Nick Schenk indecisive. However, Schenk's screenplay is not at all bad. There were several scenes that were written very well and kept the movie entertaining. Specifically, keep an eye out for the scene when Walt teaches Tao to interact "like a man" with his barber Martin (John Carroll Lynch).

Gran Torino is a tolerable 116 minutes that is mostly held up by star Eastwood. I have to reiterate that although I am recommending this movie, it is not because it was the deep, searing drama it looks like. I actually suggest cutting off the final 20 minutes and changing the title to Clint Eastwood Insults People. If they did that, they could've won the Golden Globe for Best Picture Comedy or Musical. Actually, if they made it a musical, this could go down in history as the greatest movie ever made. But it isn't. The only dramatic aspect where Gran Torino succeeds is in spectacular character development. Everything else is overshadowed by comedy. My rating (7/10), for all the wrong reasons.

NOTE: I'm aware of the fact that this movie is not really a comedy. I just found the content of this movie to be extremely comical when it was supposed to be very serious. That was my point. So if you noticed that I tagged it as a comedy, please don't think I'm an idiot.

The Wrestler (2008)

2009-01-24T08:25:00.006-05:00

I stopped watching wrestling when I was about 12 years old. My excuse was that I had grown out of believing that what I was watching was real and not completely staged. Watching grown men in their underpants pulling punches at each other didn't provide me with any entertainment anymore. Until recently I didn't understand how physically grueling it is for wrestlers, and how much of an emotional impact it can have on their lives. I never took the time to think of what their lives would be like in 2o years, when they are forced to give up the spandex and take normal jobs. The Wrestler is an answer to that very question. Mickey Rourke plays Randy "The Ram" Robinson, who in his hay day was one of the greatest wrestlers of a generation. But 20 years later, Randy finds himself living in a trailer park alone and working at a convenience store part time. Still, he wrestles as much as he can despite his increased age. But after a particularly bloody battle, Randy suffers a heart attack, leaving him incapable of handling any more matches. Having to give up the one thing in life that he loves, and also loves him back, Randy falls into a depression. He looks to his only friend, a stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), for some guidance. But he knows, the only way he could ever be happy is if he can continue wrestling. The Wrestler is a deep and emotional accomplishment that several times brought tears to my eyes.

If you are a fan of the WWE and want to see this film because you expect a documentary on wrestling, you should go ahead and check yourself at the door. Much like the fighting took a back seat to anarchy in Fight Club, wrestling is a distant second to the true core of this film: a man searching for someone to want him. I could think of no actor better suited to this role than the unconventional Mickey Rourke. Early in Rourke's acting career, he did manage to garner attention from critics for his roles in The Pope of Greenwich Village and Barfly. But Rourke was a volatile man and was said to be out of control on set. He was also probably very confused because in his career he has turned down lead roles in Pulp Fiction, The Silence of the Lambs, Rain Man, and The Untouchables. In 1991, Rourke left acting to pursue a career in professional boxing. Over a four year span Rourke was never defeated and had only one draw. Upon his retirement in 1995, Rourke never really made big impact in his transition back to acting. But now in 2008 his luck seems to have finally arrived, and he gives the performance of his career in The Wrestler. Nicolas Cage was originally cast to play Randy, and thinking about that makes me laugh. Cage is a cool guy, but he would have destroyed this movie. Rourke was able to bring so much heart to this role, possibly because him and Randy are practically the same person. But Rourke proves he is no wash up, as he made my eyes well with tears numerous times. One particular scene I should highlight is when Randy reunites with his estranged daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood). Randy pours his heart out to his daughter, and the result is a powerful scene that would make a rock's heart skip a beat. Rourke won a Golden Globe for his performance and has now been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. I would not be surprised if he won.

One of the many things that makes The Wrestler work is the stellar direction of Darren Aronofsky. There are so many scenes that I can remember that really struck me beautifully. My favorite was one continuous shot that followed Randy from his bosses office to the meat cutting station in the back of the convenience store where he works. As he walked, the camera slightly bounced up and down as if their was just a man with a handicam following him. During this long walk, a crowd is heard cheering, perhaps waiting for the arrival of Randy. He finally gets to the doorway of the station and stops, and the cheers grow louder. But as he steps through into the room, the crowd noise disappears, and he proceeds to perform his menial job. This exemplifies how overtaken Randy's life has become by his wrestling. The stark contrast between walking through a crowd of people who are screaming your name and then putting on latex gloves and a hairnet really drives the idea of the movie home.

The people in Randy's life, or the lackthereof, provide an extra dose of sentimentality without becoming too maudlin. In keeping with the theme of being washed up, Marisa Tomei plays a stripper passed her prime that doesn't get much business outside of Randy. I find this to be the only unbelievable part of the movie, because even though Tomei is 44, she is not even close to being passed her prime. She proves it in every single scene she is in. But Tomei is so much more than just the nude sidekick in this film. As Randy's only companion, she brings the only sympathy for him to the movie and does a great job doing so. Recently she grabbed an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her role, an honor which I'm not so sure was deserved. She gave a great performance, but I didn't see anything award worthy from her. However, I do credit her character with creating some of the most memorable moments in the film. It is her idea that Randy try and contact his daughter Stephanie after his heart attack. In taking her advice, some truly fantastic scenes followed. One scene involves Cassidy helping Randy buy Stephanie a gift at a vintage clothing store. It is here that Randy first interacts with Cassidy outside of the strip club and the two get to know each other as people rather than her being a stripper and him being a customer. Evan Rachel Wood gives a strong turn as Stephanie, who was abandoned by her father and is now aggrevated with his return to her life. Wood is at her finest when she is telling off her dead beat father for the last time, and sends a pang of heartache to the viewer. Her attitude only makes you feel worse for poor Randy, who is genuinely trying to reform.

I didn't know what to expect from The Wrestler. My friend who is a big Mickey Rourke fan built the movie up so high when he told me about it that I was afraid it wouldn't be as effective when i finally watched it. Luckily it was, and I am so grateful I gave it a chance. Whether you are a fan of wrestling or not, it does not matter. The journey you go on to follow this man through his many trials will break your heart and make you appreciate all the things you have in life. My rating (9/10)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

2008-11-15T09:35:00.005-05:00

Quantum - (n) a particular amount (adj) sudden and significant

Solace - (n) alleviation or comfort

Quantum of Solace - (?) Absolutely meaningless. Not explained through any medium, specifically the 2008 film Quantum of Solace.

Bond is back and he's...not as good as he should have been in yet another 007 film. Quantum of Solace marks the 22nd official James Bond film of the EON Productions franchise, the 25th James Bond film of all time, and only the 2nd James Bond movie I've ever seen. Although Ian Fleming's character is not my cup of tea, I do know what to expect from the man. As I sat down to watch Quantum of Solace I nestled myself into my chair and waited to be astounded by the gadgets and fancy cars that make Bond so recognizable. What I received was a poorly filmed, sloppily scripted, decently acted hodge-podge that did not capture the spirit of a James Bond film at all. Being only somewhat entertained by 2006's hugely successful Casino Royale, I was surprised to find that I actually prefer that film over this one. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, with only a 20 minute gap between the films. The plot to this film is nearly incomprehensible. I actually had to check the internet for a plot synopsis when I got home to make sure I wouldn't make a mistake in my review. According to Wikipedia, the film follows James Bond (Daniel Craig) as he tries to prevent a group called the "Quantum" from executing a coup d'etat in the country of Brazil. His main focus is on Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), an "environmentalist" who seems to be spearheading the whole operation. Helping Bond in his fight is Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a woman whose family was killed by the very man attempting to take power in Brazil. At the same time, Bond is also seeking revenge for the death of the only woman he ever loved, Vesper Lynd. (This plot synopsis took me a week and a half to write, mainly because I had a lot of trouble putting it into words that were understandable. It's not my best work, but it'll do.)

There are not many good things to say about Quantum of Solace. Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade all returned as writers for this film, but failed to live up to the precedent set by their previous work on Casino Royale. They created a lackadaisical script that doesn't explain itself very well, and was far too reliant on the first film. It is understandable that a sequel will use the original film as a jumping off point, but you would need to watch Casino Royale immediately before watching this film to get anything! If you've never seen the first film and you plan on watching Quantum, good luck. These writers also abandoned the use of plot development for this film, turning it into an hour and 45 minute marathon of explosions. One of the few things I enjoyed about Casino Royale was that it followed a well thought out script and centered on characters that you learned a lot about. Quantum of Solace gives no backstory to many of the characters, leaving you in the dark when it comes to actually caring about what happens. The shift in director could also be to blame for the mediocre downslope the franchise took in just 2 movies. Marc Foster took the reigns from Martin Campbell, and I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to give them back. Quantum of Solace is the first action film to hit Foster's resume which is comprised of serious pictures such as The Kite Runner and Monster's Ball. From this, it is no wonder Foster seemed out of his element helming a James Bond film. His camera work was utterly dreadful in even the simplest shot. Every action sequence looked as though the man holding the camera was having a seizure. Foster also manages to take all of the intensity and anticipation out of a long awaited film that should have kept the audiences heart's racing. Quantum offers no build up to a final resolution, and the showdown between Bond and Greene was so lackluster that I didn't even realize it was the final showdown until the movie ended five minutes later.

If there is a positive thing to say about Quantum of Solace, it is that Daniel Craig is just as dynamic as he was in Casino Royale as the suave super agent James Bond. His performance alone keeps this film out of the dollar movie bin at Stop & Shop. His dedication to the role actually had me believing it is that easy to be entangled in a series of ropes yet still have the ability to accurately shoot a gun. Sadly, not many of the people around Craig were very convincing. Olga Kurylenko, whose most recent films include Max Payne and Hitman, pretty much lives up to her resume in her role as Bond girl Camille. A flat performance topped off by an inability to understand a word she says really doesn't do much to make the film respectable. In some scenes, Kurylenko's character discusses some grim memories of her family being killed. An actress of higher caliber would have been able to make this monologue memorable, but instead I was left straining my ears, struggling to comprehend the words that were heavily coated in a thick accent. Mathieu Amalric is not bad playing the villain Dominic Greene and is sometimes very engaging. But a one dimensional character makes his villain a forgettable and fruitless minor inconvenience.

Quantum of Solace is (mercifully) the shortest Bond film in the franchise, and I believe that may have been a disadvantage to the film. Perhaps the writers were afraid they would lose the audiences attention if they made the film too long. Whatever the reason, added length could have given Quantum of Solace the honor of being told properly with much more development. But it is futile to sit here pondering "what if's" and I must talk about the film for what it was. With only one and a half good performances, Quantum of Solace is nothing more than a a brief itch that once scratched is gone from your mind for the rest of your life. My rating (3/10)

Burn After Reading (2008)

2008-11-10T11:48:00.007-05:00

In 1998, Joel and Ethan Coen introduced us to a man in a used up brown robe that liked to be called "The Dude" (or El Duderino, if you please). A simple man who wanted nothing more than to go bowling and drink white Russians. But instead this poor man was thrust into a world of nihilism, kidnapping, and ferrets just so he can receive some compensation for his defiled rug. After all, that rug really tied the room together. This, of course, is The Big Lebowski, the film that incorporated the Coen Brothers into mainstream America for the first time. Anybody who has seen it cannot go to a bowling alley without laughing at least a little bit. Ten years later, the Coen Brothers are returning to the world of comedy-crime-capers with the star studded Burn After Reading. Looking at the billing alone, one knows what they should expect from this film. Main actors John Malkovich, George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Brad Pitt have all either won or been nominated for an Academy Award. Cap it off with the reliable Joel and Ethan Coen, and you have a Best Picture award waiting to happen. Sadly, Burn After Reading does not warrant this praise, nor is it anywhere near as good as the iconic Big Lebowski. But like I said, if you put enough delicious ingredients into a single bowl, you are bound to find something to like. Burn After Reading is a terrific ensemble piece that takes effort from everyone involved to create something wonderful.

The story of Burn After Reading is very difficult to explain given the numerous characters and their respective plot lines. If it gets to be confusing... try reading it again. Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) is a physical trainer at Hardbodies Gym. She is a very unhappy woman who surfs internet dating sites for Mr. Right. She is also intent on undergoing numerous reconstructive surgeries to help boost her self esteem. However, her dreams are dashed when she finds she does not have the money to pay for all these procedures. Her luck seemed ready to change when her co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) discovered a disc in the women's locker room which held secret CIA information. Linda convinces Chad to help her find where the disc came from so they could blackmail the person, which could help her pay for her surgeries. They find that the information came from Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), a CIA analyst who recently quit his job after they tried demoting him for his drinking problem. Unhappy with her husbands decision, Osborne's wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) files for divorce, kicking him out of the house so she can be with her man on the side Harry Pfaffer (George Clooney). Katie knows that Pfarrer is cheating on his wife with her, but little does she know he is also cheating on her with anybody he can find. After a chance meeting on the internet, Pfarrer ends up hooking up with Linda, who is still in the process of trying to blackmail Osborne. As every one's lives begin folding over into the others, the result is a very funny (and confusing) film.

To the Coen Brothers, it is not simple enough to just make a comedy. They cannot just write a film that is riotously funny, because it seems to be somewhat beneath them. Much like The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading is not a one dimensional story that relies deeply on hilarity. The humor in Burn After Reading is found more in subtle plot elements and the traits of the characters than in actual jokes. It is the clever writing and perfect execution by the actors that makes the movie funny. There are few directors that could use this technique effectively, and the Coen's fall into that category. Joel and Ethan are unstoppable forces in the world of film making, able to mold a film exactly to their liking, whether it be a taught thriller or a goofball comedy. This is proved by the 1-2 punch they executed with No Country For Old Men and Burn After Reading. The brothers make sure they are involved in every element of the film making process. Acting as writers, directors, and producers of every single one of their films ensures that no outside force affects their work. Unswayed by the uneducated criticism that "the Coen's make boring movies", they repeatedly come out and deliver exactly what they want to, and the result is usually terrific. Burn After Reading is not their best effort, but in the hands of any other directors, it would have failed miserably.

But I'm sure if you were to ask the Coen Brothers, they would tell you that their success rests heavily on the shoulders of the actors. In Burn After Reading, spot on performances by every single actor involved helps keep the movie afloat. Given the confusing plot, it was imperative that the performers delivered exceptionally well to keep the audience interested. With not a single wet match in the pack, the movie exceeded typical standards that are expected even of a Coen Brothers film. Frances McDormand, whose character Linda can be considered the main protagonist, is often hilarious as she becomes wrapped up in the world of blackmail. Her real moments of recognition came as she interacted with Pitt and Clooney. Pitt acted as the real comic relief in Burn After Reading, due to his character's dimwitted nature and humorous dancing while listening to his iPod. He also served as a significant character foil in the film, especially when sharing screen time with Malkovich's smart Osborne Cox. George Clooney delivers the most engaging performance in the film as the womanizing hobbyist Harry Pfarrer. He brought a real sense of charisma to the screen and proved to be very enjoyable. But the two actors who deserve outstanding praise are John Malkovich and Tilda Swinton. Both are absolutely unforgettable in their roles. Malkovich's scathing and deeply irritated portrayal of the jaded Osborne Cox was not only intensely dramatic and entertaining, but also served as the jumping off point for some jokes. That is the textbook definition of getting the best of both worlds. Swinton too deals out a performance worthy of the Oscar winning actress. Balancing a divorce and an affair, her character was devoid of comedy but still managed to be fascinating.

Although Burn After Reading was blessed with brilliant writing, directing, and acting, it still manages to fall short of what you would hope it to be. The main reason for this is the constantly developing story that takes quite some time to fully reveal itself. Pacing usually is not a problem for the masterful Coen's, who can make a lengthy sequence of desert shots with no dialogue interesting like in No Country, but they seemed a tiny bit off their game here. In this one single aspect they suffered, and it managed to bring the film down a noticeable amount. Their script was full of cunning wit and clever components, but it was still confusing as hell. Even George Clooney in an interview stated he had no idea what the movie was about because it was so damn puzzling. I'm sure he was exaggerating a little, but it gives you an idea of what we are dealing with here.

Burn After Reading is a pleasant 96 minutes long, which is something I thank the Coen's for. Even The Big Lebowski, as terrific as it was, was verging on obscenity with it's length. Even if you are not a fan of the Coen's, Burn After Reading is a different movie for them, and I think they will be able to make a fan out of you. My rating (8/10)

Saw V (2008) -- Not an Official Review

2008-10-24T17:45:00.003-04:00

If you have read any of my previous reviews, you probably know I can't stand modern horror films. However, my one guilty pleasure when it comes to modern horror is the Saw franchise. I acknowledge the fact that Saws 2-5 are just blood filled nonsense...but I can't get enough of it. Because of this bias, I cannot give Saw V an official review or even a number rating. I just want to say that Saw V is much better than any of the others sequels in the franchise, and David Hackl did a very good job directing. The movie focused more on the killer's point of view and wasn't really shrouded in mystery. The previous sequels were all deep mysteries and ultimately the endings were unsatisfying. Saw V was somewhat different, and I found it to be thoroughly enjoyable.

Quarantine (2008)

2008-10-20T12:06:00.010-04:00

Being locked in an apartment building is nothing to get shaken up about. Fill that building with virus infected tenants that want to bite your face off, then you've got a problem. Just ask Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter), a news reporter who is simply trying to find a good story with the Los Angeles fire department. Angela gets her wish when an emergency is called in, forcing every firefighter in the precinct to spring into action. With her cameraman Scott (Steve Harris), Angela joins firefighter Jake (Jay Hernandez) as he sweeps through the building searching for the problem. But when one of their men is fatally bitten by one of the tenants, the group find themselves in a situation that won't play out in their favor. When they try to escape the building, they find the government has sealed them in, trapping them with whatever is causing the strange behavior in the tenants. I watched Quarantine following a strong recommendation from a friend. I now know I should never do that again. Quarantine is as unoriginal, cliche, predictable, and cheap as any other horror movie destroying a cinema near you.

Director John Erick Dowdle is the man to blame for Quarantine. Acting as writer and director, all of the atrocities and incongruities in the film are strictly on his shoulders. In my writing I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but for Quarantine, I don't care. What tried to be an innovative horror film was actually a sub par copy of every horror movie you have ever seen. First, the camera. The use of a handicam to shoot a movie has become increasingly popular after its success in Cloverfield. The problem with gimmicks like that though is they wear out their welcome extremely quickly. The camera in Cloverfield was shaky but even at its worst you can still have a general idea of what was happening. However, Quarantine thought it would be a good idea to have the cameraman never stop shaking the camera, perhaps to make it more "realistic". But with realism like that, faces and figures ended up blurring together to create nothing more than masses of differing colors. Second, the creatures. With the splendor of zombie films that are released year after year, it is easy to become exhausted by the genre. Some films recreate these villains, like 28 Days Later. But one thing that all these films hold in common, with the exception of 28 Days Later, is they never reveal why the events you are watching are happening. Usually if a film tries to give an explanation as to why people are suddenly hungry for flesh, they have to try really hard to make it convincing. Quarantine is an example of a film that tried to explain, but didn't do a good enough job. The genius explanation thought up by Dowdle was that a young girl's dog contracted some form of Super Rabies that got out to the rest of the building. Super Rabies. No explanation as to how it became Super. It just is. This leads into the third error of the film: continuity. The reason this Super Rabies is so devastating is because it is exactly like rabies, only people begin to feel the symptoms in a matter of minutes. Yet the little girl who owned the dog, who was shown as sick at the beginning of the film, took over 60 minutes to turn. Not only that, she happened to turn at the exact moment people started thinking, "Maybe the little girl is infected too". So to sound it off, we have bad camera work, bad script writing, and lack of continuity. Sounds like every zombie ever made.

I would love nothing more than to critique the acting in Quarantine. However I feel this may be a futile attempt, because most of the time I couldn't even tell which character was talking due to the awful camera work. All I can say is that the captives were good at screaming and the zombies were good at growling.

When marketing a film, you should do your best to give away as much of the plot as possible to intrigue people, but not give enough away to ruin the entire movie. When it comes to Quarantine, there isn't much of a plot to talk about. It is essentially just people locked in a house with flesh eating monsters. So the only thing this movie could possibly have going for it is hope. You should want people to hope these main characters get out alive (or die, depending on what kind of a person you are). An audience should be stuck to the screen waiting for the characters next move which could at any moment, be their last. Putting aside the fact that I felt no attachment to the characters because I was so put off by the terrible directing and writing, I still didn't feel that hope, because I already knew the ending of the film. No I did not research the ending or ask my friend how it concluded; it was the marketers fault. The fate of the main character is given away in every trailer, commercial, and even the poster. That scene of the woman being dragged away through a night vision lens is literally the last occurrence in the film before the credits roll. The filmmakers and marketing team completely took away the mystery because you knew ahead of time that rooting for them to live was pointless. I sat for 90 minutes watching a bad movie just so I can see what has already been shown in every commercial.

I'm sure many of you are saying "Well Nicholas, it is after all just a horror film. Just let us know whether it was scary or not, because all of these notes on the filmmaking are unnecessary". You are right, perhaps I am being a little harsh and judgemental. I should just worry about whether it was scary or not. Well you know what? It wasn't. Quarantine is nothing more than a pop up and scare you horror film. You could swap this film with any other of the same genre and not be able to tell the difference. If you enjoy cheap scares and terrible movies, I recommend Quarantine. If you want to watch a horror movie that is actually good, steer clear. My rating (2/10)

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)

2008-10-11T20:49:00.011-04:00

Once in a full moon, a movie comes around that leaves you scratching your head in utter and absolute confusion. Some of these films are deep and riddled with hidden meanings and subliminal messaging (2001: A Space Odyssey). The rest of those films are simply incomprehensible due to the over-active imagination of everybody involved. Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium is the latter. A film so whacked out and terrifyingly zany, Wonder Emporium left me deeply disturbed...and mildly entertained. 7 time Oscar nominee and 2 time winner Dustin Hoffman sports a painfully cutesy lisp as the magical Mr. Magorium, a 243 year old toy inventor. For as long as he has been alive, Magorium has brought joy to countless children through his mystical Wonder Emporium. There, kids enjoy toys that defy gravity, rooms with computer generated bouncy balls, and Kermit the Frog. Molly Mahoney (Natalie Portman) is a worker at the emporium and shares the same goofy and lighthearted attitude as the store's proprietor. For everyone in the neighborhood, especially one young boy named Eric (Zach Mills), Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium is the happiest place on earth. But things start to go sour at the emporium when Magorium announces he will be leaving this world...because he has run out of shoes. (Seriously). With Molly in charge, the store begins to become very angry and starts losing its magic. Now Molly has to use the help of Eric and new hum-drum employee Henry (Jason Bateman) to restore the mystical place to its former self. With over 100 moments that made me say "What the crap?", Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium is a ridiculous attempt at over the top film-making...and it amused me.

With a plot like Swiss cheese, Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium left me dumbfounded time and again with it's ambiguity. First of all, if I were a parent, I'm not so sure I'd let my children spend their entire day at a toy store run by a creepy man with a lisp who claims to be over 240 years old. I feel like that should be a warning sign for parents. It is also all the more bewildering at how everybody in the neighborhood seems to accept the fact that this store is completely out of lines with reality. I'd be terrified if an octopus jumped out of a book and landed on my head! It is also never explained how Magorium gained his magic originally and then how he gave it to Molly. Was he an alien? Was he a wizard? Was he pumping noxious gas through the store to make people hallucinate causing them to believe what they were seeing was true? We don't know. I'm 95% sure if you were to ask writer and director Zach Helm that question, he wouldn't even know. But I think I might be giving Wonder Emporium too much credit by asking these analytical questions. It is after all just a children's movie. It is sort of like asking the writers of Spongebob Squarepants why Spongebob often takes baths, even though he's underwater. Or why when he speaks, bubbles don't come out of his mouth. You are just supposed to look at it at face value and be entertained by it. Regardless of how many times I was left stupefied by Wonder Emporium, I was slightly and surprisingly entertained.

The man behind Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium is Zach Helm, who previously penned the acclaimed Stranger Than Fiction. Helm is obviously a man with a vivid imagination, but somebody might want to check his drink for traces of alcohol, because what he created here was a demented work of delirium. He did everything in his power to make this film as wacky and zany as possible. Those really are the only words to describe it. Even the characters in the film use adjectives that are synonyms of wacky and zany. The final credits read all of the characters names as something silly like "Mr. Edward Magorium - Avid Shoe Wearer" and "Eric Applebaum - The Hat Collector". It are the little aspects like this that made Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium almost unbearable for me. Almost.

The performances in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium weren't making matters an easier to take. Dustin Hoffman's campy, kooky, wacky, and nutty Mr. Magorium was enough to make me suspicious that somebody dropped a hit of acid in my soda. Complete with mad scientist hair and the aforementioned dreadful lisp, Magorium seemed like a character that should be in an early Saturday morning cartoon. Instead of being lovable and amicable, he flustered and perturbed me. His ceaseless corny jokes became tiresome and sometimes moronic. He seemed to have a strange obsession of trying to figure out why their are always more hot dogs than hot dog buns. It was amusing once, but when he brought it up again it was just unnecessary. Natalie Portman had to do her best to seem as childish and immature as possible in order to fit the bill in this movie. Perhaps that is why she was sporting the 12 year old boy haircut. Realistically speaking though, Portman is a good actress but she does not have the sparkle that is needed to be entertaining in a children's film. You could see in her face that she was hoping for the chance to do some real acting, but this movie was about fun, so she just held it inside and sleepwalked her way through it. Jason Bateman, who apparently felt this movie was more important than working on something better, say, a movie based on his hilarious hit TV series Arrested Development, shows up in this film to provide pretty much nothing. Maybe the only somewhat genuine performance in this schlock-o-rama was that of 12 year old Zach Mills, who played the outcast little boy that finds refuge inside the walls of the Emporium. He showed a real attachment to all the characters and was really the only sympathetic one of the bunch. It wasn't great, but it was very impressive.

What shocked me most about Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium was not it's wacky characters or outlandish plot, but the idea that I was somewhat entertained by it. After all the negatives I have thrown around about this film, I can't help but feel like I enjoyed it. It reintroduced me to the idea of magic and wonder that I had when I was a child. It took me away from dealing with horrible things such as applying to college, and brought me to a place that was nothing more than a place to have fun. For 93 minutes, I was in a place that I could enjoy, that I didn't have to worry about. Their was barely any viable conflict in the film because I knew how it would end, so I couldn't even be weighed down by that. Although still extremely flawed and altogether nonsensical, Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium creates a wholesome environment that your children will definetly enjoy...and you might even enjoy it too. This movie goes in my list of films that is so bad, it is good. My rating ( a very watchable 5/10)

David Blaine: Dive of Disappointment

2008-09-25T11:59:00.011-04:00

This blog is primarily used for movie reviews, but after being duped by Mr. David Blaine, I feel I must share my anger.

It has been talked about all week. Magician and stunt expert David Blaine was going to hang upside down for 60 straight hours and then make a "dive of death" over 40 feet to the ground. Memories of past stunts come rushing back to me. I still remember over 8 years ago, when I was still in 4th grade, watching "that crazy guy in a block of ice". Over the course of the years he has done a number of ridiculous stunts, including standing on a 90 foot tall 22 inch wide pole for 35 hours, and escaping from a gyroscope after 2 days of spinning. But his most recent stunt was supposedly meant to be the most controversial of all. Doctors were concerned that hanging upside down for so long could blind Blaine, along with swelling and cramping his internal organs. His heart would be doing too much work to send his blood up into his legs regularly. Even his short breaks every few hours, where he was allowed to stand upright on a crane, would not help. Watching on ABC, there was an interview with a physician that stated it could take 12-24 hours for Blaine to recover fully, even with those breaks. For anybody who thinks Blaine was cheating by doing this, may I suggest hanging upside down for 10 minutes, getting down for 2 minutes, and then going up again for another 10? Let's see if you feel your normal self after a small break.

But it is not with this that I feel tricked by Mr. Blaine. I hold a significant amount of respect for the man who was able to last 60 hours upside down. But that was meant only to be part one of this "miraculous" stunt. David Blaine was supposed to stand 4 and a half stories above the earth, and dive to an unknown fate. Blaine himself stated he had never practiced this dive before so he had no idea what was going to happen. I thought, "I am either going to be blown away by what he will do, or I will see a man fall 44 feet to his death on live television. Awesome." This was well on its way to being one of the coolest things I had ever seen done. Press coverage only made it even more unbearable to have to wait to see what Blaine would do to blow us all away. Watching the clock in the lower left hand corner of the screen, titled "Dive of Death", slowly tick off more and more time made the suspense practically insufferable. In the meantime we were entertained with clips of street magic performed by the magician. We even got to see him catch a bullet with a small steel cup, which he was holding in his mouth. I was hoping these mind bending illusions were only foreshadowing the impending insanity. Unfortunately, these proved to be the best part of the program.

The time finally came. David Blaine was standing right side up on top of a beam 4 and a half stories in the air. He looks down at the crowd, luring us in, riveting our eyes to him so we don't miss a single move he makes. He stands for a minute longer, milking the anticipation as much as humanly possible. Then, an air of excitement as we see him lift his leg! He is about to jump and after hours of waiting we will finally bear witness to the single most daring stunt Blaine has ever done! But wait a minute...what is that? Is that a harness? As Blaine descends to the ground, an extremely visible rope is attached to him, which allows him to gently touch his feet to the ground. I sit, mouth agape, astounded that I stayed awake to see this. Then they begin to lift him and I wonder, "Was that a joke? Are they going to lift him back onto the beam and disconnect him so he can do the real jump? Was that just to keep the suspense going even further?!" Nope. Blaine is pulled even higher into the air, where he is then pulled away, "disappearing" into the night sky. Mr. Blaine, you are a jerk.

How could he do that? It was planted in all of our minds that he would be taking a freefall to the ground, and he would in some way survive. We were all excited to see the "dive of death", but what we got was the "slow, safe descension to the ground before he is obviously carried away by some form of floating device that would have been easily disguised because it was so late at night". When it was all over I thought that maybe something had gone wrong. Perhaps he was planning on doing something, but there was a problem so they just want to the extremely disappointing plan B. I watched the news and listened to the radio the following morning to see if my theory was correct. It was not. Knowing that, I didn't feel as bad that I changed the channel after David Blaine immediately to Criss Angel. My rating of David Blaine's Dive of Death: (1/10)

(UPDATE: There is actually a video on youtube that allows you to see very clearly that he is being carried away by big black balloons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRi4QAcJWI&feature=related )

Dead Silence (2007)

2008-09-17T16:24:00.009-04:00

If there is one thing in the world that scares the bejeezus out of me it is dolls. Specifically dolls that talk and blink and all that stuff. To me that is one of the most frightening things imaginable. So when I heard that the creators of Saw were making a film about a homicidal ventriloquist puppet, naturally I had to see it. The result was Dead Silence, a movie low on good acting but high on good old fashioned scares. Dead Silence is essentially a ghost story revolving around newlywed Jamie Ashen (Ryan Kwanten). Jamie is still settling in to his home with his new wife Lisa (Laura Regan) when a mysterious unmarked package is delivered to their home. Like any smart couple, the two open it without question. Inside is a ventriloquist dummy, which for some reason does not freak out either of them. That tune soon changes when Jamie discovers his wife's dead body posed on their bed, with her tongue ripped out. Detective Jim Lipton (Donnie Walhberg) is assigned to the murder to gather evidence against Jamie, who is the prime suspect. But Jamie knows that there is something strange going on, so he sets off to his home town of Raven's Fair, a dreary and dingy looking town plagued by pale backgrounds and eerie wind noises. With the help of funeral home owner Henry Walker (Michael Fairman), Jamie begins to unravel the mystery behind Mary Shaw, a ventriloquist that was murdered because she was suspected of kidnapping a boy. Ever since then, Raven's Fair has been cursed with death, people being found without their tongues. With nothing more than a hunch, Jamie must find a way to make the screaming stop, once and for all. Dead Silence is a B-grade ball of cheese that happens to go great with a box of popcorn and a Big Gulp.

I frequently complain that modern horror films have forgotten what real scares are supposed to be about. (See my Halloween review). I am a big fan of being genuinely frightened or at least surprised by a horror film, rather than just grossed out. Whether people like to admit it or not, the first Saw film was not an all-out torture porn. It was primarily a mystery with an original plot and an amazing twist ending. Dead Silence is by no means original nor is the ending as good as Saw's, but it's mystery was good enough to keep me on the edge of my seat. It was also able to take old cliches such as billowing curtains and "the town where businesses are all closed and the people are all pale and hide in the their homes" and make them poignant again. Its special effects were second rate, keeping the film feeling like a small budget horror flick. It never became too extravagant and never did it glorify blood and gore. With a decently small body count, blood and gore take a back seat to suspense and mystery in Dead Silence. Not to give the film too much credit, Dead Silence is after all a mediocre attempt at terrifying film making. The whole idea that right before a victim is claimed, the surrounding noise ceases is a little ridiculous, considering in the film the only thing that would happen was you would hear the background music stop. But the characters in the movie wouldn't hear that, so the title of the movie wouldn't make sense to them. The only thing that makes this film better than a Hostel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the recent ones), or The Hills Have Eyes is the idea that it doesn't splatter blood on the camera at every turn. Unlike the makers of those films, James Wan actually tried to make Dead Silence a suspenseful film rather than a bloodbath. For that, I give him credit.

The idea for Dead Silence came from the minds of James Wan and Leigh Whannel who, like I've mentioned, brought us Saw. You can see in the writing of this duo that they really know how to scare people. They bring their own individuality to what they write, trying to outdo themselves with every page. They will not bring about an award nominations with their stories, but in a world of awful horror films the fact that they provide a slight sense of originality makes them elite. Wan's directorial style is also a plus in all of his films. Much like his past work, Wan delivers a genuine nail biter of a film because of his wonderful ability to pace. He doesn't allow films to go limp for very long, a characteristic I wish every filmmaker had. Dead Silence is not his best work, but is an above average film.

One thing that I wish could have been better in Dead Silence was its cast. Australian actor Ryan Kwanten, who can now be seen sporting a terrible southern accent in HBO's god awful series True Blood, plays the haunted lead character Jamie Ashen. In one's quest for truth in the mystery that surrounds their wife's murder, one would probably convey a plethora of emotions. But not Kwanten. He feels that in this situation, the most reasonable response is to look as calm and unenthused as possible. In a B-grade horror film you don't expect a terrific lead performance, but you at least hope for something. At times Kwanten does a decent job of capturing the moment, but more often than not he is a dud as the lead actor. The rest of the film is also littered with melodramatic performances from the supporting cast. Michael Fairman as the funeral home owner was a total bust. His "scared" face was just hilarious, and I basically laughed at everything he said. The one bright spot in the cast was new kid on the block Donnie Walhberg. As the skeptical Detective Lipton, Walhberg provided necessary comic relief to Dead Silence. He is not their for big laughs, but his cynical disposition makes the air lighter in the film, allowing the viewer to have a good time watching it.

The golden age of horror has been passed for a long time and I have learned to accept this. Never again will there be films like The Shining, Psycho, or the original Halloween. I must admit that it is not the absolute fault of filmmakers, because when you think about it, what hasn't been done yet? Then I also think that it is their job to think of new ideas, and I stop feeling sorry for them. The reason I am a fan of James Wan and Leigh Whannel is because they are innovators in their field. Although I am not particularly happy about this, they did pave the way for a lot of modern horror films with the success of their Saw franchise. They showed it was possible to make good and original horror films that were a hit at the box office. Granted, spawning 4 sequels isn't original, but if it hadn't been for those sequels, Saw could've been considered an innovative film. It is also a problem that although they showed you can still make good and original horror films, nobody else has been able to replicate that idea. So whether you love or hate the Saw franchise, you must give credit where credit is due. With the creation of Dead Silence, Wan and Whannel once again prove they are a horror duo for the ages. My Rating (6.5/10)

Definitely, Maybe (2008)

2008-09-13T09:19:00.013-04:00

Hey everybody, I've been on break for a while but I am back to review more films. Since school has started I do not have as much time to see new releases, so I will probably review older films for a while, starting now.

Perhaps my least favorite genre of films is the romantic comedy. Not simply because they are primarily "chick flicks", but because they are just so similar to each other. I recall watching 27 Dresses with my girlfriend and I was able to figure out the ending as the opening scene began. In all my years, I have never seen a romantic comedy that had an unexpected ending...until now. Definitely, Maybe is the freshest romantic comedy to hit cinemas in a long, long time. It is the touching and remarkably engaging story of Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds), who is suffering a divorce while caring for his young daughter Maya (Abigail Breslin). As Will tries to put Maya to bed, she relentlessly inquires to hear the story of how he met her mother. Will reluctantly agrees, and the real movie begins. A young Will Hayes just arrived in New York in 1992 to support Presidential candidate Bill Clinton in the upcoming election. Momentarily leaving his college sweetheart Emily (Elizabeth Banks) in Wisconsin, Will is left susceptible to the dangerous possibility of falling for other women in his new surrounding. One of those women is the beautiful copy machine girl April (Isla Fisher), whom Will becomes very good friends. The two share many comical encounters that are very easy to watch. The other woman testing Will's strength is up and coming journalist Summer Hartley (Rachel Weisz), who is also currently dating world famous journalist Hampton Roth (Kevin Kline), a man of 60 that still likes 'em young. It is also very enticing to learn that Summer possibly shared a romantic encounter with Will's Emily during their college days. With all the characters in place, Maya and the rest of us are left wondering, "who does he end up with?". That, my friends, is why Definitely, Maybe is a terrific film.

Definitely, Maybe was directed and written by Adam Brooks, who also wrote the romantic sports comedy Wimbledon. Coincidentally, that was also one of the very few romantic comedies I actually enjoyed, despite it's predictability. What Brooks did with Definitely, Maybe was take a film genre and set a new standard for it. His writing neglected the cliche conventions of writing a romantic film, and instead twisted it with a mystery theme. With this unique and original plot, the viewer is left with only speculations as to how it will end. Much like I always do with these types of films, I guessed how it would end at the midway point. For the first time ever, I was wrong. Brooks did a superb job keeping me guessing. Whenever I thought I had it figured out, he would throw another curveball. The three woman that swirled through Will's life and time and again knocked him down actually managed to make me feel sorry for the main character. I was able to see his dejection and I was able to feel the love that he felt for all 3 of these women at one time or another. I was also very surprised to find myself willingly engaging in the story, eager to see what would happen next. My first viewing of Definitely, Maybe was with 2 friends, both of which are heterosexual males like myself. I had no problem watching this movie with them because I heard it was good and I wanted to see it, regardless of who I was with. But what shocked me was that one of my friends, who was very unhappy with the idea of watching this film without girls around, was actually bothered by the fact that we had to shut it off midway (we had to go somewhere). Even he was interested in how it ended. That just goes to show you that guys, you don't need to have a girl present to watch this film. It is genuinely good.

With a romantic comedy, who always have to be sure you have good actors to make everything feel authentic. If you go and watch a film like Good Luck Chuck, seeing Dane Cook flirt with Jessica Alba is almost as enjoyable as a trip to the dentist's office (no offense to any dentist's out there). In Definitely, Maybe, every actor did their part to make sure every moment was legitimate. Ryan Reynolds is known to be a very charismatic actor. Even in lesser efforts such as Blade: Trinity, Reynolds always brings charm to his characters. Will Hayes is no different. A delightful and relatable character, audiences will enjoy watching his life unfold and actually root for his happiness. Reynolds also consistently interacts with the films 4 leading ladies believably. Talking to his daughter, played by Breslin, you feel a warmhearted relationship between the two that you could find between a loving father and his child. His heartache is unforgettable as he repeatedly loses those closest to him. Reynolds is also blessed with a wonderful supporting cast, specifically Isla Fisher. I remember in my review of Wedding Crashers I said that Fisher had a very promising career ahead of her and my opinion has not changed. Consistently entertaining and thoroughly amusing, Fisher is a pleasure to watch in any film (except Hot Rod which sucked and horribly underutilized her ability). Elizabeth Banks and Rachel Weisz both put in strong performances, but the only other noteworthy performance from the female cast was the young Abigail Breslin. Although she was nominated for her role in the overrated Little Miss Sunshine, I actually thought she was better in this film. Still not worthy of a nomination, but she showed real talent in this film. (I still don't understand how she was nominated. She wasn't even that good. WHAT DID I MISS!?). Kevin Kline also contributes a very funny effort as the sexagenarian that has a taste for younger women.

When it all boils down, there is really one thing that I am looking for in a romantic comedy, and that is believability. I do not want to watch actors make googly eyes at each other. I want to see people convincing me that their is a such thing as true love. Definitely, Maybe is the only romantic comedy I have ever seen that was both realistic and genuinely entertaining. Not completely without the romance cliches, Definitely, Maybe is not perfect, but is certainly a breath of fresh air for a stupid movie genre. My rating (7/10)

Lack of posts

2008-09-06T20:09:00.002-04:00

Hey everybody, in case you were wondering when I was planning on posting another review, it may be a little bit. School has started for me and I am getting back into the swing of things. Thanks for your patience.

A Look Back and A Look Forward

2008-08-20T14:59:00.016-04:00

The summer of 2008 is just about over and I'd like to take this time to reflect on some of the best movies of the summer. Although actual summer begins in June, the summer movie season began way back in May with the release of Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr. kicked off the summer with a fantastic superhero film that garnered major critical acclaim, receiving a 93% on rottentomatoes.com. Not to mention Downey Jr. gave a phenomenal performance as billionaire playboy Tony Stark. Iron Man surprised everyone by surpassing expectations and becoming the first film of 2008 to break $300 million at the domestic box office, a feat analysts only expected from Indy 4 and The Dark Knight. With this huge success, a sequel was greenlit immediately and is now slated for 2010. Iron Man was also the first piece of a puzzle that Marvel is putting together. For those of you who stayed after the credits you may recall the exciting reference to the Avenger Initiative, which sent comic book nerds abroad crazy. Well The Avengers film does appear to be happening, and Downey Jr's Tony Stark appears to be the first group member. That film is scheduled for July of 2011. I gave Iron Man a 10 out of 10.

The next huge release of the summer of 2008 was the long, long, long awaited Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Many people were left disappointed by the extra-terrestrial touch put on to the famous archaeologist's series, but not me. Indy 4 delivered the excitement and adventure that I loved from the previous 3 films. A 60+ year old Harrison Ford showed he still had the ability to bring the charming character of Indiana Jones to life. Joined by the rising star Shia Labeouf, Indy 4 went on to make upwards of $300 million just as predicted. Although you may not agree, I felt Crystal Skull was a fitting conclusion to a wonderful series. But now even I am a bit upset by the idea that George Lucas wishes to make a 5th film. George, enough is enough. Go out on a high note. You already sank your Star Wars ship with those awful Episodes 1-3, maybe you should come up with an original idea. Even if a 5th Indy flick got made, Lucas said Shia Labeouf would not take over and it would remain with Ford as the lead actor. Well by the time the film was released he would be about 70, and even I'd say it's time to hang up the whip. Let us all hope that a 5th Indy film never happens. I gave Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a 7.5 out of 10.

The next film I saw in the summer was a film I didn't even want to see. It took my friend to say he'd buy half my ticket so that I would go see it with him. I unhappily agreed, and was happily surprised. The Incredible Hulk was a HUGE HUGE HUGE improvement over the god awful 2003 Hulk directed by Ang Lee. Although still nowhere near perfect, casting Edward Norton in the lead role pushed The Incredible Hulk into credible movie territory. A good performance from Norton really helped make this film better than it should have been. The Hulk is the least interesting superhero ever created in my opinion, but this film actually did him justice. A terrible performance by Liv Tyler bogged The Incredible Hulk down a bit, but top notch special effects pushed her weird shaped face aside. Unfortunately, probably due to the fact that the general public disliked the first Hulk, The Incredible Hulk only made $134 million, only $2 million more than the far worse Hulk. A regular film would love to make $134 million but since The Incredible Hulk required $150 million to make, fiscally it was a failure. But who cares about how much it made anyway, this film provided the second piece to Marvel's puzzle, joining Iron Man in the Avengers mix. I gave The Incredible Hulk a 7 out of 10.

But the summer 2008 really became fantastic when The Dark Knight rolled into theaters. Featuring the brilliant performance from late Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight has been a box office powerhouse, recently beating Star Wars as the second highest domestic grossing film of all time. At approximately $500+ million dollars and counting, The Dark Knight needs about $140 million more dollars to beat Titanic for the number one spot, but it's looking unlikely. Not only was The Dark Knight the best film of the year, but one of the best films of all time, and topped my own personal list as my favorite film of all time. With a record breaking opening weekend of $155 million, The Dark Knight was the only film great enough to make me go to a midnight showing. I hate midnight showings. No let me rephrase that. I HATE midnight showings. But this movie made me go. I'm glad it did. Originally I wanted to give The Dark Knight an 11 out of 10, and I did. But then I realized it was unprofessional and I made it a 10 out of 10. I just want the record to show that it deserves more. A script for the third film has not even been written yet, but rumors have circulated suggesting Johnny Depp as the Riddler and Angelina Jolie as Catwoman. Personally I think both are terrible ideas, and a third film shouldn't even be made. There is no way it is going to top this one. Absolutely no way. Like I said, I gave The Dark Knight a 10 out of 10.

Finally, the summer has ended with a laugh with the release of Tropic Thunder. After a controversial release due to the protest by disability support groups, Tropic Thunder didn't make much noise at the box office, only making $26 million over the weekend. Still it was good enough to knock The Dark Knight from it's perch at number 1 at the box office, which it held for a full month. What made Tropic Thunder so funny was the amazing performance by the very man who kicked off the summer of 2008, Robert Downey Jr. How appropriate that the man who brought us into the summer with an astounding movie now shows us the way out of summer with a hilarious movie. Some strong supporting performances and a random Matthew McConaughey made Tropic Thunder a hit in my eyes. I gave Tropic Thunder a 7.5 out of 10.

I did not mention Wanted or Hellboy II because I'd be here forever spitting out redundancies. Both those films were great as well.

The summer is now over. Go in peace.

Here are some of my recommendations for upcoming films in 2008:

Bangkok Dangerous (Sept 5) Burn After Reading (Sept 12), Igor (Sept 19), Eagle Eye (Sept 26), Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (Oct 3), Saw 5 Oct 24(that's right, I'm a closet Saw fan, you got a problem with that?), RocknRolla (Oct 31), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Dec 19), The Spirit (Dec 25)

Here are some movies I suggest avoiding in 2008:

Disaster Movie (Aug 29), College (Aug 29), Disaster Movie (Aug 29), Beverly Hills Chihuahua (Oct 3), W (Oct 17), Disaster Movie (Aug 29), High School Musical 3 (Oct 24), Punisher: War Zone (Dec 5), Disaster Movie (Aug 29), The Day the Earth Stood Still (Dec 12), AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND GOOD IN THIS WORLD, AVOID DISASTER MOVIE!!!!!!!! IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WHO PLANS ON SEEING IT, HURT THEM! YOU CAN TELL THEM I MADE YOU DO IT.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

2008-08-19T16:47:00.008-04:00

August is drawing to a close, which means schools are re-opening, pools are closing, and movie companies start releasing Oscar hopeful films rather than blockbusters. But before the summer of 2008 disappears forever, one more movie attempts to right something that has been wrong. In a summer movie season filled with superhero flicks and other random action films, we have yet to receive a comedy that will have us rolling in the aisles. Tropic Thunder, a passion project Ben Stiller has been working on for years, will not make you fall out of your chair, but is however the funniest film of the summer. On the set of the most expensive war movie ever made, rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) is having trouble keeping his narcissistic cast in check. Just 5 days into shooting, production is already 1 month behind. Action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is having trouble recovering from his recent film Simple Jack, which was a box office flop and was bashed by critics. 5 time Academy Award winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.), an Australian actor, underwent a procedure to darken his skin so that he could play the African American platoon leader called for in the script. Fart joke comedian Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is trying to break the mold of gross out comedy, but has trouble keeping his mind during filming because of his drug addiction. After being violently screamed at by movie executive Les Grossman (Tom Cruise like you've never seen him before), director Damien desperately takes advice from Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte), the war veteran that wrote the book from which the movie is based. Tayback suggests that in order to get real emotion and an authentic feel, the cast should be dropped in the middle of the Vietnam forest where some controlled explosions and gunfire will challenge them. But no more than 5 minutes after they land, the cast is thrust into a real war zone with Vietnamese drug lords...they just don't realize it. When Tugg Speedman is kidnapped, Kirk, Jeff, rapper turned actor Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson), and newcomer Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel) must save their comrade from certain death. If you have seen commercials for Tropic Thunder, you probably don't think it looks very funny. Do not be fooled. Tropic Thunder is very funny and at some times hilarious, and has lots of fun action to satisfy your needs.

Just last week, Judd Apatow attempted to blur the genres of action and comedy together in Pineapple Express, but didn't succeed to the fullest extent. The trouble was his film had too many sagging points. Ben Stiller, who wrote and directed Tropic Thunder, made sure to add as many jokes as possible to keep things funny. This can be a very risky technique, as we've seen in You Don't Mess With the Zohan, where Adam Sandler crammed jokes into every orifice of that film but didn't land any hits making it unbearable to watch. Tropic Thunder has its share of misses, but not nearly enough to make the film droop. When jokes did hit in Tropic Thunder, much like Pineapple Express, it was hilarious. What makes Tropic Thunder better is the fact that is was continuously funny. There were less gaps in the comedy. Stiller did the correct thing in not letting the action overtake the film, and even during the action sequences the comedy never ceased. He also filmed everything very tastefully, not really glorifying the bloody part of fighting. Keeping in line with the rest of the film, Stiller kept things funny. Before the film even begins, we are treated to a series of hysterical fake advertisements and movie trailers starring the characters from the film. Once the film starts, show patience, as the first 15 minutes aren't particularly interesting. After you make it over that hump, Tropic Thunder becomes roaringly funny and endlessly entertaining.

What makes Tropic Thunder an above average comedy is some of the terrific performances displayed in it. One person who does not give one of those performances is Ben Stiller. His character Tugg Speedman is after all a slow witted tough guy, but he is actually the straight man in this film. Tugg is also a bit annoying because he took way too long to figure out that his kidnapping was not part of the film. Nobody can be that stupid. Providing few jokes (even fewer that are actually funny), one wonders why Stiller didn't write himself some better material. Another lackluster performance was that of Jack Black as Jeff Portnoy. Black is a rambunctious comedy actor, but his role is too small to allow him to show any type of range. His drug addiction is pretty much the only joke he delivers, and it isn't even that funny. The one exception being when he is tied to a tree and he says something that is just awful and hilarious. One of the better performances in Tropic Thunder is given by Brandon T. Jackson as the rapper who endorses a drink called Booty Sweat and a candy bar called Bust-a-Nut. Surprisingly, I found him very entertaining to watch and he had quite a few laugh out loud moments in the film, specifically in his interactions with Downey Jr. In a role that you would probably never have imagined him in, Tom Cruise has been earning praise as a show stealer as Les Grossman. I wouldn't call him a show stealer, but Cruise's over the top potty mouth performance was quite enjoyable and very uncharacteristic of him, which made it even funnier. Also a surprise, Matthew McConaughey randomly takes a supporting role as Tugg Speedman's agent Rick Peck. The role originally was meant for Owen Wilson, but he was forced to drop the film after his attempted suicide last year. McConaughey isn't exactly what I would call a "good" actor, but his concern for his client provided some extra laughs and probably McConaughey's best performance of his career. (That is not saying much). But the man who completely ran away with this movie is Robert Downey Jr. I'm sure when 2008 began, he had no idea how much of a household name he would become at years end. Playing an Australian actor that is playing a black man, Downey Jr steals every scene and delivers every line with consistent hilarity. The role of Kirk Lazarus was written to explore and make fun of how actors immerse themselves into roles, and Downey Jr perfectly exemplifies this...by immersing himself into the role. He created a character that was extremely hilarious without being racist or offensive. Every character in the film had a stale line or two (Stiller had a lot of those), but not Downey Jr. He hits the right note every time, taking comedy through a whole new frontier.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the release of Tropic Thunder. Protests from groups supporting those with disabilities have plagued the film and no doubt had an effect on its weekend gross. (The film only took in about 26 million, it deserved much more). People are outraged over the use of the word "retard" in the film. They feel it is demeaning to all people with mental disabilities. Now that I have seen this movie, I can say without question that this film in no way offends mentally handicapped people. As somebody with a relative who has down syndrome, I did not feel angered by their use of the word retard. I laughed the entire scene. The word retard in the film is not used in a derogatory sense. Nobody says "You are a retard" or "That was retarded of you". That would be offensive because the line would be meant to be insulting to the person hearing it. Instead, Tugg Speedman and Kirk Lazarus discuss Tugg's role in his film Simple Jack, in which he did play a retard. (Notice how I have no problem using the word, because I am not using it to offend anybody). The whole purpose of the joke is to make fun of how actors will take on roles as handicapped people because they are hoping to get an award from it. The scene was actually extremely clever-minded and witty as Kirk explains to Tugg that there is a certain level of retardation you have to play to get an award, and that there is a certain point that can't be crossed. That joke is not aimed at retarded people, but at the actors who take advantage of the roles of retarded people. Honestly, I do not think you will be offended by this scene unless you are extremely overly sensitive. If Al Sharpton didn't freak out because a white actor was playing a black role, you probably won't freak out from the use of the word retard.

Tropic Thunder might not be every one's cup of tea, but it happened to be mine. Even with a slow first 15 minutes and the weak performance by Stiller, Tropic Thunder is the summer comedy we have been waiting for. At 107 minutes, time is not really a factor because you will spend most of it laughing. Ignore the bad press for this film caused by those disability groups and head to the movies for a good time. I have a feeling you will not be disappointed. I also feel that Robert Downey Jr. should be nominated for some type of award. Maybe not an Oscar, because that's a little extreme. Something less important, like a Golden Globe. It just doesn't seem right that his performance goes unrewarded. It was so perfect. My rating (7.5/10)

Pineapple Express (2008)

2008-08-11T08:44:00.015-04:00

It seems that every few months another film written by the Judd Apatow gang surfaces and tries to breathe life into the comedy industry. In the past, any film with the Apatow Productions sticker attached to it has more often than not been a success. Whether taking on a middle aged virgin, two booze seeking best friends, or an accidental pregnancy after a drunken night, Judd Apatow has consistently proven to be a comedic genius that also has a lot of heart. Naturally, given this track record, I was very excited for the release of his most recent film, Pineapple Express. Trailers and commercials did even more to pique my interest. Entering the theater, I was all set to begin enjoying what should have been the funniest film I would see all year. Sadly, it was not. Pineapple Express chronicles the unfortunate tale of frequently stoned process server Dale Denton (Seth Rogen). After witnessing a murder committed by a policewoman (Rosie Perez) and the later identified drug lord Ted Jones (Gary Cole), Dale seeks refuge with the first person he can think of: his drug dealer Saul (James Franco). Ted, who mistakenly identifies Dale as a hitman from a rival Chinese gang, sends his best men to kill the two stoners forcing them to go on the run. With the help of Saul's friend Red (Danny McBride), the pair must fight fire with fire to save their lives, so they may smoke weed another day.

As somebody who does not smoke weed, drink alcohol, or do any kind of drug at all, maybe I missed something while watching Pineapple Express. Perhaps it would have helped to be stoned so that I could enjoy it more. But if a movie requires you to be stoned to fully appreciate it, then it's not that great of a movie. I could only speculate as to how marijuana makes you feel, but I imagine it is a lot like watching this film. When you are doing it (watching the film) you feel great and are having a good time, but once you come down from your high (exit the theater) you don't really remember much of what happened. Normally after watching a comedy with my friends, in the parking lot we will repeat jokes that we liked from the film so that we can renew the experience. Dead silent is the only term I can use to describe the walk out of the theater with my girlfriend. Neither of us could remember a single joke. I even had trouble remembering what the final scene in the movie was. I do recall that when Pineapple Express was funny, it was hysterical. But when it was not funny, it was dead, and there were a lot of points that were devoid of laughter. Judd Apatow's films usually do have a sagging point, but often bounce back by the end. Pineapple Express falls into a pit and spends the rest of the film trying desperately to climb back up from the depths of mediocrity. In the end it succeeded, but the line is very thin.

Aside from being a comedy, Pineapple Express is a heavily violent action film. Executed properly, Pineapple Express had potential to be a terrific summer flick. But the far from mainstream director David Gordon Green could not handle the new world of an absurd action comedy. Since the comedic portion of the film heavily relies on the actors abilities, I can only really comment on Green's ability to stage an over the top brawl. Put simply, he isn't particularly cut out for it. In some cases however, he did show professionalism and a good eye for comedy. In a scene where Saul and Dale steal a police car and are being chased by the corrupt policewoman, Green effectively mixes thrilling action with genuine humor. On the other hand, Green falters at creating an extravagant final showdown. The epic battle between rival drug factions and the stoners is poorly shot and beyond belief in some cases. In a different film like Wanted or Shoot 'Em Up, I forgive unbelievable and physically impossible events. But Pineapple Express was primarily a film grounded in reality for practically the entire duration. In the end, it was reduced to Wile E. Coyote running off the cliff but his feet are still moving. The only difference being those old Wile E. Coyote episodes were pretty funny. Green dropped the comedic ball completely and instead provided a third rate fight sequence with first rate special effects. For a first attempt at a wide release film, Green fell short.

Seth Rogen is a rising force in comedy, breaking through with the hits Knocked Up and Superbad and now has 5 in development credits on IMDb.com, including the leading role in a superhero film entitled The Green Hornet. Personally I am a fan of Rogen, and I hope he continues to be successful in Hollywood. But in Pineapple Express, Rogen is uncharacteristically weak in both his writing of the film and his performance. Sharing a pen with lifelong buddy Evan Goldberg (who he also wrote Superbad with), Rogen doesn't bring the sincerity that has made most of Apatow Productions in the past unique. He also doesn't create a character that is particularly likable. Although Dale is a very funny person, he has a girlfriend that is in high school. What is up with that? That's not funny, that's pedophilia. Actually they say she is 18, so I guess that is supposed to make it better. It still doesn't sit right with me. Aside from the fact that he is an irresponsible stoner and borderline pedophile, Dale is still pretty funny to watch thanks to Rogen. But the ray of light in Pineapple Express is without a doubt James Franco as the permanently stoned Saul Silver. Clad in a headband and pajama bottoms, Franco steals the movie right out from under the feet of the rest of the cast. I haven't been a fan of Franco's past work (especially his role as "the smiling idiot" in Spiderman 3), but Pineapple Express has changed my opinion of the kind of actor he is. He showed a terrific aptitude in creating laughter from every situation. Danny McBride provided intermittent comedy in his supporting role as Red. Once again though, much like Dale's character, Red is a bit of a jerk. By the end of the film he redeems himself by providing my personal favorite line from the film, "You just got killed by a Daewoo Lanos!" It's funnier in context. Gary Cole is a bit of a miscast as the sinister drug lord Ted Jones. I couldn't really get into his performance. He was about as intimidating as a Dachshund.

Pineapple Express isn't terribly long, but at some points you will begin checking your watch to see how much is left. The movie as a whole is a mixed bag that is full of funny performances but a lagging storyline and mostly poorly shot action sequences. If you plan on riding the express, be prepared to have a mild sense of disappointment and also the inability to remember anything you just saw. Although the experience won't stick with you, it gives you just enough fun while you are watching it to earn a mild recommendation from me. My rating (a disappointing 6/10)

Teeth (2007)

2008-08-07T12:00:00.017-04:00

Warning: The following post contains numerous references to the male and female anatomy. If you haven't heard about the birds and the bees yet, I suggest clicking on another review.

Are you a parent of a teenage son? Do you live in worry that he will come home one day with the news that he has gotten a girl pregnant after an irresponsible night? Do you wish there was a way to somehow keep your son from making this stupid mistake? Well I have good news for you. A movie has been released that serves as the most potent anti-sex film since the dawn of time. I am talking about Teeth, a film that for some reason won an award at the Sundance Film Festival, and just so happens to have ended up on my friend's television screen when I went to his house. If you have a friend or if you are a person who keeps track of recent releases of independent films, you may have heard of this film as "the one with the girl who's got teeth in her danger zone". Well yes, that is essentially what the film is about. Teeth is the gag inducing tale of Dawn O'Keefe (Jess Weixler), a teenage girl who strongly advocates abstinence before marriage. After becoming the object of attraction for fellow abstainer Toby (Hale Appleman), Dawn discovers that she isn't like normal girls. When Toby attempts to take advantage of her (some nice guy he turned out to be right?), the event is short lived as his penis soon becomes a thing of the past. How could this have happened? You guessed it. Teeth in the va-j-j. Horrified by herself (as she should be), Dawn researches her unusual condition and discovers she has Vagina Dentata, a mythical affliction that seems to have been brought to reality through her body. Although this could possibly make for an effective scary story around a campfire, turning this plot into a feature film was a huge mistake. Then again, voluntarily watching it was a huge mistake on my part.

I saw Teeth a while ago, but am only just writing about it because I tried so desperately to remove it from my memory. I came to the decision that instead of keeping it locked away, I should share with the world the atrocities of this film, so that they could avoid the mistake that I was so foolish to make. I'm sure the makers of Teeth didn't plan on making a film that's sole purpose was to scare the sex drive out of teenage boys, but ultimately that's what they got. Being a teenage boy myself, it took me a day and a half to rationalize that it was just a movie. Looking back I feel silly that I was even affected at all. But in all seriousness, Teeth does not work as anything more than a film preaching abstinence. Even in that respect, it doesn't succeed. Like I said, it took me only a day and a half to get over it. I haven't had sex, but if my girlfriend offered it to me I wouldn't say "No, first I want you to get checked for Vagina Dentata". Teeth also fails as an amusing splatstick film, because I couldn't really find the comedy in watching multiple penises get removed. It just didn't sit right with me. I've grown fond of having a penis, and the thought of it having ripped away makes me very sad. I guess you could say if somebody tried to take it away, I'd have quite the BONE to pick with them =D....no? Nothing? Ok moving on. Director Mitchell Lichtenstein, who has done practically nothing in the past, should never be allowed to work again after bringing us this vile, poorly filmed squalor. Not to mention the most obnoxious and overly dramatic score since There Will Be Blood (I'd give There Will Be Blood a 9 instead of a 10 only because of the score, but that's a different review). In some particularly ugly shots (including the opening shot of the film), Lichtenstein shows a landscape view of the bright and sunny town that the film takes place in. Technicolor that is reminiscent of the early Batman television series makes this shot an eye sore, and it foreshadows the rest of the film as being a terrible viewing experience.

If you are going to be physically and emotionally sickened by a film, one should hope that there were some redeeming qualities that kept you interested. Teeth offers you nothing, and on top of that nothing shows you graphic scenes of penal amputation. Makes for one hell of a movie right!? Wrong. Jess Weixler is annoying and sometimes unwatchable as the girl with the devil's vagina, Dawn. Even though her character is reasonably in hysterics for a lot of the film, she still managed to over-act and sometimes even under-act. Never did Weixler hit the nail on the head. No supporting performances give Teeth an extra boost, not even John Hensley's performance as Dawn's drug taking, sex having, deeply disturbed step brother Brad. The relationship between Dawn and Brad had potential to be intriguing and memorable but instead falls flat on its back. The resolution between the two is predictable and altogether unsatisfying. You see what is about to happen from a mile away and when it is finally done you are left scratching your head thinking, "That's it? I really watched that entire movie just so I can see something that I totally expected to happen like an hour ago? I'm gonna go throw up". Now I didn't throw up when I finished the film, but if they had some kind of memory eraser that I could take to erase it from my head that would be swell. If you know any good ways to remove something from your memory without damaging everything else in your head just leave a comment.

Now underneath the repulsive visuals displayed in Teeth, there lies the foundation of any film, and that is the script. The director Mitchell Lichtenstein also wrote the screenplay for the film, and I must say this man really does not have any talent. He managed to take a completely original idea (something that is very rare in today's movies) and drive it so far into the ground that the heat from the earth's core melted it. Lichtenstein could not decide whether to make his film heavy on the horror and light on comedy or the other way around. Scenes flip flop between scary and comical, and sometimes the scary scenes are more laugh producing than the funny ones. Either way, I didn't find the film to be funny at all. The subject matter is a bit too grotesque to be funny. Beneath his sequences of horror and violence, there is meant to be a feeling of female empowerment delivered by Dawn, who can somewhat be classified as a hero given the film's ending. The idea that this girl is using her "gift" to punish sex driven men (albeit by having sex with them) probably would give a woman a sense of pride and the feeling that she can overcome the oppression of any man. WELL I'M NOT A WOMAN! I fail to see the pride one can gain from having teeth in her vagina! And as a boy, I learned absolutely nothing from this film. The only possible message could have been to not be so hasty with who you become intimate with. But all I learned was to always check the quality of the turf before you step out on the field.

Teeth runs at the longest 94 minutes you will ever endure, and shows you no mercy along the way. I had a feeling going in that I wouldn't enjoy this film, and I was dead right. Perhaps if the film was not as graphic it would have been easier to watch. But the pervasive obscenity of the amputation scenes were unnecessary and in no way entertaining. Maybe if you are a woman you can watch this film and laugh and say "Ha! Take that you stupid man! Chicks rule! Girl power, woohoo!" But other than that, there is nothing that can come from this film except misery and unhappiness. Everybody, especially men, should run away from this film at all costs. My rating (1/10)

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

2008-07-23T13:28:00.007-04:00

There are some values that have become lost in our modern day society that at one point we cherished. Many of us take for granted our neighbors and friends and go through life feeling alone. Michel Gondry's Be Kind Rewind is on the surface a comedic story of two friends Jerry and Mike, who remake films for their customers after Jerry becomes magnetized and erases every tape in Mike's video store. Beneath that exterior lies a touching exploration into the forgotten values of unity and friendship. Although it is refreshing to see such ideals being displayed, they don't exactly make for a very exciting film. Although I have already given you a brief synopsis of the plot, I'll paint a more elaborate picture for you. Elroy Fletcher (Danny Glover) owns and operates a rundown video store in Passaic, New Jersey called Be Kind Rewind. When Mr. Fletcher goes away to honor the passing of a jazz legend that was supposedly born in his building, he leaves Mike (Mos Def) in charge of the store. Before he goes he leaves Mike one warning, and that is to keep Jerry (Jack Black) away. After a freak accident at a power plant, Jerry is left magnetized and confused and ends up in Be Kind Rewind. Sure enough, Jerry causes problems as he ends up erasing every tape in the store. When frequent customer Miss Faliwicz (Mia Farrow) comes to rent Ghostbusters, Jerry and Mike desperately put together their own version of the film, hoping Miss Faliwicz wouldn't know the difference. Surprisingly, the video becomes popular and the entire neighborhood stops by to have a film of their choice "sweded". Be Kind Rewind has plenty of heart, but lackluster performances and a dull script keep it from achieving greatness.

French born director Michel Gondry has become famous for his vivid and whimsical imagination and his ability to transfer it onto the screen. In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, (a film of which I am a huge fan of), Gondry touched on the subject of love and the joy it could give you, and also the great lengths you would go through to erase it from your memory. The reason he was able to turn that film into such an accomplishment was his oddball humor, his amazing script, and his unique cinematography. In Be Kind Rewind, Gondry does not delve into an emotion that we all endure, but instead discusses the bond between friends and the happiness that can be shared with one another. This message was especially potent with me, as I just so happen to enjoy making short films with my friends. Seeing the characters put together a poorly shot, almost completely improvised film struck a chord with me, as it was all too familiar. Be Kind Rewind is not without bizarre humor, especially in a scene where Jerry unleashes a river of magnetized urine down the street, attracting mufflers and other metal objects as it flowed. Although that scene was particularly outlandish, the rest of the film isn't nearly as ridiculous. The premise of Be Kind Rewind is intriguing, but unfortunately the script that holds up that premise is blandly written and unimpressive. The conflict that arises from these characters actions is predictable and unremarkable. Not to mention the trailers pretty much give away what happens. Finally, the cinematography and direction of Be Kind Rewind are trite and simple. With the exception of a continuous shot of the main characters filming several films at once, there is no originality or memorable scenes. The dazzle that Gondry gave to me in Eternal Sunshine was noticeably absent from this picture, and it is very disappointing.

Performances are another downfall that plague Be Kind Rewind. The characters are meant to be relatable and loveable, but I felt neither of these emotions watching this film. With the exception of Jack Black, there were absolutely no bright spots in the entire cast. Possibly the only good rapper turned actor Mos Def wasn't so good in his role as Mike. Unenthusiastic speaking and a constant thousand mile stare had me thinking somebody swapped out the real Mos Def for a pod person that looked just like him. Danny Glover is practically negligible as Mr. Fletcher, the owner of Be Kind Rewind. Much like Mos Def, Glover seems unenthusiastic and doesn't seem right for this film. If you would have put Def in Glover's role and vice verse, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Neither provided humor to the film, nor did they provoke any sort of feeling that made me interested in their life. As I mentioned, Jack Black gave the only truly enjoyable performance in the film. He actually seemed fit for his role. Playing the eccentric Jerry was effortless for Black, as he is a bit of an eccentric himself. His endless humor helped save Be Kind Rewind from sinking to the depths of garbage.

Be Kind Rewind runs a little above 100 minutes, but it does go by pretty quickly. Despite the fact that not much happens, the film doesn't lag so it doesn't bore you to tears. And although the performances were interchangeable and lackluster, I still found myself watching the film voluntarily, instead of wriggling in my chair waiting for it to end. Even though the number of negatives outweighed the number of positives, I was still mildly enthused. The majority of the entertainment came from watching Mos Def and Jack Black put their own spin on movies such as Ghostbusters. I for one have been a Ghostbusters fanatic since I was a little boy (I even had a proton pack that I would run around my house with), so it was extremely amusing to watch them remake it. Be Kind Rewind is simply a nice film with a good message and a big heart. I am just barely recommending it for your viewing pleasure, but do not expect another Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. My rating (5.5/10)

The Dark Knight (2008)

2008-07-14T20:55:00.015-04:00

Up to this point, the summer of 2008 has been the summer of great comic book movies. The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy were both great fun, and Iron Man brought us the best superhero movie since Batman Begins. Well I hope Iron Man enjoyed it's time on top, because The Dark Knight has come and left every single one of those films in the dust. I'm somewhat afraid that with this review I will be unable to fully convey how spectacular this movie was. Christian Bale, a man that has time and again proved himself to be an amazing actor (American Psycho, The Prestige, 3:10 To Yuma) returns as the caped crusader, who seems to have fallen out of favor with the public. Ever since he has began patrolling the streets of Gotham, the crime rate has soared, and a new breed of criminal seems to have been born. Batman, who cannot fight injustice alone, takes up support of new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent has become a beacon of light for Gotham, vowing to be a "white knight" and make the street's safe again. His campaign could not come soon enough, as a new villain emerges from the depths of Gotham to play games with its inhabitants. This individual is The Joker (Heath Ledger), a man who simply came from nowhere to challenge Batman to see how far he was willing to go to stop a madman. At every turn, The Joker makes another move that is completely unexpected and always catastrophic. Unconcerned about what happens to him, this green and purple freak will do anything to cause chaos, and to push Batman to his limits to see how moral of a hero he really is. While Batman has his own set of problems, billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne must deal with the fact that he has lost the love of his life Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) to the very man he is supporting, Harvey Dent. The Dark Knight is not only the best superhero movie ever made, but one of the best crime dramas ever put on film, and should be considered for a Best Picture Oscar.

Everything works in The Dark Knight. There is not a single weak link in the chain. Christopher Nolan, the man behind one of my personal favorite films Memento, does an outstanding job of handling this material. He has created a city that has descended into disorder and desperation. Gotham is unforgiving and the people that dwell there are just as harsh. They would have to be in order to survive. Even though this city has fallen to corruption and crime, Nolan does a tasteful job of not exploiting that fact to a point beyond where anybody can appreciate it. His focus lies on the conflicts of Bruce Wayne and the rise of the evil Joker. He presents us with the question of how far should anybody be willing to go to protect what they believe is right. Nolan also accomplishes the feat of tackling multiple storylines without becoming jumbled and confusing. The movie slides easily from scene to scene, changing directions but always remaining focused. Some excellent cinematography helps to ease the viewer into each scene without jarring them, but also without dragging them in kicking and screaming. The action in The Dark Knight is without a doubt heart racing, adrenaline pumping fun that doesn't get too bogged down in its scale. Although not without its share of CGI, Nolan only uses it whenever is absolutely necessary and doesn't turn this epic crime drama into a third rate superhero flick. That's right, I don't even consider this film a superhero film. It packs the punch of an excellent action film, but also is an enthralling exploration of the unending battle between good and evil, right and wrong. Nolan is at the top of his game with The Dark Knight, as he somehow manages to surpass his masterpiece Memento. I guess that would make The Dark Knight a....super masterpiece?

Direction alone cannot make a movie brilliant, though. One needs a cast that can take a script and turn it into a something real. In other words, take a fictional story but make the audience believe it's true. To say the all star cast of The Dark Knight did that would be an understatement. Christian Bale is the most intimidating Batman and the most arrogant Bruce Wayne in the history of the franchise. His struggles and battles that he must face as both Wayne and Batman are all exemplified perfectly, bringing the viewer into his head to feel exactly what he feels. His struggle to maintain composure in the face of the insane Joker shows us all that everyone has a breaking point, even people masquerading as a bat. Bale's versatility as an actor really permeates through to the audience in every movie he does. You can also feel Bruce's heartache as he loses Rachel to Harvey. Aaron Eckhart gives a top notch performance as righteous Harvey Dent, the man who wants to clean up Gotham without wearing a mask. As Dent, Eckhart is a delight to watch as he spreads his ordeals and stands up to the injustices of his city. When Dent unavoidably becomes Two-Face (that's not really a spoiler, so don't be upset), his fight for what is right becomes a flawed mission as he turns to vigilantism himself. Using the flip of a coin to decide whether someone lives or dies, Harvey "Two-Face" Dent is a depressing reminder that everyone is corruptable. Echkart's performance is definitely note-worthy, but unfortunately he will most likely be overshadowed by another performance (Hint: It's not Maggie Gyllenhaal). In Batman Begins, Rachel Dawes was played plainly and unenthusiastically by Katie Holmes. Well in The Dark Knight, since everything else was better, Holmes was swapped out for an upgrade, but not too much of an upgrade to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal brings us a much more convincing performance as the one woman in Gotham to know Batman's true identity, and the agony that comes with that knowledge is detectable on her face. Although her character is in love with Harvey, anytime she is near Bruce you can sense desire between both parties.

But you probably don't care about Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance. Chances are if you care about this movie, there is only one person you really want to hear about. That is the late Heath Ledger, who portrays the dysfunctional Joker. Ledger has brought forth the most frightening and deranged villain since Hannibal Lector. The way he so completely became this role, creating strange mannerisms and tics, makes you believe that there is not even an actor playing this man, and that he truly exists. The paint on his face that is often a runny mess symbolizes the insanity lying beneath that face, and how utterly diabolic his mind works. Christopher Nolan does not give a backstory to the Joker either. He has no identification, his fingerprints are unique, his DNA has no matches, he has no discernible origin whatsoever. He is genuinely an entity that was born from the presence of Batman. In a few memorable scenes, the Joker explains how the scars on his face came to be, but the story changes each time. This could simply be a part of his insanity, or maybe it is a sign that not even the Joker himself can remember who he was before Batman. Ledger is absolutely phenomenal as this unprecedented character, stealing every scene that he is in. His actions and words hypnotize you so that you cannot help but be scared. It would be downright foolish to not nominate him for Best Supporting Actor. Now some people might be saying "Oh well you are just saying this because he died and it's sympathy for him that everyone is giving him this praise". Well I'll tell you right now that what happened to Heath Ledger in real life is completely irrelevant. As I watched The Dark Knight, I didn't even see Heath Ledger. I saw the Joker.

Whenever I review a film and give it a high grade, I always consider that it is just my opinion and that there are probably many people who dislike the movies that I give tens. People could find No Country For Old Men boring and I understand that. People could find A Clockwork Orange too controversial and inappropriate and I understand that. People could find The Shining too slow and I understand that. But not this film. I find it hard to believe that anybody could completely dislike The Dark Knight. Yes the movie is dark and it has a very bleak message, but Batman is a dark comic book. That is the way it should be. The way it was meant to be. Length is not an issue with this film, despite a run time of 2 and a half hours. I promise you it will fly by, and you may even want it to last longer just like I did. With not a single flaw (except maybe some improbable forensic software), I am obligated to give this film the highest rating possible. With a movie this captivating, the sad question is asked: How will they top it? My rating: (10/10)

This review is dedicated to the memory of Christopher Nowak.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

2008-07-12T17:56:00.008-04:00

The year of the comic book continues with Guillermo Del Toro's Hellboy II: The Golden Army. If you have seen a film by Del Toro in the past, you probably know that the man's imagination is only exceeded by his belly. Perhaps it was his wild imagination that got this sequel greenlit, considering the fact that 2004's Hellboy only grossed a little above $55 million domestically. No matter how he managed to do it, I am glad he did. Hellboy II is a step up from its predecessor in every way. At the beginning of the film, we are told the story of the golden army by Professor Broom (John Hurt) to a teenage Hellboy. Long ago, humans and beasts roamed the earth together. But the humans, unhappy with living with trolls I guess, started a war against those beasts and ended up winning the first battle. Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) was deeply enraged by this, and when the offer arose, the Prince convinced his father to build a golden army to teach the humans a lesson. To control the army, a gold crown was created to be worn by the King. After a brutal slaying, King Balor, riddled with regret, created a truce with the humans and divided the crown into 3 pieces. Prince Nuada, ashamed by his father's actions, went into exile, waiting for the moment he could make everything right. Now it is present day and Nuada returns to reclaim what was his, and the only people that can stop him are the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense. Our familiar friends Hellboy, Liz, and Abe (Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, and Doug Jones) get the call to stop the Prince before he destroys all of mankind. With the help of new team leader Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth MacFarlane), the team investigates an underground world of unimaginable creatures, protecting people that don't seem to want protecting.

More than anything, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a visual feast, or rather, a visual all you can eat buffet. Director Guillermo Del Toro's creativity is exhibited in the forms of monsters who are hideous yet at the same time beautiful. In a scene where the Bureau members walk through a troll market, I was left astounded by the brilliant variety of ghouls that Del Toro has served up for us in this magnificent display. Del Toro must have been running the makeup team ragged with his wild imagination. On that note, Hellboy II is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination for Best Makeup. Attention to detail and consistent diversity amongst the creatures makes the film a never ending source of magic and whimsy. Del Toro's love for the characters and their world shines through with unyielding brightness. Aside from the stunning landscapes and creatures, Del Toro also paces the film very well, not allowing the film to crumble under its own weight. Once you make it past the cheesy, cornballish first 15 minutes or so, entertainment ensues for the remaining 95.

When you are covered with makeup and prosthetics, it can be difficult to fully convey emotions and actions properly. The actors in Hellboy II do a very good job of making their costumes complete non factors in their performances. Watching a group of abnormal beings portray familiar human emotions, such as love and shame, makes you forget that Hellboy has the right hand of doom and that Abe is essentially a talking fish. All you recognize is how similar to us these misunderstood creatures are. Ron Perlman is great as the gruff, rebellious Hellboy. His ability to maintain an intimidating exterior while cracking jokes and smoking cigars makes Hellboy a likeable character despite his "lone wolf" ideals. Unlike recent superhero flick Hancock, Hellboy succeeds in combining humor and drama because it doesn't lay it on too thick. Earlier in his career, Perlman donned excessive makeup for his role as Vincent in television series Beauty and the Beast. This experience most likely made playing Hellboy somewhat familiar to Perlman, and it really shows in this film. Hellboy's relationship with Liz is a recognizable one, reminding me of a normal couple dealing with normal problems. The actors really do a terrific job of making you sympathize with the characters as you would another person. Another man who is no stranger to prosthetics, Doug Jones reprises his role as the all knowing amphibious being Abe Sapien. In the first Hellboy, David Hyde Pierce provided the voice of Abe but refused crediting because he felt that Jones really did all the work. Pierce pretty much hit the nail on the head. In Hellboy II, Jones does even more work providing his own voice and the difference is practically negligible. What makes Abe such an interesting character are his mannerisms and his impressive ability to know EVERYTHING. Since the latter characteristic is uncontrollable, Jones had to make this weird fish man a delight to see on screen, and he does. We also get to see the romantic side of Abe when he falls in love with the enemies sister. Forbidden love is always awesome (and in this case hilarious). My absolute favorite part of this film was new character Johann Krauss, the team's new leader that was called in to watch over Hellboy. Krauss was played by 3 different people: James Dodd, John Alexander, and Seth MacFarlane. Addressing the work done by MacFarlane, I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that the creator of Family Guy, the man who does the voice of Peter Griffin, was in Hellboy II as a German ectoplasmic scientist. He also did a great job of matching the voice with the motions of Krauss, that were acted out by either Dodd or Alexander. A thoroughly entertaining character, Krauss' level-headed mindset and brilliant psychic abilities make him a formidable match against the brute force of Hellboy.

Hellboy II is not a terrific film though, as it does have it's fair share of infirmities. I briefly stated before that the first 15 minutes are a bit rough to get through. That might be giving it too much credit. In comparison to the rest of the film, the first 15 minutes seemed like a different movie altogether. I almost completely lost interest as I watched an awkward young Hellboy beg his father to read him a bedtime story. Clumsily shot, horribly acted, altogether unappealing to watch, I feared this movie was over before it even got started. Luckily because of Del Toro's ability to tell a story, I soon became entangled in this movies web. Although, the storyline itself was a bit difficult to appreciate. It was a little too familiar for my taste. A superhero that isn't favored by the public and must fight his own demons is a recipe that has been used in too many dishes (Spiderman, Batman, Hancock). The message of acceptance of everybody despite our differences has been played for years (All 3 X-Men films), and is becoming redundant now. It was also unrealistic to see not a single person stand up for Hellboy. In a scene where Hellboy saves a baby from a car about to be destroyed, not one person in the crowd shouts a positive comment. Every person is portrayed as close minded and arrogant. Even in a world of monsters, that seems a bit unrealistic.

Although not perfect and not quite as good as Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy II is energetic and amusing throughout. With an enchanting score from Danny Elfman, the action sequences in Hellboy II are a thrill to behold. They do not run too long and they do not indulge in blurry CGI. You can see everything that happens clearly, something that recent action films don't offer (Transformers, Spiderman 3). I was not a big fan of the first film so I did not expect much from this one. I was pleasantly surprised. With just the right mix of humor and action and a plethora of beautiful creatures, Hellboy II is smashing summer fun that could be appreciated by all ages. My rating (7/10)

Oh yea, there is also the funniest rendition of a Barry Manilow song EVER.

Hancock (2008)

2008-07-06T09:53:00.012-04:00

The superhero genre gets flipped on its head with the release of Will Smith's new blockbuster Hancock. It is widely known that putting Will Smith in a lead role leads to box office gold, and with Hancock that trend continued as it grossed an estimated $63 million dollars in its opening weekend. But did this movie really deserve that business? After last years mediocre box office hit I Am Legend, I started to feel that maybe studios realized they don't need to make the movie good, just as long as Will Smith was headlining. I'm afraid the situation is the same with Hancock. The intriguing storyline follows Hancock (Will Smith), a booze-soaked superhero that has become a nuisance in the public eye. Every effort he makes to help fight crime ultimately leads to even more disaster. But Hancock's luck begins to change when he saves Public Relations representative Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) from being hit by a train. Although the community isn't happy about the destroyed train, the grateful Embrey invites Hancock to his house to discuss a proposition. Embrey wants to help Hancock become a beloved figure because that's what heroes deserve. Much to Ray's wife Mary's (Charlize Theron) chagrin, Hancock agrees to work to better his image. Using a mix of dark comedy and drama, Hancock sounds great on paper, but the transfer onto the screen is far from impressive.

There are a laundry list of problems that plagued this movie, but the number one reason Hancock suffers is the direction of Peter Berg. It is possible that Hancock could have succeeded as a straight up comedic superhero film that didn't take itself too seriously, but a heavy reliance on drama gave this movie the kiss of death. With such a clever and amusing plot, it is simply nonsensical to focus mainly on the serious aspects of the script. Berg seemed to realize this a little bit, as he did try to sprinkle as much comedy into the film as possible, but the execution was weak and altogether shoddy. It felt like when he was planning it he said, "OK we will have 5 minutes of comedy, then we'll do 15 minutes of serious, and then another 5 minutes of comedy, and then maybe 10 minutes of serious comedy, and then 5 minutes of just serious...." It did not feel authentic is the point I am trying to reach. Boring cinematography paired with cartoonish special effects turn Hancock into not only a visually unappealing film, but a dull film. A summer movie-goer will not be pleased with the scenes of destruction, as the film (despite Hancock's unruly nature) was very tame as far as action goes. Peter Berg messed up big time. (An even bigger mistake than agreeing to star in Corky Romano. God that movie sucked.)

As always Will Smith puts forth a major league effort to make the movie the best that he could. That is something that I have no problem crediting him with. Every film I have seen him in he gives it his all, which is more than I can say for many actors. The problem is, pretty much exactly what I said in my I Am Legend review, Will Smith is a GOOD actor but he is not a GREAT actor. He cannot carry a film on his shoulders without some support. Some may contest that The Pursuit of Happyness negates my opinion, but I have not seen that movie so my opinion stands. I am yet to see a film that Will Smith single-handedly overhauls, and that includes Hancock. Despite his huge effort, Smith's performance is really only enjoyable for the first half of the film. I was entertained as Hancock lackadaisically trudged around being an irritable, unfriendly character. It was when he became a reformed, traditional superhero that I began to lose interest. On top of this, Smith does not get the support he needs from the cast around him. Jason Bateman is always fun to watch, and I did like him in this picture. But there wasn't enough done by him to make the film itself better. The same goes for Charlize Theron, whose character of Mary was just boring. And much to my dismay, Mary becomes an important piece of the films plot. Performances: strike two for this movie.

It was probably difficult work coming up with a completely new superhero to base a movie off of. You can tell the writers had trouble making Hancock unique because his powers are flight, strength, and invincibility. Basically, he's a second rate superman. Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan are the men responsible for this screenplay, and they came very close to making it great. But with the inclusion of a twist that is downright silly and unsatisfying, Hancock's story takes an ugly turn as it tries to be intelligent and creative. Perhaps Peter Berg doesn't deserve the brunt of the blame, and the writers should be chastised for the missteps of Hancock. After a promising start, the story debilitates into incoherence and leaves us with below average fight sequences and an ending that is far too abrupt to be stimulating.

Running at a mere 92 minutes, Hancock does us some good by not dragging out its existence. Any longer, and this movie would be receiving an even lower rating from me. There is a line in one of the commercials for this film where Hancock says "Does it look like I care about what people think?" I think that was filmed accidentally, and it was just Will Smith talking to somebody on the set. Someone told him "You know Will, this movie isn't very good. People are probably going to think you lost your touch", and then he responded with "Does it look like I care what people think? They'll pay to see me and that's all that matters." Only the camera cut before he could include that second statement. I'm kidding of course. I have nothing but respect for Will Smith. I just found it ironic that his character says that line, while critics everywhere are bashing this film. OK it was a stupid joke, let's move on. Hancock is a good idea that is marred by bad direction, performances, and plot development. The only thing saving Hancock from a rating of 2 is an entertaining first act. My rating (4/10)

WALL-E (2008)

2008-07-03T15:57:00.008-04:00

Pixar once again joins the summer line-up, this time with the release of its new film WALL-E. After seeing and despising Ratatouille last year, I held a strong hope in my heart that WALL-E would redeem my respect for Pixar. Although it wasn't exactly what I hoped it would be, WALL-E is, in my opinion, a huge step up from Ratatouille and has brought back the feeling of admiration I once held for this company. After an adorable and clever short entitled Presto, the feature film begins, introducing us to earth 800 years in the future. After years of neglect, humans have left the earth completely overridden with garbage. To try and remedy this situation, major corporation Buy N Large launches a plan to evacuate everybody on earth to outer space on a ship called Axiom while the mess behind them is cleaned. WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) is the small garbage collecting robot that has been charged with the task of cleaning up the disorder. Alone with the exception of a friendly cockroach, WALL-E spends his existence collecting trash, foraging for interesting toys, and watching Hello Dolly. One day while WALL-E is going through his usual motions, a space ship lands on earth and from it comes Eve, a sleek white robot that WALL-E falls for immediately. After a rocky first meeting, WALL-E starts showing Eve around his world, and even performs some dance moves that he picked up from Hello Dolly. When he shows her a small plant that he found, we discover that Eve was sent from the Axiom to find if life could once again be sustained on earth. This plant being proof, she returns to her ship and lifts off, unknowingly carrying WALL-E on the ships' back. Once on the Axiom, we see what humans have been reduced to, carrying out their lives on reclined seats having robots do anything and everything for them. Going deeper into the actual conflict of the film would be giving away the surprise, so I'm afraid I have to stop here.

Like I previously stated, WALL-E is a huge step up from Ratatouille. The main reasons I did not enjoy Ratatouille was due to lack of humor, heart, and enjoyable characters. WALL-E is chock full of all of those things, and more. The curious little robot WALL-E inspires laughter and warmth of the heart simply by being adorable. It seems almost ridiculous to think a box with eyes could be cute, but Pixar knows how to create characters that make an audience say "awwwwwwwww!" WALL-E's voice, provided by Ben Burtt, is comical in its own sense, as it relays an air of innocence mixed with whimsy. The timid and questioning nature of WALL-E is one that I think many children will relate too and enjoy watching. There is also a very endearing love story to appreciate in WALL-E that borders on almost irritatingly adorable. Although Eve is not a particularly interesting character, the way we see her playing off of WALL-E works to perfection. Later in the film when WALL-E boards the Axiom we meet the Captain of the ship, who was voiced by Jeff Garlin. The Captain is also a very amusing addition to the film as a representative of the rest of the people on the ship who have lost touch with the world and only know it from looking at their computer screens.

There is quite a bit of symbolism in WALL-E. Actually, they are not so much symbols as blatant messages that the filmmakers were trying to get us to acknowledge. Showing us an overweight population flowing through life on chairs, not even turning their heads to speak to other people is a bleak foreshadowing of what we have to look forward to if we carry on the way we are. It may sound preachy, but it doesn't make it any less true. To a more mature crowd, these symbols are obvious but for little children, I think this a really effective way to teach them to break the trend and not let laziness overtake their lives. The other messages that convey the fact that big businesses are evil and that neglect for the earth will lead to catastrophe are a bit played out, and I didn't feel as affected by them.

But so far I have only highlighted the positive aspects of WALL-E, and I have been dancing around a fact that is extremely important to mention. WALL-E is boring. Not the entire film, but a good majority of it is. Cute characters and beautiful animations can still not distract me from the fact that for almost all of the film, the only words spoken were "WALL-E" and "Eve". I'm sure it was the filmmakers intention to have us view this film as a work of art and appreciate the animations, and I did that. But just like I said in my Ratatouille review, animations DO NOT make a movie good. They HELP a movie be good, but they don't MAKE a movie good. You still need (or at least I still need) involving interactions and events to keep my eye. Otherwise your attention drifts and you have to make an effort to get back into it. I don't like to expend energy when I watch movies.

WALL-E runs at about 98 minutes, and is entertaining for the first 35 of those minutes. Watching WALL-E explore the trash covered world, picking up random objects and having fun with them made me laugh and kept me into it, and when Eve arrived I was happy to see an interaction between characters. But once WALL-E enters space, the movie becomes an artsy film and relies heavily on its animations. While I was watching it, I felt like I was watching a short film that had been extended to be a full length feature. As a matter of fact, the short film that played before WALL-E, entitled Presto, was just as entertaining as the film itself. It was funny, cute, and clever: 3 things I want from Pixar. In the 3 minutes that the short ran, I laughed out loud more times consecutively than I did for WALL-E, which only gave me intermittent laughs. WALL-E isn't a total loss, as it does provide amusement for some time, its' effects are magnificent, and it sends an excellent message to children about laziness. On a scale of Ratatouille to Toy Story, WALL-E is about A Bug's Life. In other words, my rating (6/10)

Wanted (2008)

2008-06-19T18:02:00.015-04:00

James McAvoy takes on his first major action role in Wanted, this summer's first over the top special effects extravaganza. We have already seen plenty of movies this summer that are action packed and often unbelievable, but only Wanted and it's total disregard for the irrefutable laws of physics made my jaw drop and my eyes widen. McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a bored accountant with a wretched boss, a cheating girlfriend, and no discernible talents that separate him from the faceless crowd of people that work in the cubicles around him. But Wesley's life soon becomes a lot more exciting after a fateful trip to the supermarket. While picking up his annual refill of anxiety medication, he gets caught in the crossfire between two assassins, Fox (Angelina Jolie) and Cross (Thomas Kretschmann). After a well shot car chase, Fox rescues Wesley and brings him to The Fraternity, a group of elite assassins that has been in existence for centuries. Members of the Fraternity have been trained to perform the amazing (and physically impossible) feat of curving bullets to hit targets at any angle. Wesley is then introduced to Sloan (Morgan Freeman), the leader of the Fraternity. Sloan tells Wesley his father was killed by Cross, the assassin that was in the supermarket. Cross had gone rogue and began shooting down Fraternity members one by one. Now he wanted Wesley to hone in his unknown ability to become a great assassin like his father, and track down Cross before he destroys the Fraternity completely.

The last time I saw James McAvoy was in 2006's The Last King of Scotland. In that performance, he proved to me that he was an acting force that would rip through Hollywood like a storm. I was surprised he did not receive an Oscar nomination along with Forest Whitaker in that film. Wanted is a total change of direction for the Scottish actor, and he handles the task like a seasoned professional, really falling into the persona of an ass kicking machine. Although he couldn't quite deliver those one line catch phrases that every action hero always has, he did deliver everything else needed to create an interesting and likeable character that can make even the most gruesome murder look awesome. McAvoy is a tremendous talent and he will carry on a successful career as both an action star and serious actor for many years to come. Angelina Jolie, no stranger to the action hero role takes up the supporting spot in Wanted as Fox, the assassin who trains Wesley to become a killing machine. Her character was a bit one dimensional, but she played the part well and brought what was needed to the table. I'm one of the few men in the world who don't find Jolie attractive, so I couldn't really appreciate the whole "sexy empowered female" aspect of the character. Morgan Freeman is Fraternity leader Sloan and much like Jolie, doesn't bring a lot of dynamics to the film. He plays the part that he was hired to play and that was all. Wanted was basically James McAvoy's opportunity to show off his slick action hero side. That's good enough for me.

Wanted marks the American film debut of Russian-Kazakh director Timur Bekmambetov. I do not know what Bekmambetov's Night Watch series is like because I have not seen it, but from watching Wanted I can tell that he is skilled in the art of overblown action sequences. Him and Michael Bay should hang out. The use of slow motion during fight scenes surprisingly does not get boring and dry, which is good because that effect is used often. The way cars fly through the air in such awkward fashions and then miraculously land right side up is a bit too much like a video game, because it is simply not possible. But plausibility has no business being in this film. It's main purpose is to inspire awe and make ones' adrenaline start pumping, and that's what it did. Although the action sequences in Wanted were top notch, the pacing of the film was a bit erratic. I think Bekmambetov became too intent on keeping the film fast paced, and as a result created a movie that felt rushed. I never thought I would say this about a movie, but perhaps he should have made the film 15 minutes longer to make the transitions a bit easier to handle. The story's progression developed fully, but in a very hasty fashion that did irk me a little bit. Wanted was written by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, the team that wrote the amazing 3:10 to Yuma remake and the not so amazing 2 Fast 2 Furious sequel. Adapting from the comic book series, Brandt and Haas did an excellent job of creating interesting dialogue and keeping a (somewhat) sensible storyline. The twist ending that they wrote was not predictable, and it made for a satisfying resolution.

Now, I really did truly enjoy Wanted. It is one of the best action films I have seen recently. But on top of that, I also got a 99 in physics. And I hate to be "this guy", but I can disprove the whole idea of bending bullets with an explanation right now. So I will. (If you are not interested in a science lesson, please proceed to the next paragraph). The laws of motion state that, for example, if a ball enters a semi-circular tube resting on top of a table, it will obviously follow the path of the tube because it has no other choice. But once that ball reaches the end of the tube, it will not continue following the circular path it was on inside the tube. Instead it will simply roll straight at the point where it was released. The same principle applies for a bullet. If you are flicking your wrist and pulling the trigger, the bullet is obviously moving with the gun because it is still inside the barrel. But once the bullet exits the barrel, it does not continue following the path of the gun. It will go straight at the point from which it exits. Unless my physics teacher lied to me, I'm 95% sure that I'm correct.

Laws of physics aside, Wanted is an exciting summer thriller that will astonish you with impressive stunts and sequences. The 110 minute runtime goes by pretty quickly because of the hasty direction I mentioned earlier, so that gives you one good thing from one bad thing. Don't expect anything more than a good time when you go to see Wanted, and if you ask me, a good time is all you should want from a summer film. My rating (8/10)

You Don't Mess With The Zohan (2008)

2008-06-18T10:00:00.007-04:00

One year after bringing us one of the worst movies of 2007 in the form of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Adam Sandler brings us...one of the worst movies of 2008. You Don't Mess With the Zohan is so unfunny and insulting that it should have been banned from public eyes. Sandler stars as Zohan, an Israeli counter-terrorist who decided he wants to give up his profession to follow his dream. After faking his own death from fighting Palestinian terrorist Phantom (John Turturro), Zohan travels to America in his quest to become a hairdresser for Paul Mitchell. But when he is turned down by almost every hair salon in New York City, he is forced to work for a Palestinian hairdresser named Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui). Isn't it so funny and ironic that this ex Israeli soldier must now work together with someone whose nationality is that of his enemy!? No, it's not. Zohan begins to bring in business for this small beauty salon as he earns a reputation for being a terrific hairdresser, and also because when he's done with your hair he takes you in the back and has sex with you. No, I'm serious, he actually does that. Despite the fact that this is basically prostitution, Dalia allows this to continue because it's bringing her money. There is also a random plot line thrown in more than halfway through the movie that involves a rich tycoon named Walbridge (Michael Buffer. Yes, the guy that says let's get ready to rumblllllllllllllllee!) trying to put Dalia out of business so he can build a mall. How very original. You Don't Mess With the Zohan is full of hummus and hip thrusting, but completely devoid of laughter.

Dennis Dugan, the man who directed many of Sandler's other films including last years terrible Chuck and Larry, once again joins Sandler with You Don't Mess With the Zohan. Dugan's work has never been top notch, but he is at his absolute worst in this film. The scenes are shot with what seems like haste, as if he just wanted to get the movie over with. I don't blame him for that much. Practically every scene is choppy and seems to be held together with scotch tape that's beginning to peel. Judd Apatow has been credited as being a co-writer for You Don't Mess With the Zohan, and I am deeply saddened by this fact. To think he had anything to do with this completely laughless debacle is so depressing. Sandler's writing has always been known to be childish, but the subject matter of this film is far too adult for children to understand. And for anybody older the age of 13, you will understand the subject matter but not laugh because the jokes are still far too childish. Mr. Sandler, you are 41 years of age. Perhaps it is time to give up this act and start working on a more serious career, because you have shown potential for one in the past. The fact that the Zohan takes five jokes from the first ten minutes of the film and then repeats them through the entirety of the 113 minutes tells me that you have officially run out of originality and are reliant on used gags. We get it, Zohan likes hummus, thrusting his hips, and having sex with any woman that he wants...do something else! Grow up. It felt like Sandler spent more time wondering how he could sprinkle his buddies into the film rather than writing a good film.

Sandler's acting in You Don't Mess With the Zohan is just as detestable as his writing. He takes his character Zohan and makes him an unappealing person that is not funny but just annoying. Oh, and if you are able to understand more than 50% of what he is saying through his terrible fake accent, congratulations. I found myself having to sound out words in my head in order to comprehend what he was talking about. When I finally did figure out what he said, I was left unsatisfied at the tacky joke that it turned out to be. Actually, everybody in this garbage heap had a terrible accent. I probably understood only 60% of the dialogue in the entire film. Even Chris Rock who appears in the movie for under a minute as a Jamaican cab driver had a terrible accent. The only thing I picked up from him speaking is that he likes Chinese food. That's not funny. Emmanuelle Chriqui is Dalia, the Palestinian salon owner that hires Zohan. She doesn't use a heavy accent, but it didn't matter. She was still awful. Zohan's arch-enemy Phantom was played by John Turturro and it's as if he didn't even try. There is no other way of saying it. Nick Swardson plays Michael, a New Yorker who takes in Zohan when he first arrives to the city. (Zohan thanks him by having sex with Michael's mother. Funny, right?). I am a fan of Swardson and I thought he was hilarious in Grandma's Boy, another Happy Madison production. But he is a very R rated comedian, and the Zohan's PG-13 rating held back Swardson's potential, thus wasting him as an asset. There are plenty of other cameos from Sandler's associates such as Kevin James, John McEnroe, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider. None are funny. Actually, that is not true. The only funny part in the entire film goes to Dave Matthews (that's right, of the Dave Matthew's Band) as a redneck who threatens a cage of puppies. It's not hilarious, but it is the only part I laughed out loud at. As far as Michael Buffer's part of the plot goes, he shows up late in the film, has two lines, and then it's over. Blink and you'll miss him.

In an attempt to make You Don't Mess With the Zohan somewhat meaningful, Sandler explores interactions between Palestinians and Israelis in New York. This is possibly where Judd Apatow fit in to this whole project, as he shows a great aptitude for sincerity. By showing us the encounters of these two groups in New York as opposed to the Middle East, we were supposed to see that we are not all so different in a very lighthearted way. But it is very hard to feel this way when the interactions are spent talking about which politicians wives you would have sex with. Although, the message was pounded into my brain that war is bad and it is not OK to assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are not from here. But these are two things I learned from my parents and teachers long ago. I didn't need Adam Sandler to try and explain it to me. What I do need is Adam Sandler to make a funny movie, and he did not do that.

I deeply considered walking out on You Don't Mess With the Zohan, but I was with someone so I could not leave. As I mentioned before, the film is 113 minutes, and is absolutely excruciating. What makes it even worse is that the jokes in this movie do not stop coming. There is one joke right after another. This wouldn't be so bad if any of those jokes were actually funny! Do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to watch a movie that deals out jokes left and right but not a single hit lands? You will if you watch this movie. When the end credits finally began to roll, I practically sprinted out of the theater. Avoid this film like the plague. No wait, I have a better idea. Go to your local theater, break into the projector room, steal this film, take it to the beach, put it in a garbage pail, and start a bonfire with it. At least that way it could provide you with some fun. My rating (1/10)

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

2008-06-14T08:23:00.007-04:00

Riding hard on the coat-tails of Iron Man is Marvel's next superhero adventure, The Incredible Hulk. To clear up any discrepancies you may have about whether this film is a remake of or a sequel to Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk, it is neither. The Incredible Hulk is simply a "revisiting" to the character with a different approach. In other words, the first movie sucked, so they started over. The new film finds Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), a once leading scientist on the run in Brazil five years after he was exposed to the gamma rays that gave him his incredible abilities. He is being chased by General Ross (William Hurt), the man who inadvertently caused Banner's change while trying to create a new weapon for the army. When Ross finally tracks down Banner, he enlists the help of decorated soldier Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to bring him in. When Blonsky witnesses the Hulk's power first-hand, he volunteers himself to undergo a procedure much like Banner did, only with a controlled dose. Meanwhile, in the search for a cure, Banner finds his way back to the States where he is reunited with the love of his life Betty Ross (Liv Tyler). The two meet up with Banner's internet pen pal Dr. Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson), who has been working tirelessly to come up with a cure. But the army is hot on Banner's tail, and they finally capture him after years of pursuit. While this is happening, Blonsky becomes obsessed with becoming a super soldier, and forces Sterns to make him into a creature much like the Hulk. From this, the Abomination is born. Banner must now become the Hulk in order to save the city from destruction.

I must admit that in my personal opinion, the Hulk is the least interesting superhero from both the Marvel and DC universes. The idea of having a superhero who's main enemy is himself is far from, well, incredible. But even with this mentality, I was able to thoroughly enjoy The Incredible Hulk for what it was. A major reason this film works is Edward Norton. Much like Robert Downey Jr. represented billionaire playboy Tony Stark in a believable fashion, Norton convincingly plays scientist Bruce Banner. Whoever is in charge of casting for Marvel movie heroes should get a promotion. However, his performance was far from outstanding, as I was hoping to see a little bit more from him. I do not feel he properly acknowledged the potential that his character had. Even so, he was able to keep an air of suspense present throughout the film and his performance felt authentic. Although his performance was very good, it did seem magnificent compared to the complete and utter disaster that was Liv Tyler's Betty Ross. Emotionless, uninvolving, annoying, laughable at the wrong times: these are just a few ways to describe her performance. I would not be surprised if her name appears on the Razzie ballot for Worst Actress. Luckily enough for Tyler, she was surrounded by enough talent in Norton and William Hurt to save basically every scene she appeared in. Hurt plays her army general father Thaddeus Ross, and he did a very believable job of it. He played it with the gruff attitude and stern demeanor that a General would need, especially in periods of distress. Hurt is also accompanied by one of the greatest mustaches I've seen in recent movie history. I think it is accurate to say that William Hurt's mustache provided more entertainment by doing nothing than Liv Tyler did by "acting". The role of Emil Blonsky was very well cast, as Tim Roth did a terrific job with the part. Even though the Abomination isn't the coolest villain around, the character of Blonsky was very interesting to watch, and I sensed that Roth really became this role. At no point did I feel that Roth wasn't trying his hardest to achieve the best results from Blonsky. Tim Blake Nelson plays the eccentric Dr. Samuel Sterns and pretty much does his job. He acts eccentrically. In this film Nelson's role was pretty minor, but if there is a sequel he will be a crucial character.

The Incredible Hulk was directed by Louis Leterrier, who had previously helmed Transporter 2. With that under his belt, it makes sense that the action sequences in The Incredible Hulk were remarkable. There is something about watching two giant blobs of CGI (Hulk and Abomination) hurl cars at each other that is simply awe inspiring. By calling them "two giant blobs of CGI" I do not intend to insult the film, because it really did look fantastic. I only call them that because, well, they are two giant blobs of CGI. But Letterier's direction was very much a mixed bag. Some scenes were shot with such beauty and professionalism that I would be floored with astonishment. But then other scenes would be so cheesy and amateurish that I would shift uncomfortably in my seat thinking "Ouch, that was awkward". Letterier also did something which I cannot stand, and that is overuse dramatic rain sequences. At most, a film could have two dramatic rain sequences, but they MUST be at least 45 minutes apart. Letterier brought us two in a matter of 15 minutes. Yes he can film one hell of an incredible action scene, but the man cannot do serious very well.

A major reason I enjoyed The Incredible Hulk was it's pace. I should also credit director Louis Letterier with an ability to keep a film alive, not allowing it to sag any more than it should at any given time. At just under 2 hours, the time seems to fly by as the story unfolds so steadily you'll find yourself in disbelief that you are already watching the final battle (much like I was). It was said that over 70 minutes of footage was cut from The Incredible Hulk, and thank goodness it was. The 114 minutes in the final print were entertainment enough, we don't need a 3+ hour epic. In the version sent to theaters, every scene had a purpose and no of them were dull. Keep your 70 minutes, we don't want them.

When it comes down to it, the Hulk is the lamest of the superheroes, but this film certainly makes him seem more interesting than he is. Some very good performances and some great directing (50% of the time) really make The Incredible Hulk worth a watch. The dialogue at times is choppy and contrived, but I found myself overlooking that fact. Not without its fair share of flaws, The Incredible Hulk is still a fun summer film with intense action sequences that aren't too dizzying or incomprehensive (::cough:: Spiderman 3 ::cough::). Marvel, you are 2 for 2. My rating (7/10)

Oh, and if you were as excited as I was about the after the credits scene of Iron Man, you're going to love the final two lines of this film. (There is no after credits scene, I figure I'll save you 10 minutes)

Tape (2001)

2008-06-05T19:02:00.007-04:00

I've decided to take a quick time out from reviewing larger films to bring attention to an independent film that most of you have probably never heard of. Tape is the story of Vince (Ethan Hawke) and Jon (Robert Sean Leonard), two friends from high school that have been reunited in a small motel room in Michigan. Jon has done a lot of growing up since high school, pursuing a career in film making, and even has his movie playing at a small film festival. Vince, on the other hand, deals drugs and in his spare time is a volunteer fire fighter (the fire chief is one of his top clients). When Jon is asked by Vince to come to his hotel room, he figured the night would be spent reminiscing and maybe getting a bite to eat. He was partially correct. Soon after arriving, Vince begins to press Jon about a girl, Amy, they both dated back in high school. Jon tries to defend himself from Vince's accusations, but after some time he angrily admits to doing something wrong. At this point tensions rise even further as Jon discovers Vince has not only recorded their conversation but he has invited Amy (Uma Thurman) to join them in the hotel room. Once she arrives, the three struggle to determine fact from fiction from three differing views.

Originally a one act play by Stephen Belber, Tape takes place in a single room with only then three characters I previously mentioned. The camera is out of focus, and given the small surrounding there wasn't much to be done with the cinematography. But what is delivered in Tape is a taught, well written performance piece that will ensnare you in its conflict. Vince is played effectively by Ethan Hawke, who seemed very fit to play the part. He was very believable as the jerk who never grew out of high school and always wanted things his way. His seemingly oblivious exterior makes it all the more startling when we discover his mind is indeed not vacant, but filled with cunning and trickery. Robert Sean Leonard plays Jon Salter, who gets blindsided by Vince's spontaneous outburst of deceit. Leonard gives a great performance of varied emotions throughout the film. He is able to flow from easygoing, to confused, to angry, back to confused, back to angry, and then finally repentant. Rounding out the cast is Uma Thurman, who plays Amy Randall. Since high school, Amy has moved on and is now an Assistant District Attorney. But upon entering that hotel room, memories are brought back to life, causing her grief once more. Thurman arrives more than halfway through the film, and her intial performance isn't much to write about. As her story progresses, we begin to see more emotion from her as she jumps on the bandwagon of good performances.

Although it is a very good film, Tape does have several flaws that were problematic. The main issue is length. Now, the actual running time of the film is only about 86 minutes, which in any other case is too short. But for a film that takes place in a single room where the same characters continually talk and talk and talk, a good 16 minutes could have been chopped off. Most of the dialogue was alluring, but not ALL of the dialogue was alluring. And watching a couple of people sit in a hotel room and talk about something your not interested in can really make time slow down. Another problem is Vince. In the beginning and middle of Tape, Vince is a portrayed as a jerk, but you still enjoy watching his character. But after a while, he really begins to get on your nerves. His toying with Jon is supposed to be clever, but simply comes off as childish. Hawke's performance was very good as I stated, but his character is a different story.

A solid indie flick, Tape is not going to entertain you with action or thrills, but rather performances and writing. If you somehow stumble on this movie, do not toss it aside. My rating (7/10)

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

2008-05-27T17:58:00.013-04:00

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp join forces for the sixth time to create Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Based on the Stephen Sondheim musical, Burton brings us the darkest and quite possibly the best film of his career. Sweeney Todd is the story of Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), a barber who had a happy life with a beautiful wife and a precious baby girl. But there was another man who sought to remove Barker from the picture and place himself at Lucy's (Barker's wife) side. That man is the corrupt Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) who along with his grotesque confidant Beadle Bamford (Timothy Spall) places a false charge on Barker, sending him to prison for 15 years. When the barber returns to London, he starts a new life with a new haircut as Sweeney Todd. Upon returning home, he meets Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), the purveyor of the self proclaimed "worst pies in London". Lovett tells Todd that Lucy poisoned herself years ago and his daughter Johanna (Jayne Wisener) is now under the care of Judge Turpin. Enraged, Todd begins slitting the throats of his barber shop patrons waiting for the opportunity to get his revenge on the judge and once again be reunited with his daughter.

If you have seen a Tim Burton film in the past, you should know of his keen ability to create a bizarre atmosphere through the use of unusual sets and characters. His work in Sweeney Todd is no exception, as Burton brings a dark and dreary London to life. The streets that are hidden by shadows in the middle of the day is a subtle metaphor for the cruelty and corruption of the men who live there. With brilliant cinematography, Burton entices and disturbs the audience without being too overbearing. The scenes move with fluidity comparable to the blood that streams from Todd's victims throats. Excellent songs placed in the perfect spots during scenes keep the movie at a steady pace without boring the audience.

But Sweeney Todd would not be the great movie that it was without the brilliant performance from Johnny Depp, who plays the titular character. Worthy of an Oscar, Depp epitomizes the vengeful barber with a chilling perfection. The authenticity with which he portrays Todd is almost startling. His stone faced demeanor exemplifies the anger and pain that is swirling around in this character's mind like a tornado. His expressionless eyes are unwavering, showing the bleakness that lies within him. I also must say this his singing is spot on, and his rough voice is perfectly in line with the movies tone. When I heard that Helena Bonham Carter would be playing Mrs. Lovett, I thought "Oh how surprising, Tim Burton cast his wife in yet another of his movies." To my dismay, Bonham Carter actually did a very good job. Perhaps she was cast because she actually deserved it. Although her performance wasn't a knockout, she seemed very fit to play the ever lively Mrs. Lovett. Her vocal range was a bit limited, but she was able to hold a tune well and provide some solid musical numbers. Alan Rickman gives a very strong performance as Judge Turpin. Rickman, who usually has the same facial expression no matter what movie he is in, always manages to put together an entertaining act. Facial expressions mean nothing when he can so vividly show the internal hideousness of this most foul man. Although his voice doesn't seem to be suited for a musical, he only sings one song and it is a duet with Johnny Depp, a favorite scene of mine. Even though Depp gives the best performance in the film, my favorite performance has to be that of Timothy Spall as the Beadle Bamford. A beady eyed, slimy looking man, the Beadle is an outwardly ugly character that mirrors the Judge's inner unattractiveness. Spall is unforgettable and utterly revolting, which exactly what his character was supposed to be. Sacha Baron Cohen also makes an appearance in the film, but it's only for about 5 minutes. Don't worry about it.

When you watch Sweeney Todd, be sure to have the volume up really high so you don't miss a second of the outstanding score. A risk that comes from making a musical is that every song must be good, because one boring song can displace the attention of the audience for an extended period of time. Luckily, Sweeney Todd hits every note and does not bore. One criticism I do have of the film is that the plot itself does begin to wear thin later in the film. You start to feel that anxious feeling that you get when your waiting for something to end, a feeling that no movie ever wants to provoke. This is no matter, as the tragic ending is perfect, capping off a great movie with a surprising end. Watch this film. Twice. In one day. You'll like it. My rating (9/10)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

2008-05-25T19:43:00.006-04:00

Intrepid archaeologist Indiana Jones returns to the big screen after 19 years in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Before I begin, I must make something clear. I have seen many critics reviews of this film that do nothing but compare it to the original trilogy. I find this to be terribly unfair, and I am here to review this film as a singular piece of work. Harrison Ford stars as the title character Indiana Jones, a professor who insists that the best way to become a great archaeologist is to get out of the library. In this new adventure, Indy faces a new enemy in the form of the Soviets, specifically Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett). Spalko is a leading scientist that specializes in the study of psychic ability. Her search for knowledge has brought her to Jones, who she hopes can lead her to a source of earth shattering power: a crystal skull. Legends say that whoever returns the crystal skull to its rightful place will be given control over the power it possesses. With some help from old flame Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) and her son Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf), Indy must race against the Soviets to keep this magnificent power out of their grasp. With lots of old style action sprinkled with new age effects, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a fun ride that is thoroughly entertaining.

There is something that has really bugged me about other critics reviews of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and that is the recurring theme of calling it "too farfetched". Are we supposed to believe that the previous 3 Indiana Jones films were not farfetched? In Raiders of the Lost Ark, spirits rose from the ark of the covenant and obliterated Nazis. In Temple of Doom, men had their heart removed from their body, yet they continued to live. In The Last Crusade, a centuries old knight guarded the cup of Christ, and a man drank from the cup and melted. Yet all of these films are considered classic adventure films. So why not Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Yes the inclusion of aliens in the plot may be a bit over the top, but when has the Indiana Jones series not been over the top?

I am not saying Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is flawless, as it is far from it. I do believe that the plot was a bit flimsy, but it became overshadowed by the excellent direction of Steven Spielberg. He will not be winning any Oscars for this film, but Spielberg fluently expresses his knack for creating an exciting feature that knows how to make your heart race. The action sequences in Crystal Skull are very well put together, and Spielberg does a good job of keeping everything within reason. At times, especially in the beginning, Crystal Skull was very bogged down and uninteresting, but once you make it over that hump, Spielberg does not disappoint. Once the pace begins to increase it stays that way and keeps you content.

Harrison Ford proves age is not an obstacle as the dauntless Indiana Jones. At age 65, Ford still makes it seem seamless to encompass the role of the audacious adventurer that we have come to know and love. He seems almost born to play this role. Ford's on screen charm is highly contagious as he seems to illuminate the rest of the cast as well as arouse joy and interest in the audience. Cate Blanchett lays on the thick Russian accent as villainess Irina Spalko. Blanchett scowls her way through the majority of the film, not providing the high caliber performance one would expect from an actress of her level. Shia Labeouf once again proves himself to be a strong young actor as Mutt Williams. Working along with Ford, Labeouf's performance is often times able to keep the movie afloat during those sinking moments that popped up every now and again. I would not be surprised if we see an Indiana Jones 5 that places Labeouf as the lead, and I would welcome this change with open arms. The resurgence of Karen Allen's character Marion Ravenwood seems a bit contrived, especially since she played such a small part in the film. It felt as though the only reason she was there is so that Spielberg could give us the ending that he did. Near the end of the film, I had actually forgotten Allen was even in the movie, because she seemed to blend in with the scenery.

There is one thing you must remember before watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And that is to not expect anything. It is one thing to hope for a movie to be good, and a completely different thing to expect a movie to be good. Having an expectation is another way of having a bias. If you are expecting another Raiders of the Lost Ark, you are not going to get one. Expectations can ruin a movie. Watch Crystal Skull as a single film, and then afterwards you may rank it amongst the other films in the series if you like, but do not judge it by the standards set by the other films.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a solid adventure flick that is not lacking flaws, but is also not lacking excitement. Even with a slow going first 20 minutes, the film picks up momentum that is culminated to a final scene that is visually stunning and beautiful. Crystal Skull does not reinvent the Indiana Jones franchise, but simply continues it as though it never left us. Worth multiple viewings, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a fine addition to the franchise and although it may not be everything you wished for, it is a very good film. My Rating (7.5/10)

Evan Almighty (2007)

2008-05-24T19:33:00.005-04:00

Steve Carrell stars in Evan Almighty, a comedy event of biblical proportions. A follow-up to 2003's Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty falls prey to the same predictable storyline and unfunny performances as its predecessor. The movie centers on Evan Baxter (Steve Carrell), a news anchorman turned Congressman who has just moved into a new house with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham) and his 3 sons. Baxter just begins settling into his new job, and even manages to get his name placed on a major bill with head Congressman Long (John Goodman). But Evan's life is thrown awry when the God (Morgan Freeman) himself comes and asks Evan to complete a holy mission. He is to build an ark in preparation for an upcoming flood. Evan's everyday life soon becomes overrun with extra facial hair and animals (2 of each, hardy har har), as he attempts to build his giant boat all while trying to convince his family and everyone else that he is not insane. Evan Almighty is chock full of silly slapstick and bird feces, but is completely void of entertainment and merit.

Jim Carrey and Jennifer Aniston were smart enough to turn down roles in this witless, uninspiring sequel. Tom Shadyac returns as director, and doesn't do a terrible job I must admit. One of the few things that were respectable about Evan Almighty was the special effects. The majority of the film was not impressive, but the scenes where the ark is in action were executed pretty well. Steve Oedekerk, who wrote Bruce Almighty, also returned to pen this screenplay. You can tell the same man wrote both scripts because the dialogue is dry and the progression of both films is not carried very well at all. Evan Almighty becomes a chore to sit through and sometimes becomes unintentionally unbearable.

Steve Carrell does the best that he can with the material he was given as Evan Baxter. Unfortunately, Carrell is reduced to goofball antics to try and get cheap laughs out of the young viewers in the audience. Several times his performance reminded me of an unfunny copy of his character Michael Scott on The Office. It became very visible that Carrell was digging as deep as he could to produce funny material, but came up short every time. Oscar winner Morgan Freeman renews his role as God because he probably had time to kill before The Dark Knight began filming. Freeman appears to be going through the motions and didn't provoke any response, spiritual or emotional, from me even as he gives a speech on the true meaning of the story of Noah. I was simply unimpressed. John Goodman acts as the "villain" of the movie Congressman Long. I watched Evan Almighty twice and I'm still unsure as to why he is the bad guy, but I just played along. Goodman does an OK job here, although it sometimes feels like pulling teeth when he has to look menacing and be disgruntled. A truly awful performance would be the way to describe Lauren Graham's portrayal of a distressed wife of a possibly crazy husband. I was not convinced that this woman was feeling any kind of emotional unrest, and there was not a hint of chemistry between her and Carrell. Comedian Wanda Sykes also has a role in Evan Almighty as Evan's assistant Rita. Basically, whether you enjoy her presence is based on whether you hate her or like her. I hate her. The one genuinely funny performance is given by Jonah Hill, who has previously shown his comedic talents in films such as Superbad and Knocked Up. His role in Evan Almighty is very small, but his on screen charisma and ability to deliver deadpan comedy makes every scene he is in enjoyable.

Evan Almighty is a family friendly film and I do not doubt that some children will enjoy the grade school humor and the cute little animals. But for anybody age 14 and up, this film will just be unsatisfying schlock. Evan Almighty was the most expensive comedy film ever made, but tanked at the box office only bring back slightly more than half its budget. I take some solace in this fact because it tells me that people do have self control and won't spend money to see anything that is put in front of them. Maybe this stand can be taken for movies such as Epic Movie and Date Movie, and we can keep those sequels from soiling our country. In the meantime, don't bother watching Evan Almighty. My rating (4/10)

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

2008-05-10T08:27:00.011-04:00

A dysfunctional family brings us one of the most boring dark comedies of all time in the form of Little Miss Sunshine. Despite receiving critical acclaim and an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor and nominations for Best supporting Actress and Best Picture, Little Miss Sunshine does little to inspire, impress, or entertain. The story centers on the Hoover family, 6 people who have been given tragic flaws that are meant to inspire sincerity and care, but instead you just feel overwhelmed by the overabundance of problems. You have the financially challenged father Richard (Greg Kinnear), the previously divorced wife Sheryl (Toni Collette), the heroine addicted grandfather simply called Grandpa throughout the film (Alan Arkin), the angry-at-the-world son Dwayne (Paul Dano), the suicidal Uncle Frank (Steve Carrell), and the beauty pageant daughter who is far from beauty pageant material Olive (Abigail Breslin). When Olive wins a regional beauty pageant (by default), she is invited to participate in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, which is apparently a big deal. But the only way for her to attend would be to have her entire family drive 800 miles in an old Volkswagon Bus. As you can probably imagine, once these 6 implacable forces get inside a cramped van, drama ensues, ties become unraveled, and even some dreams become crushed. I would go deeper into detail about each character's own little story, but I don't have the time at the moment (friggin homework).

Never before have I disliked so many characters in one movie. Of Little Miss Sunshine's 6 main characters, only 3 were bearable. When you only have 3 good characters surrounded by 3 annoying characters for an entire movie, you don't have a very good film. Greg Kinnear's Richard Hoover was a genuine, certified, licensed and approved, jackass. I felt no sympathy for him as he continuously dug his family a bigger grave with his stubborn attitude. Granted, his character was probably meant to come off as a jerk, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The writers made him too overbearing and utterly intolerable. I was deeply annoyed by Toni Collette as Sheryl. Of the family, she was one of the least messed up, but I still could not care less about what she was doing or saying. The lack of interest in these 2 characters alone made it near impossible to watch Little Miss Sunshine. Alan Arkin received the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that I previously mentioned, and I don't know why. Arkin was very entertaining to watch in this film, but given the people he was nominated against (Mark Wahlberg for The Departed, Jackie Earle Haley for Little Children) there is no fathomable reason for him to have won. He did provide for I'd say 95% of the comedy in the movie, but he didn't astound me into giving him an Oscar. Abigail Breslin also received an undeserved award nomination, as little Olive Hoover: the little stout girl who dreams of being a beauty pageant queen. Sure it's a cute concept, but Breslin did nothing remarkable with her character. She is a child actor that acted like a child. That's quite the stretch. Little Miss Sunshine is not completely void of interesting people. Steve Carrell and Paul Dano both give stellar performances and if anything, they should've received Oscar nominations. The budding friendship that forms throughout the film between the suicidal Frank and voluntarily mute Dwayne gave the movie a feeling of substance and was the only thing that held my interest. Dano alone should be praised as a wonderful talent for bringing hope to this lackluster movie.

Little Miss Sunshine was in development hell for a while, and perhaps they should've kept it their for a little while longer. The potential to be a great film and being a great film are two very different things, and Little Miss Sunshine never realizes its potential to cross the line and become great. The movie begins to turn extremely unwatchable at the 3/4 mark, after a significant event occurs to a significant character. The ending itself was neither heartwarming nor fulfilling, and was simply too much of a blatant attempt at comedy that didn't fit in with the rest of the movies subtle dark humor. I must admit, the first time I watched Little Miss Sunshine I did enjoy it. But one main part of being a great film is durability. Can this film endure multiple viewings and still be good? No. I watched Little Miss Sunshine two more times and both times I found new reasons to dislike it. If you want to watch this film, do it once and then never again. My rating (5/10)

Iron Man (2008)

2008-04-30T16:55:00.009-04:00

The summer kicks off with its first superhero movie of the year, Iron Man. The first film fully produced by Marvel, Iron Man can quite possibly be one of the best superhero movies in recent history. Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark, a billionaire playboy that specializes in weapons manufacturing and is known around the world for his callous nature. While showcasing a new weapon in Afghanistan, Stark is kidnapped by a group of terrorists who are forcing him to create a weapon for them to use. But crafty Stark has some tricks up his sleeves, as he instead builds a suit of metal that allows him to destroy anything and everything. Upon his return home, Stark has a revelation about the dangers he has unleashed to the world, and from that moment on he vows to protect those who he has put in harms way. Using the schematics he made in Afghanistan, Tony builds the famous red and gold suit that transforms him into Iron Man. He makes it his job to save the world, and he must start by defeating his double crossing business partner Obediah Stone (Jeff Bridges).

There are so many great things to say about Iron Man, that I have no idea where to begin. I suppose I should start with Robert Downey Jr., who's performance is nothing short of perfect. Downey Jr completely epitomizes all that Stark is: a careless, womanizing, quick witted, minor alcoholic, yet remarkably likeable jerk. Portraying Tony Stark seemed perfectly natural for Downey Jr, and truly was an excellent performance. Throughout the film, he was able to maintain a comedic overtone that fit in remarkably well in between the scenes of action and drama. Jeff Bridges was a very convincing bad guy as Obediah Stone, Tony Stark's business associate that becomes the Iron Monger. Completely unrecognizable as a bald man with a beard, Bridges delivers in superb fashion as Iron Man's nemesis. His supporting role contributed an extra boost to the film, and serves as a very good character foil to Tony Stark. Gwenyth Paltrow is Tony Stark's assistant Pepper Potts, who is practically Tony's only family or friend. Paltrow (looking exceptionally beautiful) was a lot of fun in this film, and did a pretty good job of displaying the confusing feelings she has for her boss. Every superhero has to have their love interest, but another thing that makes this film great is that it doesn't throw the romance at you right away. From watching recent Spiderman and Superman movies, you can see romance has kind of overtaken the plot, leaving the viewer with a feeling of almost disgust. Iron Man does not bend and break to this convention, which I find to be very impressive. Rounding off the cast is Terrance Howard who plays Jim Rhodes, decorated army soldier and also pal of Stark. The only thing I have to say about him is to all you comic fans out there, expect a sidekick in Iron Man 2 (and yes, with 104 million dollars opening weekend there will be one).

When I first heard that Jon Favreu was directing Iron Man, I wasn't too happy. Elf was pretty good, and I don't think anybody saw Zathura, but I just didn't think Favreu had what it took to be a superhero movie director. Well I have never been happier to be proved wrong in my life. Iron Man was extremely well put together, and if their ever is an Avengers movie, Favreu should be the one to direct it. He manages to keep a stable level of intensity throughout the action sequences without an excessive use of CGI. Favreu also made use of a technique that I find very effective, which is lack of music during some fighting scenes. This allowed for us to here every thud and clang made by Iron Man, making me feel as though I was there with him.

Iron Man is not completely a summer action flick with no mind though. It address an issue that is running wild in our day, which is the question of weapons manufacturing. Who are these manufacturers really helping? When Tony Stark starts the movie as a heartless war monger, you believe that there is nothing wrong with trying to protect our country by any means necessary. Yet as the movie continues on and his character arc begins to unfold, you see that that way of thinking is flawed, and that we should try to find an alternative to war. This message lies underneath the movie's exterior, which means it doesn't blatantly shove itself into our minds, so if we want to ignore it, we can.

I saw Iron Man 2 days ago, and in that time I have managed to come up with 0 negative comments to make about this film. The only thing that comes close to a negative comment is that I feel the final battle was a bit too short, but given the magnificent hour and 45 minutes that preceded it, I was still fulfilled. Iron Man doesn't suffer from any of the cliches of action hero cinema. The storyline was engaging and kept my interest thoughout, and will continue to hold my interest for as long as this franchise lives. The script was not complicated, nor was the integrity of the film ruined by special effects (You hear that makers of Spiderman, special effects DON'T make a movie!). Iron Man provides sustained entertainment for all of its (approximate) 2 hour runtime, and I would be more than willing to pay another price of admission to see it again. And a word to the wise, stay for after the credits. It is SO worth it. My Rating: (10/10)

P.S.- I am aware of the fact that I have just given a superhero movie the same rating as No Country For Old Men, The Shining, and A Clockwork Orange. I am not high, this film seriously deserves it.

The Mist (2007)

2008-04-26T19:49:00.009-04:00

Frank Darabont takes on Stephen King's work yet again by tackling The Mist. Darabont previously directed The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, two films based on Stephen King works, and two films that were absolutely brilliant. Given these past projects, Darabont has a lot of weight on his shoulders to make another masterpiece. The Mist is by no means a masterpiece, but it is an accomplishment that Darabont should be proud of.

Thomas Jane plays David Drayton, a man who lives with his wife and son in a small town in Maine. After an intense storm strikes, an unexplainable mist begins to float through the town. In the beginning, nobody paid any mind to this strange phenomena. But while David and his son Billy (Nathan Gamble) are shopping at the local supermarket, a fellow townie bursts through the doors raving about creatures in the mist. The supermarket is locked from the inside as the mist engulfs it, cutting off the townspeople from the rest of the world. As the threat of monsters becomes more and more real, the desperate inhabitants of the store begin to look for any possible solution to save themselves. A local bible nut named Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) rises from the crowd to offer salvation through God's will. As the townsfolk begin to choose sides, tension rises in the small store, raising the question, "Who are the real monsters: those outside the store, or those on the inside?"

The Mist is Frank Darabont's first horror film, and he handles the task very well. Acting as director and writer, he does an excellent job of balancing the threat of the monsters and the irrationality of man. With this movie, Darabont shows us what would happen if our life was suddenly cut off by taking away all of our lifelines. The way the characters are shown degenerating into thoughtless drones who flock to anybody that offers hope is an effective commentary on how dependent we are on others. The monsters created by Darabont are in fact scary if not terrifying. The wide variety of creatures that he unleashed to the world kept me eager to see what would appear next. The cinematography was pretty plain, but given the restricted environment he had to work with, Darabont made do with what he had. Fancy camera work was not necessary though, as the true feat was capturing the feeling of desperation and dread on camera. The dialogue at times became stale and sometimes hackneyed, but the rest of the script was well paced and did a good job at getting it's message across.

Thomas Jane does a good job in his role as David, the level headed family man who is just trying to keep his son safe. I say a good job because he neither dazzled me with an outstanding performance nor did he bore me with a terrible one. His compassion for his son felt real and overall Jane was entertaining to watch. But the person who really deserves attention for her performance is Marcia Gay Harden. As God-obsessed Mrs. Carmody, Harden personifies a character who is not particularly likable, but indeed a persuasive and even manipulative hierarch. Chances are you will greatly dislike Mrs. Carmody, but that just goes to show how great Harden's performance is. The rest of the supporting cast provide little as far as entertainment is concerned, with the exception of Toby Jones, who played a supermarket worker named Ollie. Actually, Ollie turned out to be my favorite character of the entire movie. If you watch, you will find out why.

It has been a good year for Stephen King films. First 1408 sent shivers down our spine as one man's life unravels before our eyes, and now The Mist has come to frighten us by showing what happens when you tear the fabric of human nature. Frank Darabont has proved himself to be a great director who has a knack for digging into the core of human emotion. But I cannot say The Mist is without fault. It does indulge in some horror cliches, and Darabont's new ending will definitely be way too much for some to handle. The bitterly ironic ending left me feeling absolutely terrible, and I actually felt like crying when I saw it. Thinking back on it, it wasn't a bad ending, but it was far too depressing to be considered great. Aside from that, The Mist was a very good film, and I recommend it. My Rating: (7.5/10)

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)

2008-04-22T09:37:00.005-04:00

The Judd Apatow gang take on spoof comedy in Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story. John C. Reilly plays Dewey Cox, who at a young age, chopped his brother Nate in half with a machete. This tragedy brought contempt towards him from his father, forcing him to leave home with his girlfriend at age 14. Feeling guilty about killing his extremely talented brother, Dewey decides to be double great, for the both for them. Walk Hard follows Dewey's life from his humble beginning's in the music business, to becoming a drug addicted egomaniac. Making fun of everybody from Johnny Cash to The Beatles, Walk Hard reminds me of what a spoof comedy should be. Funny.

Unlike recent spoof movies such as Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, Superhero Movie, and many many others that make me want to vomit, Walk Hard does not rely on pop culture to make it's jokes funny and relevant. What it does rely on is actual comedic ability, and the writers and stars of Walk Hard have plenty of that. In the past year and a half, Judd Apatow has continually proven that he is a force to be reckoned with in the comedic industry. He is very talented in being able to tell what is funny from what is stupid. It has reached a point in time where whenever you see the tag "Apatow Productions" in a movie's credits, you are guaranteed a great movie. Walk Hard marks John C. Reilly's first attempt at being the front man in a comedy film, and he masters the task with ease. Along with an excellent supporting cast consisting of Jenna Fischer, Tim Meadows, Kristin Wiig, and many others, Walk Hard sticks it to every biopic about a musician in recent years. Perhaps the best part of Walk Hard are the other people being spoofed, such as Elvis, The Beatles, and Bob Dylan.

The one downfall of making a spoof movie is the fact that there are going to be a lot of jokes that are hit and miss. Walk Hard is no exception to this fact, especially once you start to get near the end of the movie. The hit and miss ratio begins to shrink greatly once you get past the hour and a half mark. Length is another flaw for this film. Much like Apatow's past movies like Superbad and Knocked Up, the movie begins to sag as you feel like they should be just about wrapping things up. Walk Hard degenerates near the end of its run, as it completely drops its premise and basically jumps off the deep end and does whatever it wants. Luckily, the very end of the film puts things back on track and keeps you satisfied. I also must give kudos to those who wrote the songs featured in Walk Hard. Even with the nonsensical lyrics, I enjoyed basically every song that was sung.

It is about time somebody made a spoof movie that didn't suck, and it makes sense that that somebody would be Judd Apatow. Next time you are in the mood for a GOOD spoof film, watch Walk Hard. My Rating: (7/10)

P.S.- Beware of guy nudity

Funny Games/Funny Games U.S. (1997/2008)

2008-04-19T10:02:00.008-04:00

In recent years, the world's horror movies have become showings of glorified torture that does not scare or disturb, but simply disgusts. Austrian director Michael Haneke apparently noticed this trend, and decided to make his own horror movie as a form of commentary on how our existence has become consumed with watching others struggle for their lives. This movie was the original Funny Games, released in Austria in 1997. But in an attempt to reach out to a more global scale, (more specifically, Americans), Haneke remade his own film shot for shot with English speaking actors and a more American setting. This film was called Funny Games U.S. Very creative. Since the American version was a shot for shot remake of the original just with different actors, I will mainly speak of the actors and characters in this version, for redundancies sake. The story centers on George, Anne, and Georgie Farber (Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, and Devon Gearhart), a typical family that has recently arrived at their beautiful summer lake house. Soon after their arrival, the family is confronted by two young men, Peter and Paul (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet), who have simply come over to borrow some eggs. After a small altercation, the family realize Peter and Paul aren't there to play around...or maybe that's exactly why they're there. The 2 young men hold the family hostage and force them to take part in a series of games that ultimately result in death. Can the family win the bet and stay alive for 12 hours, or will these psychotic young men get the best of them?

To reiterate something I mentioned before, the reason Haneke made these films was to point out how we've become obsessed with watching others suffer in the fictional world of a movie. This is blatantly obvious as Haneke actually has the characters address the audience directly on several occasions. The only problem with Haneke's mentality is the fact that other than those little asides to the movie-goers, he doesn't do much to show us the "error of our ways". What he does give us is yet another movie that falls into the category of glorified torture. His directing is much more tasteful than other horror directors, as he doesn't actually show any deaths on screen. This happens to be one of the only redeeming qualities of the films. But at other times, his directing becomes dragged out and simply boring. There were long moments without dialogue or even movement that caused me to believe my screen had frozen. I also found it very disappointing that for a movie called "Funny Games", there weren't many actual games. I think Haneke was trying to go for a psychological kind of game, but if so he failed, because he managed to just bore me.

The acting in Funny Games U.S. was better than that in Funny Games, which is the only reason I am going to give it a higher rating. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts were much more believable as the distraught husband and wife who are being subjected to these torturous games. In the original film, the actors didn't make me feel sorry for them. I remained uninterested in their fates. Even though I watched the US version second and I knew what was going to happen, I still felt more involved and had much more interest in their stories. I also really enjoyed Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet as the maniacal pair that hold the family hostage. But even with the slightly better acting, Funny Games US falls prey to the same problems as Funny Games, which lie mainly in Haneke's poor directing and writing.

Both Funny Games films are about an hour and 40 minutes long, which is the typical running time for a movie. But because of the slow pace and boring directing, both films seem to never end. Although neither are anywhere near as bad as other modern horror films, I wouldn't particularly recommend either of them. But if your interest has peaked, I suggest the American version, just for the better acting. My Ratings: Funny Games (4/10) Funny Games US (5/10)

No Country For Old Men (2007)

2008-04-15T16:45:00.009-04:00

Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, and Tommy Lee Jones face off in No County For Old Men. Easily one the top 5 movies of 2007, No Country For Old Men is an outright fantastic movie. The story centers on Lleweyln Moss (Josh Brolin), a poor hunter who stumbles upon a site of guns, dead bodies, and $2 million cash. Uncaring of how or why these things are here, Lleweyln simply takes the case and heads home. But little does he know that he is not the only person who wants this money. Moss has now been brought under the radar of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), an insane, sadistic, psychopathic, emotionless serial killer whose weapons of choice are a shotgun and a pneumatic air gun, typically used to slaughter cattle. Chigurh will eradicate any human being that stands between him and his money. As the cat and mouse game plays on between Lleweyln and Anton, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) follows their every move, as he becomes witness to all the horrible things that Chigurh is capable of.

There is no such thing as a perfect movie, but No Country For Old Men comes damn close of earning the title. Joel and Ethan Coen have time and again proved themselves to be outstanding individuals when it comes to movie making. In their first book to movie translation, the Coen Brothers took Cormac McCarthy's novel and brought it to life with stunning force. The brothers directing is superb, as it is able to keep suspense and interest alive even during long intervals that are vacant of dialogue. The cinematography is brilliant and sometimes gorgeous, even when showing brutal and barbarous acts.

There is not a single performance in No Country For Old Men that earns negative criticism. Javier Bardem's performance as the insane killer Anton Chigurh is absolutely flawless, and the Oscar he won for the role is well deserved. Throughout the film, Bardem's calm, cool, and collected demeanor makes it all the more chilling to see him commit these terrible crimes. His mere presence on screen sent chills through my body and made the hairs on my arm stand on end. No Country For Old Men is not a horror film, but Bardem has managed to create one of the scariest movie villains in history. Josh Brolin gives a very strong performance as Lleweyln Moss, the hunter who unknowingly walks into the storm that is Anton Chigurh. Working exceedingly well with the Coen brothers directing, Brolin's performance makes you feel the fear that his character is enduring as he fights to save his life. It's a shame his performance will receive little recognition in comparison to Bardem's outstanding showing. And what is there to say about Tommy Lee Jones, who is always exceptional in basically every role he undertakes. (The exceptions being the Men in Black movies and Man of the House, which he probably only did because he must have been drunk. That's the only possible explanation.)

No Country For Old Men is put simply one of the best films I have seen. It's haunting brilliance makes you realize that it is impossible to tell what is behind every corner, and what awaits you isn't always pretty. Many people will criticize the ending of No Country as being anti-climactic and disappointing. Well I criticize those people of being unimaginative and close-minded. I admit, at first I was upset by the end, but later on as I thought about it more and more, I realized it really was very fitting and quite satisfying. Sadly, many people do not watch movies to think, because they are simply trying to find instant gratification and want everything spoon fed to them.

At roughly 2 hours in length, No Country For Old Men never ceases to be exciting and will definitely keep you on the edge of your seat with suspense. The only regret I have was not seeing this film in theaters. My Rating: (10/10)

Date Movie/Epic Movie (2006/2007)

2008-04-02T20:05:00.005-04:00

There are some movies in this world that make me sick to my stomach because they perfectly exemplify everything that is wrong with this world. Two of these movies are Date Movie and Epic Movie, both written and directed by Jason Freidberg and Adam Seltzer, or as I like to call them, Satan's workers. These men simply have NO idea what a spoof movie is meant to be. They throw pop culture icons on the screen and simply hope it sparks a laugh from the audience. But chances are it won't because they forgot one very important aspect of making a comedy: you have to write jokes! You can't just put actors that look like other actors on screen and say "HAHAHAHA THAT'S HILARIOUS!" That isn't how it works!

Both movies revolve around...well...nothing. There are no plots, as they are just an attempt to fit as many movie references into one 80 minute movie as possible.

The acting is...well technically I'm not even sure if you can call it acting. It's more or less the equivalent of a group of high school friends who got drunk and decided to film a video.

The directing is...you know what, I can't even do it. If I were to review these sickening displays as I would any other film, it would be suggesting that I consider these to actually be movies. To call these disgraceful showings "movies" would be an insult to all actual movies everywhere. Date Movie and Epic Movie shouldn't just be shunned by the world, they should be buried 20 feet under the earth, along with the people that made them.

If you want to watch a REAL spoof movie, watch Airplane. That movie was released in 1980 and still has relevancy today. In 20 years, nobody will remember any of the references that Date or Epic Movie made, making them even MORE worthless. I have to stop typing now. I've become too angry. My Rating (-20/10)

Transformers (2007)

2008-03-30T19:15:00.008-04:00

Michael Bay has become famous for bringing us extremely loud and explosive movies with horrible stories such as Bad Boys and Armageddon. He continues this trend with the release of Transformers, a metaphorical orgy of over the top action, bad acting, and poor writing. But one thing separates Transformers from the rest of Bay's mind numbing projects. It's good. It is actually very good. The story follows Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf), a normal teenager that wants nothing more than a new car and a hot girlfriend, a very relatable situation. But soon after he gets his car, he discovers that it may not have been him who picked the car, but the car that picked him. Sam is then swept into a battle between the Autobots and the Decepticons, warring alien races that are both in search of "the cube". If this cube falls into the hands of the evil Decepticons led by Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving), the future of humanity would be bleak. It falls upon Sam and his new friends the Autobots led by Optimus Prime to find the cube before Megatron does.

Even with a story that seems to have come from the mind of an over imaginative 8 year old, Transformers manages to deliver solid entertainment for those even with IQ's above 90. For all the laughable writing and ridiculous plotlines, there are enough absurd action sequences to keep you and your mind as far away as possible. At times the story does become too outlandish and it makes you wonder why you are even watching this movie. But as soon as you think that, something blows up, and you just accept it. The special effects are first rate and the battle sequences will pin you to your seat and smack you in the face. There are some moments when the movie is so overflowing with action that you can barely see what is happening, but you just assume it's incredible. But this brings up one major problem. Transformers is strictly a theater movie. Without the giant screen and surround sound speakers, the power of Transformers is diminished greatly, which I learned first hand in buying the DVD. If you were not lucky enough to see this film in theaters, you will never know the true experience that was meant to be had by watching this movie.

If I were to make a list of all the best rising stars in Hollywood, Shia Labeouf would be up in the top 5. In what seems like such a short time he has gone from being the small troublemaker on Even Stevens to one of the best and most entertaining young actors of the decade. Even with a poor script, Labeouf is able to milk it for all it's worth and deliver a highly entertaining performance that will keep you laughing so you are sure to not take the movie too seriously. Megan Fox stars as Mikaela Banes, the girl that Sam has been lusting over. Her acting isn't much to behold, but the rest of her is. Her character is supposed to be in high school, but I'm not buying it for a second. John Turturro plays the cliche government official who runs the cliche secret organization that nobody else knows about. There isn't much to say about him except the fact that Mr. Turturro obviously had time to kill and needed a paycheck. After a recent trend of starring in bad movies, Jon Voight decided to star in a good one, as here he plays Secretary of Defense John Keller. Again, his performance isn't much, but I would rather see him here than in another Baby Geniuses movie. Basically, Transformers is not an acting movie in any way, with the exception of Labeouf's presentation. Kevin Dunn and Julie White provide a funny act as Sam's parents, but they aren't in the movie enough to really grow an attachment to them.

The one thing you must always keep in mind while watching Transformers, is that it was meant to be ridiculous. At least I hope it was. The best thing to do is leave your IQ at the door, shut the lights, crank up the volume on your television, and just enjoy the ride. A very long ride at that, considering the movie is upwards of 2 and a half hours. But if you feel you need a break from all the serious movies out there, go rent or buy Transformers, and forget everything you know about Michael Bay's previous films. My Rating (7/10)

A Respone to Brandon/ Rounders (1998) Not an official review

2008-03-30T14:11:00.005-04:00

Recently I posted a review of 21, and I recieved a comment from "Brandon". He stated that he disgareed with my statement that all movies about cards are boring, and that I should see Rounders. Well Brandon, I took you up on it, and I must say, I have been proved wrong. I don't quite feel like reviewing Rounders officially, but it was a very good movie that did have a lot of excitement. Thank you for the suggestion, as I am always happy to find new movies to love, and thanks to you I have found another. There were a lot of excellent performances and I thought the ending was great and very satisfying. My Rating (7/10)

21 (2008)

2008-03-28T23:03:00.009-04:00

When will Hollywood learn that watching people play cards is not fun? Their latest attempt to make a card game look exciting is 21, one of the worst movie experiences I have ever had in my life. The story follows Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess), a genius MIT student who has just been accepted into Harvard Medical School. But Ben has a bit of a problem. In order to attend the college of his dreams, Ben needs over $300,000. As many of us know, that kind of money isn't very easy to come by. But Ben's prayers might be answered by a higher power in the form of his teacher Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey). Every weekend, Rosa and 4 of his most gifted students go to Vegas and return home hundreds of thousands of dollars richer. Their secret: counting cards. After Ben impresses Rosa by solving a problem that even I knew how to do (and I didn't even go to MIT!), Micky ultimately deduces that Ben must be a genius and therefore he is a perfect candidate to join his blackjack team. After some cliche moments of Ben dipping his feet into the water, he finally decides to jump in the pool and join his teachers squad. But as he begins to feel the highs of winning, will Ben take it too far and end up destroying all that he built up? Of course! If he didn't, they wouldn't have a very interesting movie would they?

Actually, this movie wasn't very interesting anyway. As I watched the first 15 minutes of 21, I had the strongest sensation to pull on my hair, just to ease the pain. Needless to say, I was bored senseless and I was at wit's end trying to find a way to stay awake during this predictable, unentertaining, soporific, mildly moronic hamfest. The plot turns and twists were cliche and easily recognizable 5 minutes before they even happened. The card counting scenes were uninspired and only interesting the first time you view them. But as the movie progresses and you feel as though you are watching the same scene over and over again, you get the strangest feeling that you could have stayed home and watched the World Series of Poker Tournament and had the same amount of excitement. After just one hour of 21, I was ready to count all my chips and just walk away...but my friend was my ride home and he didn't want to leave. Damn him.

Jim Sturgess is absolutely terrible as Ben Campbell. Throughout the entire film, his face remained expressionless, and his voice a near whisper. Even as he did the voiceover, the dynamics of his voice never raised and never fell. It was always the same. The romance between him and fellow teammate Jill, played plainly by Kate Bosworth, was utterly dreadful and often made me cringe at the sheer unconvincing manner in which it is acted out. This is another textbook case of a role going to a person based solely on their looks. Kevin Spacey does a fine job as the teacher Micky Rosa, which is no surprise because Spacey is an excellent actor, and is very capable of creating great moments in bad movies (see Superman Returns). Laurence Fishburne is extremely one dimensional and characterless as the casino's security enforcer. It is also very evident that his role was exaggerated greatly for the sake of the film, as he takes cheaters into a boiler room and beats them to a bloody pulp. I'm pretty sure that in real life, the only authority he has is to politely ask the person to leave.

21 was directed by Robert Luketic, who's previous credits contain Legally Blonde, Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, and Monster In-Law. It isn't exactly the best resume is it? Sadly, he will have to add one more dud to his list of "accomplishments" with this lame excuse for a movie. His overall directing style is lacking and he does very little to keep your interest peaked through even the "exciting" moments of the film. The writing is average and the attempts to wow us by displaying the main characters brilliance fail miserably, making me feel as if I could go to MIT and be just as smart as everyone else.

What makes 21 even worse is the fact that it is way too long. It also doesn't help that every minute of the 123 minutes was boring due to the aforementioned bad acting, directing, and writing. I began to fidget restlessly in my chair thinking the movie was almost over, only to discover that I was only 1 hour in. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a hell, and I was there. 21 was extremely predictable and was so uneventful that I could barely keep my eyes open for the duration. I had gone into this film with very low expectations, and came out discovering I was right on the money about every assumption I had made previous to watching this movie. Jim Sturgess must stick to minor roles because that is all his talent allows for, Kevin Spacey needs to start picking better movies to star in, and Hollywood must stop thinking that movies about playing cards are fun. They suck, just accept it. My rating (3/10)

1408 (2007)

2008-03-20T17:50:00.009-04:00

If you found hotel rooms creepy before, just wait until you see 1408, the scariest Stephen King movie adaptation since Misery. The story revolves around Mike Enslin (John Cusack), an author that specializes in debunking fraudulent ghost stories that innkeepers tell their customers in order to keep business alive. After Mike receives an anonymous postcard from the Dolphin Hotel in New York warning him to avoid room 1408, he naturally does everything in his power to secure that room. The hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson) pleads incessantly to Mike to reconsider, stating room 1408 has claimed 56 lives in the hotel's history. Enslin, who remains uninterested and disbelieves the story, ultimately decides to spend one night in the dreaded room. But what Mike will soon discover is that once you enter 1408, there is no return. He must now decipher what is fact and fiction in this supernatural room that not only inflicts physical pain, but toys with the mental anguish that Mike still has from the loss of his daughter.

It would be misleading to actually call this film scary. The amount of legitimate scares and terrors in the film are very very minimal. The best term to describe 1408 would be creepy. 1408 will send shivers down your spine and will unsettle your mind, but it will not terrify you. But it is for this reason that I extremely enjoyed this film. Living in an age of torture porn, it is very refreshing to see a horror film that will affect you on an internal level, rather than trying to make you flinch or throw up. This is all the more impressive given the fact that 1408 is rated PG13, but still manages to remain effective.

1408 is a bit of a one man show starring John Cusack, since the movie takes place mainly in a solitary hotel room. But unlike Will Smith in I Am Legend, John Cusack is a great actor that is capable of carrying a film on his shoulders. His portrayal of a man whose life is being diminished by this evil room is intensely compelling and heartbreaking. Scenes where we explore his relationship with his late daughter really illustrate the despair that has been tearing him up on the inside. In a way, the real demon of this story is not the room, but the memories that the room brings back to life. Cusack is absolutely outstanding in this role, and I feel he is one of the most underrated actors of our time. Samuel L. Jackson has a small role as hotel manager Gerald Olin, and does a solid job of selling the character as truly afraid of what the outcome of Enslin's stay could be. It is also very entertaining to watch his back and forth with Cusack as they discuss the history of the room.

1408 is a creepy, disturbing, well written, well acted, excellent piece of film work that deserves respect for avoiding the hackneyed gimmicks that modern horror films indulge in. A lot of credit must also be given to director Mikael Hafstrom. Even with the use of a few classic horror movie cliches, Hafstrom carries out these tired commonplace events in an original fashion that makes them seem brand new. Most importantly, 1408 doesn't linger around for too long. Before you begin to feel bored with the unchanging scenery, the movie finishes with one of the best and most fulfilling endings anybody could ask for. Just talking about it makes my heart race and brings back the memories of when I had first seen it in the theater, and stood up applauding as the credits ran. You owe it to yourself to see this film. My rating (8.5/10)

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

2008-03-17T21:14:00.006-04:00

There's nothing like a good old fashioned summer action flick to feed your need for senseless violence. The movie that pretty much embodies that description is Shoot 'Em Up, a film dedicated to killing the living hell out of everything. Clive Owen stars as Mr. Smith, a man who has seemingly no past, no friends, no patience, and a very large affinity for carrots. After Mr. Smith delivers a baby during a shootout, he must watch the newborn infant all while trying to find the man who killed it's mother. That man is Hertz, played admirably by Paul Giamatti. Hertz is a hired man whose job is to make sure that the baby becomes food for worms at any cost. In order to keep the child safe, Smith brings him to the most motherly person he knows: a prostitute who specializes in mommy fetishes (Monica Belucci). This odd couple must now do whatever it takes to save the baby and hunt down its predators.
Clive Owen is quickly rising to the top of the action hero charts in yet another role that exhibits his ability to kick ass and take names. A better actor could not have been cast, as nobody could deliver a one liner quite as effectively as Clive Owen. His excellent performance actually makes you believe he is capable of doing all of the outrageous things you witness him do during the entirety of the film. Another wonderful performance was given by Paul Giamatti, who seemed to have a lot of fun playing the bad guy. In a movie that was made strictly for the sake of fun, Giamatti shows his ability to not take a role too seriously and just indulge in a guilty pleasure to enjoy.
Despite the two stellar performances of the lead actors, Shoot 'Em Up has one major downfall. The implausibility factor is off the charts ridiculous. Granted, it's a summer action film and it is meant to be ridiculous, but even those who made The Transporter would say, "Wow, that's ridiculous". Even for a summer flick, a line is drawn that cannot be crossed, and this movie does just that. It reaches a point where you lose interest in the movie because it is no longer fun, just asinine. In order to appreciate these kinds of movies, you must ignore the flaws, but you will constantly find flaws to pick out that are so blatant it is hard to ignore them. The film shows no regard for the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and every other form of science, and it is for this reason that I cannot call this film a great movie to just watch and not think about. A film that has lots of heart racing slick action, I give it a mild recommendation, if only for Clive Owen being excellent at what he does. My rating (6/10)

I Am Legend (2007)

2008-03-17T14:07:00.004-04:00

Will Smith is a world class scientist and army official in I Am Legend. No, seriously. It's present day and the cure for cancer has just been released. It appears to be all smiles and sunshine for everybody in the world as the body's number one enemy has been eradicated. But those who handle and distribute the new vaccine are about to make a big mistake. Fast forward to three years later, and there is only one man left on earth. That man is Robert Neville (Will Smith), who somehow is still alive after the "KV Virus" spreads the globe killing everyone...or did it? Neville goes about his days hunting for deer, exercising, talking to mannequins, and searching for more survivors, all with the accompaniment of his dog Sam. But Neville keeps it in his best interest to lock himself indoors as the sun begins to set. For night is the time of the "dark seekers", creatures that used to be human, but were infected by the virus. When the sun goes down it is there time to feed, so it's best to keep your distance. When Neville is not talking to mannequins or cruising around in his probably stolen Shelby GT500, he is in his laboratory working continuously searching for a cure, so that he can save those who have been infected. It is up to him to try and restore civilization to its former self.

Will Smith is pretty much forced to take the reins in I Am Legend, considering he is supposed to be the last person alive. Although Smith is a good actor, he is not a great actor. When you are going to make a film where your main character is essentially the only character, you MUST have a great actor to fill the time. Tom Hanks did it in Cast Away, and John Cusack was able to do it in 1408 (<--review coming eventually), but Smith was not able to accomplish it here. His performance was not all bad, as there were parts where I felt truly emotional as Smith started to lose composure after a tragic event. (I'm trying not to give too much away, but you could probably figure out what happens). Unfortunately, the emotional performance only takes up 10 minutes of the film, and the rest of the act is quite boring and plain to say the least.

One very positive thing to say about this film is the overall look of this post apocalyptic New York City. Through the opening of the movie, we are brought around the city where grasslands have overtook the streets and animals walk where humans used to reign. These effects are rendered very well, especially considering the director Francis Lawrence has only directed one film before, and his expertise lies mainly in music videos. But the visuals are not perfect, which is clearly evident in the effects used to generate the dark seekers. The infected people look flat out silly, and aren't very scary. It is also very clear that the makers used complete CGI to portray them. It really took me out of the film.

All in all, I Am Legend had A LOT of potential in being a great film, but failed in more than one aspect. Try again in another 25 years or so with a better actor, and it'll work. My rating (5/10)